Abortion, and birth control

[Dan Rutter]

Say there is a lady that ends up getting pregnant after her, and her partner have sex without using any birth contol. Both her and her partner have never really been educated about birth control. They both know it exists, but do not know much else. She decides she does not want to have this baby. She goes to a place like Planned Parenthood, or something, and decides on having an abortion.

After this abortion, Planned Parenthood informs her, and her partner about birth control ( I have know idea if PP would do this, I think they would, if not someone else does). PP teaches the her, and her partner how to use various forms of BC, and gives them some BC to use themselves.

Her, and her partner choose to not use the BC in the future when they have sex. She becomes pregnant again. She wants an abortion again.

What valid reason does she give for having an abortion? Is it just because it is her body and she can do what she pleases with it? If that is the case, is society saying we value the women's oppurtunity to have sex without birth control, more then a human fetus. The human fetus, which independent of anyone's beliefs of its rights, may in fact be entitled to rights.

[lehighguy]

The circumstances of the pregnency have nothing to do with the morality of abotion.

I think you've pretty much summed it up.

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Dan Rutter]

[ QUOTE ]
The circumstances of the pregnency have nothing to do with the morality of abotion.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people would disagree. A lot would change their opinions on abortion based on what particular circumstances you gave them. Thats why a lot of opinion polls can be biased depending on the question, or circumstance presented. I really don't think it does though.

[BCPVP]

Bingo. Hence it is not any more moral to abort a baby that was conceived due to rape or incest, something I argued in a different thread a month or two ago.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
The circumstances of the pregnency have nothing to do with the morality of abotion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am very pro-choice and I disagree with you. That is to say, the circumstances of putting a bullet in a mans head have everything to do with the morality of that act. Although, as a purely digressionary endeavor, it would be interesting to dive into the mindset of those who favor abortion in the case of rape and incest. Does a fetus that is the product of a rape have fewer rights simply because something bad happened to the mother? Is it OK to abort the child simply because the father is an [censored] (to my knowledge, the propensity to rape is not hereditary).

To address the OP - The circumstance you envision does happen. Any institutionalized practice, such as driving, drinking, drugs, guns, golfing, dining out, credit, and abortion all have the ability to be abused. This alone cannot be used as a case to argue their prohibition. That is to say, en total the right of a woman to choose is greater than the negative effects that stem from the abuse of abortion.

Of course, my ability to convince pro-life individuals of that is somewhat limited.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Bingo. Hence it is not any more moral to abort a baby that was conceived due to rape or incest, something I argued in a different thread a month or two ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me the morality of this situation. Someone drugs you against your will. They remove a kidney. You will function without it, but you may have a lowered quality of life. You wake up, and have the chance to take your kidney back and have a doctor reattach it to you. However, the kidney was taken to save the life of a sick old man. Does the old man have a right to your kidney?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the old man have a right to your kidney?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I'd also have to assume that the old man had no part in the decision as the fetus has no part in the decision of its creation. So assuming the old man didn't know, do you have a right to commit uniniated force against him? I don't believe you do. Just as if a man hits his wife, she does not have the right to hit her daughter, even though aggression was committed against her. In other words, being aggressed against does not give you the right to aggress against innocent 3rd parties.

You have to assume the fetus has rights in this scenario or else there's no reason to bring it up because if the fetus has no rights, the circumstances of its conception don't matter; you can abort it regardless.

[Peter666]

"That is to say, en total the right of a woman to choose is greater than the negative effects that stem from the abuse of abortion."

"En total" this is true. But the OP is not arguing against the whole practice of abortion, but against individuals who are doing it again for a second time.

If drunk drivers have their licences removed, and some repeat felons get the three strikes and you're out rule, how can we justify mulitiple abortions for irresponsible people?

[ QUOTE ]
...
"En total" this is true. But the OP is not arguing against the whole practice of abortion, but against individuals who are doing it again for a second time.

If drunk drivers have their licences removed, and some repeat felons get the three strikes and you're out rule, how can we justify mulitiple abortions for irresponsible people?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The issue should be why should someone have to right to impose his/her moral views on another. There are no victims in the case of abortion. Once, twice or 100 times makes no difference.

2) For the same reason that smokers should not be given medical assistance when required??? [and abortion is not felony see 1) above]