Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Banquo's Ghost]

Threads addressing issues such as abortion have a tendency to closure for much the same reasons as constructive debate on legislation tends towards failure - entrenched positions. I would like to see if we can revisit the topic in a rational manner and - whilst consensus might prove beyond reach - move towards a proposed legislative framework that the majority might support. I'm not seeking to address right and wrong so much as how we deal with abortion in law.

To set context, I would note that to my understanding, a major battleground for legislative evolution is the United States, where the political framework is failing on so many fronts that require compromise. In this, the Backroom perhaps represents a similar microcosm. There may be other administrations that suffer the same paralysis - it would interesting for contributors from those countries to outline the specific challenges. I shall no doubt, approach the problem from a somewhat Europe-centric point-of-view.

My own personal position is this:

1) I believe that the foetus has rights as a human being from conception and that morally, abortion is wrong. I would like to see the end of abortion as an option for dealing with unwanted pregnancies. This is a position partly rooted in my Catholic upbringing and the Church's teachings, but also my wider belief in human rights derived from a belief in the sanctity of same developed outside any specific religious framework.
2) I believe that a woman has the right to control and choose what happens with her body and that whilst the foetus is resident and dependent on that body and her choices, there exists a potential conflict of rights. Whilst the adult woman is completely responsible for the well-being of any foetus she carries, she is correctly the decision maker in regard to that foetus. No-one else can exercise this choice on her behalf, least of all a government. Whereas from position (1) above, I contend there is a moral responsibility that the woman ought to undertake, my moral viewpoint (particularly as a man) cannot bind her since we are considering an entirely dependent being. I also recognise that throughout history, whether legal or not, if a woman so chooses, an abortion will happen. Indeed, such loss happens spontaneously as well as by deliberate action. Thus there is a pragmatic recognition of the real world that must be taken into any account: A woman has choice whether government grants a legal right or not.
3) I am, by inclination and practice, a conservative (though perhaps not in the modern political sense) and a believer in small government where administrations interfere as little as is practical in the lives of their citizens. Therefore, I have an instinctive aversion to legislation which seeks to enforce social moralities, particularly those that rely on religious grounds as there are so many religions and so much inconsistency in their advocacy. Equally in my book, conservatives are by nature pragmatic and recognisant of both personal responsibilities and those of the wider state should it advocate or impose a position by law. Extreme positions are by definition radical, and thus one should avoid extremist or fundamentalist options.

So, as with the wider debate, there is a conflict between my personal views. In my ideal solution, the starting point is to address unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Appropriate provision of transparent, comprehensive sex education (and wider educational achievement) for all must be a starting point, along with a consistent moral framework from both religious and secular authorities that explains and teaches - but does not hector or demand - the responsibilities inherent in sexual relationships. One cannot legislate human behaviour, but one can inform and set an example. (It goes without saying that I am not a fan of current sexual mores, which I would view as irresponsible at best - but it is not for me to legislate my views, but hope that others might come to agree with me through example and data).

Given that in any society, not everyone is going to adopt a set position, unwanted pregnancies will still occur. I would like to see the state encourage and incentivise adoption, so that more women might choose to go to term knowing that their child will be quickly taken into a new family and given the chance of a good life. I find it insane that we spend so much money on IVF treatments and the like when we also abort many viable children. Adoption should be seen as a great good, and a first choice. A loving, positive choice that women may take - when I take my position as pro-choice, this is one of the choices I should mean. I find it unconscionable that many pro-life proponents tend to portray a great deal of concern for the foetus, but very little commitment to the fate of the child once born. Yes, this probably means state taxes (given that my preferred solution through charities tends not to get a great deal of private funding - which is odd, given the numbers of those who profess pro-life attitudes).

Failing the above, there is no way a civilised society can condemn women to backstreet butchers armed with knitting needles, and therefore a legal method of abortion must be available. As noted above, my proposed compromise to the conflict of morality and pragmatism is viability: abortion should be freely available up to the age of consistent viability plus two weeks (which on current understandings is about 24 weeks I believe). It is at this point that the foetus - now able to survive on its own more often than not - acquires rights that can be guaranteed without the consent or agency of the mother - in other words, it becomes a viable human being. Those rights pertain prior to this point in theory, but are unenforceable, and thus moot. There should be very few cases where the choice to abort the foetus cannot be made within that early period of time, therefore any later term abortions would have to be decided only through the intervention of a judge, and that rarely. The presumption for any later term application for an abortion would be that the child now has the right to life and should be brought to term.

