Quote from: Miniar on December 15, 2009, 06:57:17 AM
What about self defence?
A woman is allowed to defend herself, even to the point of inflicting lethal bodily harm, to an outside assailant, no?
No one would convict a woman of murder if she defended herself, for example, against a rapist.
Why does a collection of cells with the potential to grow to a child have greater rights to a woman's body than a woman herself?
I really do mean these questions, I want to understand "why" this opinion.
Legally though, the self defense card can only be played when you are in IMMEDIATE risk of real physical harm or death.
I thihnk pretty much everyone supports the right to abortion, and wouldn't call it murder, if the existence of the child presented an IMMEDIATE risk of real physical harm or death.
But just as I cannot kill in self defense because a person causes me inconvenience or economic damage (i.e., for instance, I can't kill my son because I can't afford to support him) likewise a woman who is pregnant with a child which will cause her life difficulty, but not physical harm, cannot claim that the abortion is an act of self defense - at least not under the current legal paradigm.
Post Merge: December 17, 2009, 04:15:34 PM
Quote from: Miniar on December 17, 2009, 06:02:33 PM
So you'll think Abortion is a viable option in situations where a woman would rather die than carry to term?
The problem with this exception is that it makes it simple for any woman seeking an abortion to claim that is the case because there's no way to prove otherwise.
IF the "gatekeeper" to such an abortion were as diligent as your typical gender therapist is expected to be that would perhaps get to the bottom of it but there's only a narrow window before you get into creating a late-term abortion where there would have been an early one without the screeing.
In my humble opinion, saying "I would rather die than be pregnant" is really an argument without much merit because pregnancy will end in a relative short term and it's nonsensical to end a decades long life (potentially) over a months long situation.
it's like being sentenced to prison for a year and saying you'd rather die than serve the term - you might really feel that way but it's still a ridiculous conclusion objectively.
I'd say such a woman should be ensured close mental health monitoring throughout the pregnancy but that it should not be a free ticket to get an abortion.
Post Merge: December 17, 2009, 05:21:17 PM
To amend the previous post, I WOULD accept that a pre-existing F2M case of GID was sufficient evidence that pregnancy would do real mental damage to the person who was pregnant. I assume there are possibly other such exceptions.
A closely defined standard that avoided the "Oh, by the way" sudden case of feigned depression would be an obviously compassionate choice here.
Post Merge: December 17, 2009, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: The None Blonde on December 16, 2009, 10:23:56 PM
Not to mention the emotional torment of giving up a child you bore... if that happens... or the disruption to life caused by keeping the child, not to mention the implications to the childs life and upbringing if the parent/ family are not ready or able to care for it.
there are thousands and thousands of women who DID have abortions and testify to considerable psychological trauma resulting from THAT choice too.
There is no reason to assume that either choice is clearly the one which will ensure no psychological repercussions in the aftermath.
That being the case, it is at best a secondary consideration.
