Abortion: My Body My Choice
Mention the word abortion and a lot of people begin to get uncomfortable. It such a rife subject even in developed nations that political ambitions can be made or broken depending on one's stance about this. Unfortunately so many people have failed to realize that this is quite a private subject for women. There are circumstances that stem up and would make a woman have to make a serious decision about her health and her future. Therefore no socio-political, cultural or religious factor should be made to take the place of her decision. A woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to keep a child or not. After all it is her body, her health and her future that is in jeopardy.
It is however unfortunate that a lot of countries continue to criminalize abortion even when the health of the mother is at stake. For instance an Irish woman named Savita Halappanavar. She had a miscarriage and needed urgent medical attention. Unluckily for her, she was rushed to a Catholic hospital that refused to carry out an abortion for her. Even though that was the only procedure that would have saved her life. She got blood poisoning and lost her life and that of her baby.
Pregnancy is a very risky condition and a lot of women are going to run into complications during this period and an abortion is going to be their only saving grace. To cancel this option before hand for them is very inhumane thing to do as far as I’m concerned.
In another sad antithetical case, women in some countries are being forced to get abortions when they clearly do not want such procedures carried out on them. In China, in order to uphold the one child to one family policy, women are forced to remove subsequent unplanned pregnancies. In India, women are made to abort pregnancies when the fetus is a girl. It is referred to as female feticide. Recently a new born baby girl was found in a dumpster and had to be rushed to the hospital to received urgent medical attention.
There are other cases where a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. For example if she is not ready, financially, to support a child it is very unhealthy for such a lady to be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. Many ladies have had to quit school in order to take up poor paying jobs to support a child they were not ready to have. For the welfare of mother and child, young ladies should be allowed to make decisions on whether they want to keep a pregnancy or not.
Most ladies also get pregnant from horrifying experiences like rape and to force such a lady to keep a child that will only remind her of an unfortunate and painful child is very wicked. Most people will argue that abortion involves taking the life of an innocent child but they are just a mass of undeveloped tissues that are not even a complete human yet. It doesn't even have a developed nervous system yet and as such cannot feel pain. And it is even sad that most religions try to guilt people into keeping a pregnancy at the expense of the mother's life. The mother’s decision should ways hold supreme as it is her body and she should have the final decision on what she wants to do with it. And she can always live to have healthy babies in the future.
-----------------------------------------
(images courtesy of pixabay)
the federal government no longer recognizes that your body is your own. california has a mandatory vaccine law. there is no "my body, my choice" there. soon they'll be coming for you. i challenge all of you, no matter which side you are on to apply that statement to every law you encounter and see how many contradictions you find. if you find one, your argument is under threat.
Does anyone recognise that women that have abortions for, what I call casual reasons, made the same fucked up decision to get pregnant in the first place. No birth control and no concept, of the consequences, of what casual sex has in store. If you don't want to get burned stay the fuck away from the fire. There are choices that women to make sure they never get pregnant. Abortion, In my view, is too late in the game.
I feel sorry for the people that can have children for one reason or another and have to read shit like this post. Where's the choice when you can't have children and you would love one so bad that you would spend hundreds of thousands just to see if there was a chance. Where's the choice now?
The rat race is taking over. The fact that we can talk about humanity in a way that we can "dispose of when not required" needs questioning.
I feel sorry for people being so dumb to fuck around with everyone and thinking they will never get pregnant.
well, let's start with the argument of who owns you and move out from there, before we get lost in the weeds. we don't even have the fundamentals down yet. every law you see, every single time, keep asking yourself, who owns you?, who owns you?, who owns you?, who owns you?, who owns you?
That is what the headline said. "My body, my choice"
@falco, I disagree with you. The man is the one that makes a woman pregnant. Woman herself cannot get pregnant. At the end, why a woman has to be the only one to be responsible for babies?!
Just want to increase the probability of a comment that is below this one to replace it... (no other reason)
What is wicked is that you suggest most ladies get pregnant from being raped.
699,202 abortions in 2012 in the US alone...that would be a lot of rape and incest.
What is your point with this picture?
These videos are the answer to each sentence taken from this post...
Thank You.
By the same argument a slave owner should decide whether he wants to get rid of his slave or not. After all, it is his plantation and his slave.
If you dont fuck around with everyone you dont need an abortion.
Fair enough.
The woman can choose if she gets an abortion, in spite of what the biological father wants.
Do you support the right for men to refuse to pay alimony for a child they did not want?
Her body, her choice.
His wallet, no choice.
He had his choice, to keep it in the pants.
As did she, no?
And since both decided not to, they should share responsibility. Yet, since it's woman's body, her health risks, and if she decides to bear the child, about two years of her life dedicated pretty much exclusively to the child, she should be the only one to decide whether to abort.
(Though I think some form of man's legally binding declaration of non-support could be there, but before the intercourse, not after.)
I always wondered about this exactly. Your body, your choice, so why not your financial responsibility? That just doesn't seem right.