So, to summarise: Legislation should be pro-choice (i.e. the choice resides with the woman and solely with her, with no requirement for her to justify her decision to anyone) with abortions legal until the 24th week. Past that, any application would be granted only on judicial review with the default position that the child has full human rights. Concurrent with this, adoption should be made considerably easier and incentivised through tax allowances for the new parents.

This is not very far from the position taken by most European governments. Roe vs Wade appears to have hamstrung any such approach in the US legislature, as the pro-choice lobby hangs on to the ruling for grim death lest the equally determined pro-life lobby use any movement to outlaw abortion altogether.

I'd be interested in other people's views as to how they resolve the inherent conflicts, preferably without throwaway lines about religious stricture or secular immorality - the right to life is something we should consider very carefully and consistently, whether it be for a foetus, a soldier, a death row inmate, or indeed, for any moment of the human condition.

[rory_20_uk]

I would agree that 24 weeks is a sensible date at the moment. If survival rates in terms of mortality AND morbidity were to drastically improve this would need to be reviewed. Past this point I agree that it should be a review. I would prefer it were to be undertaken by a panel of experts relevant to the case - be that Psychiatrists, Obstetricians or Gynaecologists etc. Viability of the foetus is something for the panel to decide on - as I would hope that in a lot of these cases the whole point is that there was some massive medical condition meaning that they were a dud - e.g. microcephaly.

Post 24 weeks it can survive more often than not with massive support by a specialist team of experts and a lot of medication and devices. They are far from independent - but then even at term babies would survive hours without their parents providing warmth and sustenance.

There are enough children not being adopted without adding more to the market. I do not think that the state should be there to subsidise this. Adoption should be made easier, however. Same sex couples? Fine. Ones without children? OK. Over 40? Why not.

I note that in your example the father is as always completely excluded from either moral or legal rights. His input isn't even mentioned beyond that of a sperm donor, be that a one night stand or the fact the couple had been trying for children for a length of time. No need to justify her decision to him either. The usual take on equality - all equal, but women have some areas that are of course theirs alone - as is taking a baby to term based upon a failure of contraception from a one night stand. This is one area of conflict that I am afraid I do not have any workable framework for, but I am surprised that you didn't even mention it.

On a completely tangential issue, "the right to life" is a very modern construction which is paid lip-service to by the majority of the world's population. It is inconsistently applied based on time, place, wealth and even ethnicity. I disagree that any organism has the "right to life", and like any other right it is something that is gained and can also be lost.

[Ronin]

here is my position:

1) the fetus is a living human being, this is not under discussion
2) the fetus is only alive because the woman's body is directly sustaining it, therefore, even considering point 1), the woman has the ultimate right to decide she does not wish her body to continue to take part in that situation.
3) nobody is saying that an abortion is a good or desirable thing, but even if it is can be found distasteful by some people that does not invalidate 2)
4) in order to reach a desirable balance point between 2) and 3) abortion by choice of the woman or due to rape should happen as soon as possible, both for medical safety reasons and to avoid harming susceptibilities in the society. (first trimester, 10 weeks...or similar value)
5) an abortion due to health risks to the mother outranks point 4) and can take place at any point in the pregnancy if deemed absolutely necessary in medical terms.

[rory_20_uk]

Point 5 is a minefield of potential problems. The easiest one is "mother will kill herself due to depression if pregnancy continues". Other one is what is the percentage is 95% chance of mother will die? Or 80%? Or what about not mortality, but morbidity. Loss of a leg OK? One eye? Both? Who draws the line - and can the doctors get sued for all manner of things whichever decision they reach?

[Major Robert Dump]

I am very close to this debate personally because my mother tried to abort me but the doctors would not let her because I was 2 years old.

[Ronin]

Point 5 is a minefield of potential problems. The easiest one is "mother will kill herself due to depression if pregnancy continues". Other one is what is the percentage is 95% chance of mother will die? Or 80%? Or what about not mortality, but morbidity. Loss of a leg OK? One eye? Both? Who draws the line - and can the doctors get sued for all manner of things whichever decision they reach?

in the US or in non litigiously crazy country? sorry couldn't resist :P
but really, it's kinda true...it's just not a reality I am familiar with....over here "the doctor said the mother would die unless this was done" works just fine.

[Nowake]

I note that in your example the father is as always completely excluded from either moral or legal rights. His input isn't even mentioned beyond that of a sperm donor, be that a one night stand or the fact the couple had been trying for children for a length of time. No need to justify her decision to him either. The usual take on equality - all equal, but women have some areas that are of course theirs alone - as is taking a baby to term based upon a failure of contraception from a one night stand. This is one area of conflict that I am afraid I do not have any workable framework for, but I am surprised that you didn't even mention it.

Only a short intervention on this specific issue
I do not see why there would ever be a dilemma.
At most one could ensure a widely accessible and very simplified legal procedure where the couple would agree on the need for consent of both parties in regards to the fate of an eventual embryo resulting from their relationship.
It is the only possible solution acknowledging a male’s right to safeguard the existence of his potential offspring through his own choice.
Bar this type of pre-emptive legally binding agreement, the male completely waves off any rights by default, even if the father, once the pregnancy is underway, offers to raise the child on his own.

[Greyblades]

I am very close to this debate personally because my mother tried to abort me but the doctors would not let her because I was 2 years old.

I... was that a joke?

[Vladimir]

I... was that a joke?

He's deadly serious. His mother was HUGE! That's a longer gestation period than an elephant!

[Lemur]

I personally know a couple that faced that 1% situation where the pregnancy really would put the mother's life at risk. Something to do with her anemia, don't know all of the details. Anyway, they're super-devout Catholics, and they tried to get their priest in on the decision. He tagged out, unable to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. "This is one of those nightmare scenarios," was all he'd say.

In the end they aborted and saved the mother's life, but it's still a tough subject for them.

Their priest is fully aware of the abortion, and still serves them communion. Gotta say that the Catholic Church seems very heterodox about who can and can't get the wafers and wine.

[Ronin]

He's deadly serious. His mother was HUGE! That's a longer gestation period than an elephant!

And that was the comedy stylings of Vladimir, a round of applause please ladies and gentlemen, he will be here all week.
now we will have a short intermission until our next comedian.
please tip the veal and try your waitress!

[rory_20_uk]

I personally know a couple that faced that 1% situation where the pregnancy really would put the mother's life at risk. Something to do with her anemia, don't know all of the details. Anyway, they're super-devout Catholics, and they tried to get their priest in on the decision. He tagged out, unable to choose between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus. "This is one of those nightmare scenarios," was all he'd say.

In the end they aborted and saved the mother's life, but it's still a tough subject for them.

Their priest is fully aware of the abortion, and still serves them communion. Gotta say that the Catholic Church seems very heterodox about who can and can't get the wafers and wine.

Super-devout? LOL - they're fairweather Catholics. Being religious is easy when it involved eating fish and attending a religiously themed social club. They ditched their beliefs when things got tough, after trying to hand off all responsibility to the Priest.

If the church wants to have hard lines on issues they should stick to them. Ergo, they should have kept the child and accepted God's will should one or both of them die; the Priest too should accept that this is his position on the subject. If he can't do this, he's backing the wrong religion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd like to start by thanking Banquo for an excellent kick off.

Now, in general I agree with our venerable Senior member. A fetus should be given human rights from the moment of conception. I must therefore be explicit in saying that abortion is, I believe, a form of homicide, when you abort a fetus you are ending the life of a human being, no matter how imature. We should not think that simply because the fetus is largely or completely dependent on the mother for sustinence and survival it is any less an individual being. A newborn is only slightly less dependedent, and a child only somewhat less than a newborn. No one would consider that "baby" or "child" denote lesser being than adults, only less developed ones. It follows that the fetus is also a human being, the only reason this is not obvious is because it resides within the skin of another human being, even so it is not "inside" in the sense of being inside the mother any more than it is "inside" a blanket once it is born, it is still a seperate entity, not a mere cancer to be cut out.