"There are other cases where a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. For example if she is not ready, financially, to support a child it is very unhealthy for such a lady to be forced to carry that pregnancy to term." - Do you imagine how many people in this world would be happy to adopt a child???
I agree that the abortion issue is not black or white. There are situations that it is justified. But it should not be used as a form of birth control. That should be done before getting pregnant. This is because a woman is no longer making a decision about her body alone. Every major medical association in the world (including the AMA) says that the fetus is a separate life at conception. To those who believe this, abortion is nothing more than legalized genocide.
Stopped reading right there.
It's the baby's body, baby's health and the baby's future, not yours. A pregnant women's first and sole priority should be the baby, nothing else should matter. And what about the dad? He has no saying on the future of his unborn child?
Here's an idea for you, we should all allow abortion, but only after giving birth to the child. How about that? Would you still do it? Where's your engament on being pregnant? Maybe try harder on preventing it!
My oldest sisters mother died giving birth to her. My dad lost his wife and got stucked raising a handicapped child due to lack of oxygen flowing to the baby while she died giving birth. What a commitment from both of them.
He always told us one of her final words she spoke were she rathered died herself than losing the baby.
So what are you even talking about?
To be clear i've read your entire article. There are some cases where abortion is the only solution, but only in case the baby has < 10% chance of survival, or due to forced pregnacy.
You've chosen the wrong title and wrong intro since their are some valid arguments in your story, but that's the price you have to pay for having clickbait titles - And it makes me wonder how old you are since this is the kind of talk i would expect from a teenager ;-)
There will always be pro and cons about that specific subject, it's not even up for a debate. You got my upvote anyway. Opinion stands apart from emotion on curating.
You are blessed my friend...
Not her body. The unborn child has its own separate and unique dna.
please don't start. Mother's body, her decision.
Woman's body and yes I agree!
Ok, so no discussion I guess.
it's funny because if the father decides that his baby should get an abortion, in the end, its mother's decision to do it or not :)
How is abortion at all funny?
no, i am talking about a scenario when the woman wants to keep the baby and the father wants abortion. And of course, the one who are against abortion will tell her "Keep the baby, it's your body, your decision"
i am not saying abortion is funny. Read better the comment about the father.
@tee-em read better, this is about whether or not to keep the baby, it has nothing to do with getting into an argument
So if a man and a woman get in an argument and the man wants to keep the child, the woman could have an abortion to spite him, and that is funny to you? His loss of child dying due to his crazy ex wife is funny?
Not trying to be argumentative or against your position, its just that the child isn't part of her body.
That's a loaded statement as soon as you use the term "unborn child" instead of fetus
Same goes when you use the term fetus instead of unborn child.
Both sides of this debate use word play and rhetoric to make people choose sides based on emotions.
Fetus is the medically accurate term however. If you use unborn child you can take the next step and say "possible future nobel prize winner"
So the chance of a child being born is as rare as winning the nobel prize? I thought that being born is the natural unmolested result of pregnancy.
Fair enough. Embryo or fetus are the medical terms.
Women have been having both natural and forced abortions, i.e. miscarriages and abortions induced from drugs produced by natural plants, for thousands of years. I expect that this trend will continue for thousands more, assuming we don't kill ourselves off in a mass extinction event.
Couldn't it be a loaded statement if I used the term "fetus" instead of unborn child? I mean the definition is pretty much the same.
Although I am repulsed by the idea of abortion, I would be just as repulsed if I were to support any law that put people in cages for practicing abortion. That's my take.
Calling a fetus and unborn child is talking about "could-be's" or hopes. It doesn't reflect what "is". Calling a fetus an possible Nobel Prize winner or possible president is going further down that road.
Your argument is sound from a medical standpoint, but since statistically children in the womb, or even taken out and raised in test tubes will more likely than not continue their natural progression, I'm ok with unborn child and find it unoffensive
If we didn't have so many unnatural "laws" forced on us, healthier abortions using natural methods like plants would be more common, and maybe there wouldn't be so much financial struggle involved in having a kid!
Are you for late abortions?
It absolutely is part of her body. Without the use of her body the fetus or unborn cannot survive. That woman has to go through nine months physical changes and a lifetime of responsibility due to an easy mistake. Do people really think women should be forced into that?
I never said they should be forced, my point is that relying on someone doesn't make you5you part of their body. Once a baby is born, if left in a dumpster, would die if no one provided for its needs. Not part of the body. Can survive with care provided by another.
When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body," there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
No I mean it is LITERALLY part of the mother's body. It is attached by umbilical cord, the unborn/fetus takes sustenance from what the mother eats. It is in fact part of her body until the day the umbilical cord is detached.
Tell me what is the difference between the termination of a pregnancy that occurred due to the decision of the woman's mind and the one due to the decision of the woman's body?
In some places, even miscarriage is illegal.
An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body. Though it’s possible for someone to have a transplanted organ that does not share the same genetic code as the rest their body, that transplanted organ does match the genetic code of the original donor. The same can not be said of an unborn child.
uman embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."1
In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."2
It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
It wasn't the only stupid thing or even the stupidest one Hitchens ever said.