If you accept the above premise then the question becomes "is homocide ever morally justifiable"? Clearly some people believe it is, they advocate execution, euthenasia and honour killings. However, I believe it is NOT, under any circumstances ever. This does not mean I would damn a man for killing another man to protect his daughter from rape, or one soldier for killing another in battle, but "forgivable" is not the same as "justifiable". One of the weaknesess in modern Liberal thought is that in the absense of a compassionate God to forgive your sins all thoughts and actions must be permissable if they are to be allowed - if you cannot be forgiven in teh aftermath you must be justified in the action itself. I believe this lack has warped the moral debate in the West, where once we forgave we now seek to excuse, and this shift is particularly damaging with relation to the issue of abortion because women are now required to feel "ok" about an abortion, that it was "the right thing" where once they could have been consoled with "you had no other choice". This goes a long way to explaining the rising number of abortions since it was first legalised in the West, about 50 odd years ago in most places, because if it is "ok" to adopt a child with sever brain damage maybe it can be ok to adopt a child you don't want, and therefore will not love.

It would not be "ok" to kill a newborn because of post-natal depression, it is not ok to abort a fetus because you don't want it, it should not be allowed in most circumstances. Having said this, it is a fact that some women will decide that they do not want to go through a pregnancy, even if the resulting child can be quickly found a loving home, and for the sole reason that they will seek an abortion regardless the procedure should be legal up to a certain date, if only to prevent an influx of butchered women to hospitals after illegal procedures. multiplication of misery and harm is not an acceptable side affect of a policy instituted for moralistic reasons. I dissagree with Banquo that 24 weeks is an acceptable cut off point. If we cannot bear to slaughter animals without stunning, we cannot hunt vermin for the suffering we might inflict we cannot kill a defenceless human being with a functioning nervous system. I therefore submit that the point at which the fetus exhibits basic brain activity is the civilised cut oof, and I further submit that a woman who has not taken the decision to abort after missing three menstruations has in effect already made the decision not to abort and should not be allowed to revisit that decision having made it once. As the situation stands there is far too much scope for sudden abortions motivated by volatile emotions, such as those in a break up, which have nothing to do with the child or the mother's long term feelings. In such cases there is potential for a woman to make a decision she will regret for the rest of her life which can never be undone.

Such decisions are made, and they have tragically predictable emotional consequences.

Forgive me, I have more to say.

I cases where the issue is medical the decision to abort or not should be made by the doctor, based on his estimation of the likely survival of child and mother. No parents, as in Lemur's case, should ever have that decision inflicted upon them. There should be specific legal protection for doctors in this situation.

In other situations the decision should primarily be the mother's, but she should not have sole rights in the case where sex was consensual. When two adults exgage in consentual sexual congress they do so in the full knowledge that their is a posibility of conception, if they did not realise this they would not be competent to give consent. this being so, both man and woman have already decided to chance the posibility of concieving, the woman should subsequently be allowed to make that decision again independantly because the fetus is not solely of her body, it is equal parts the flesh of the father and the mother, and the law should aknowledge this. All the current inequality between fathers and mothers is the result of the law's basic blindness to this simple fact, both man and woman are equally but uniquely necessary for the creation and nourishment of a child at all stages of its development. Reform should begin at conception. In the case of rape, where the woman was prevented from giving here consent this determination does not apply.

To sumarise, abortion for genuine medical reasons should be legal, otherwise selective abortion, subject to exhaustion of all other options, should be legal at a point no later than that at which the fetus can be considered to have rudimentary awareness. The legal recourse to selective abortion should be considered an act of charity to the woman in question, and this should not be inferred to confer a "right" to abort the unborn.

[Vuk]

...

Oh come on BQ! Starting a thread like this just as I am going crazy studying for my midterms! Do you want to see me fail my classes? :P
lol, I will exercise self-control, I will exercise self-control, I will...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Excellent post by PVC, I'll not drag down this side of the debate by posting anything else...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We should not think that simply because the fetus is largely or completely dependent on the mother for sustinence and survival it is any less an individual being.

...

I cases where the issue is medical the decision to abort or not should be made by the doctor, based on his estimation of the likely survival of child and mother. No parents, as in Lemur's case, should ever have that decision inflicted upon them. There should be specific legal protection for doctors in this situation.

If I read this right...in a case where there is a choice between:

A) 40% chance of death for the mother. Guaranteed survival of baby.
B) Abortion.

You would say: A? Because they both weigh equally and the 100% > 40%.

I think that's very wrong.

[Vuk]

If I read this right...in a case where there is a choice between:

A) 40% chance of death for the mother. Guaranteed survival of baby.
B) Abortion.

You would say: A? Because they both weigh equally and the 100% > 40%.

I think that's very wrong.

Why? Is one person's life worth more than another's?
Honestly, I believe that abortion should be illegal other than in cases where a mother has a 50% or greater chance of dying. In those cases where you have two equally valuable and important lives with an equal chance at life or death, I think it should be the mother's choice to decide what will happen.
Dammit, just when I promised that I would not get involved. :P

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why? Is one person's life worth more than another's?
Honestly, I believe that abortion should be illegal other than in cases where a mother has a 50% or greater chance of dying. In those cases where you have two equally valuable and important lives with an equal chance at life or death, I think it should be the mother's choice to decide what will happen.
Dammit, just when I promised that I would not get involved. :P

Is that what you'd want if it was your wife?

If you are sticking with "both lives equal" then you can't make 50% the cut off. At 90%, that's still less than 100%. And at a 100, you flip a coin, because there's no difference? That's nonsense.

[Vuk]

Is that what you'd want if it was your wife?

If you are sticking with "both lives equal" then you can't make 50% the cut off. At 90%, that's still less than 100%. And at a 100, you flip a coin, because there's no difference? That's nonsense.

That is what I would want for my child, and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well. Children are a large responsibility; human life in your care. It is not something that should be entered into lightly or without love. I think most men and women out there would give their life for their children. Is it right to kill a baby who has ~100% chance at life when you have a <50% chance of living as well - to sentence that baby to a 100% chance of death so that you can enjoy a 100% chance at life even though it is likely that you will live? There are always risks with all pregnancies, and with proper medical treatment it is very rare that someone dies giving birth. You have to be aware of the risks when you enter into something like that. You make the choice to take that risk, whereas the child had no say in the matter. She did not choose to be brought into the world or to create a risk for anyone. The long and the short is that a baby is the responsibility of its parents, and parents need to take that responsibility seriously. If they cannot handle the responsibility, then they simply should not go creating life.

EDIT: I was my mother's third baby and her pregnancy had complications. She was warned that keeping me posed a risk to her, but she did it anyway. I came out with an umbilical cord choking me and with my mouth and nose clogged, but I lived because she considered the life she created to be important. If she didn't make that choice, I would not be alive to have this conversation. My mom survived and was mostly none the worse for wear. Maybe that prejudices me; maybe it gives me a stronger appreciation for parental responsibility and respect for life. You cannot just kill a baby whenever there is a possible complication or risk. When your life is in serious danger (like I said 50% or greater), I can understand people making that choice (no matter what they choose I can respect that), but if your chances of living are greater than your chances of dying, it is irresponsible, bordering on immoral to sentence the baby you chose to bring into the world to death.

[Samurai Waki]

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

[Vuk]

If a fetus has human rights at the moment of conception, then I've half killed more children than there are in this country. I'm pro-Abortion, we've been over this subject enough times that quite frankly I don't really care to rehash it for the millionth time. Yay, you saved the babies life... now let it live a life of being unloved and uncared for. Congratulations for being so moral.

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living. B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

[Samurai Waki]

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

[ajaxfetish]

and that is what I would want for my child if I was a woman carrying it as well.

A rather cavalier statement to make when you are not a woman and have never been pregnant.

Children are a large responsibility; human life in your care. It is not something that should be entered into lightly or without love.

And yet you think a mother should be legally obligated to risk sacrificing her life for the unborn child, meaning it would grow up without a mother to take responsibility and care for it. In situations where there is no father in the picture, this seems particularly inconsistent. Children are a large responsibility . . . which you should just hope someone will accept on your behalf.

I think most men and women out there would give their life for their children. Is it right to kill a baby who has ~100% chance at life when you have a <50% chance of living as well - to sentence that baby to a 100% chance of death so that you can enjoy a 100% chance at life even though it is likely that you will live?

I hope you're right, and that most men and women would be prepared to give their lives for their children. I'm sure that at least a great many are. But should the government tell them that they have to? Is it really a sacrifice if you're forced to do it, anyway? Again, it's very easy for a man, who will never face this risk, to decide that others should be required to give up their lives for the things he cares about.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this point at all, Vuk.

Ajax

edit:

You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living.

As I noted above, that sounds an awful lot like what you yourself are doing, though only on a probabilistic level.

edit 2: As far as other posters' contributions, I find BG's and PVC's arguments both very compelling. I think this is a very tangled and morally difficult question, and I have been unable to fully determine my own thoughts on the matter. I shall definitely be considering your posts as I leave my thoughts on this to continue fermenting.

[Vuk]

A.) Quite Frankly, Yes I do. I am talking from a position of personal experience. How dare you enclose people's thoughts, feelings, and situations into a "Yes" or "No" box. It isn't that simple.
B.) Maybe you haven't been to many children's homes.. maybe you should.

How dare I? I'm sorry, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to disagree with you. Spank me why don't you?
Talking from personal experience? Did you read what I wrote? You having participated in decision making that led to an abortion means you had the power, not the right. Many people can do things they have no right to do.
People come from messed up homes? What the heck else is knew? Does that mean that they are not worthy of life? Some of the greatest (and happiest) people in the world have come from messed up homes. I know a lot of people who have been extensively neglected and abused by their parents, including many of my best friends and my sister-in-law. Ask any of them if they are glad they have life, and can tell you with 100% certainty that their answer will be yes. Who are you to play God and dictate whether someone completely innocent lives or dies?

[CrossLOPER]

A) You have no right to deny someone life because YOU think their life is not worth living.

No one is saying that.

B) Who is advocating not loving or caring for their children?

No one said that either.

[Samurai Waki]

How dare I? I'm sorry, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to disagree with you. Spank me why don't you?
Talking from personal experience? Did you read what I wrote? You having participated in decision making that led to an abortion means you had the power, not the right. Many people can do things they have no right to do.
People come from messed up homes? What the heck else is knew? Does that mean that they are not worthy of life? Some of the greatest (and happiest) people in the world have come from messed up homes. I know a lot of people who have been extensively neglected and abused by their parents, including many of my best friends and my sister-in-law. Ask any of them if they are glad they have life, and can tell you with 100% certainty that their answer will be yes. Who are you to play God and dictate whether someone completely innocent lives or dies?

Whatever man. Maybe you should consider that we're not all cardboard cut-outs, don't ever presume to know others.

I'm out of here.

[Vuk]

A rather cavalier statement to make when you are not a woman and have never been pregnant.


And yet you think a mother should be legally obligated to risk sacrificing her life for the unborn child, meaning it would grow up without a mother to take responsibility and care for it. In situations where there is no father in the picture, this seems particularly inconsistent. Children are a large responsibility . . . which you should just hope someone will accept on your behalf.


I hope you're right, and that most men and women would be prepared to give their lives for their children. I'm sure that at least a great many are. But should the government tell them that they have to? Is it really a sacrifice if you're forced to do it, anyway? Again, it's very easy for a man, who will never face this risk, to decide that others should be required to give up their lives for the things he cares about.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this point at all, Vuk.

Ajax

edit:

As I noted above, that sounds an awful lot like what you yourself are doing, though only on a probabilistic level.

Because I am not a woman and have never been pregnant I cannot know that I would be willing to risk my life for and sacrifice for someone I love? I have been in situations before where I have had to put my life at considerable risk to save a family member. I can say with certainty that I would put everything on the line for them, and I know for a fact that they would put everything on the line for me. It is not cavalier; it is family. You have a responsibility to your family. You have a responsibility for the safety. My dad died when I was 14 and I had 3 younger brothers and two older sisters who looked up to me in many ways for the security and leadership that he used to provide. I was put in a position where I was largely responsible for the safety of my family if any should happen, and I was committed to fulfilling that responsibility, even if there were risks. I am not saying I am a great person (as I said, I know anyone in my family would put it on the line for anyone else in the family), but simply that I do not have to be a woman to understand what it is like to risk one's safety or one's life for their family.
I had no choice in being born into my family, but still felt a responsibility toward them. If someone doesn't think they can handle that responsibility, they simply do not have to get pregnant!

You would not be forcing people to sacrifice (pregnancies with a high chance of harm or death to a woman are extremely rare), because they would choose to get pregnant or not. You would simply be forcing them to take responsibility for the life they create. To reiterate, if they do not want the responsibility, they do not need to create the life.

[Vuk]

No one is saying that.

No one said that either.

Actually, the response I quoted said the first thing, and accused me of saying the second.

[Vuk]

Whatever man. Maybe you should consider that we're not all cardboard cut-outs, don't ever presume to know others.

I'm out of here.

I know we are not all the same, but we ARE all born innocent and deserving of life.

[Samurai Waki]

I know we are not all the same, but we ARE all born innocent and deserving of life.

Life and innocence doesn't preclude Anencephaly.