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.
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.
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.
Can we all agree that an abortion is homicide?
There's no authority over someone's decision about her own life and body! If that's all the decision involves, then it can't possibly violate anyone else's freedom. The questions are:
If we could prove that the answer to 1 is "no," there wouldn't be a problem. A lot of people still entertain at least some doubts about 1 and think that if there's a separate being involved, there's a parent/child relationship, so they argue about 2 with that in mind.
Natural questions about 2 that follow are: Do you think preventing someone from killing her own toddler or older child is ever the right action? If so, could it be right to prevent her from killing what's in her womb 1-2 weeks before her due date? Where do you draw the line?
While the answer to your first question is a clear yes. And the second question is asking about how much authority over the family government should have.
I would still think you are missing a distinct 3rd option: Can we assume this person has a responsibility to be a "parent" or part of any family? Because if she has decided not to be a parent, she would not have a child that belongs to her.
It is not that I disagree with your final point... Abortion is bad from my perspective too. But I think our approach should be tactful.
That's my opinion about the first question too. With the 2nd one I was imagining something more basic, like encountering a woman killing an (already born) kid and deciding whether I should try to intervene or not, but the essential question of whether intervention is ever OK is the same.
You raise a good point about a 3rd option. I wasn't trying to assume responsibility and this just didn't occur to me. I meant "parent" only in the physical sense. Maybe becoming pregnant imposes no responsibility whatsoever to be a parent or part of a family. In that case, if you said the answer to 1 is yes, you probably think the child is not hers, but is an independent person (?) so there are still problems.
I don't love the idea but am not saying I'd never do it or that anyone should be forced not to.
"The child is not her's, but is an independent person" correct. I agree, this is about making sure we know what we will do the moment we are confronted with the situation. The truth is that the Government will most often not conduct the best action.
"My Body My Choice" is correct. The "choice" is a matter of Privacy, both by today's legal standards(I disagree with), and by philosophical thought under the assumption of existing Anarchy. However, could we consider something "private information" once multiple people have observed it.
I agree! Thank you for writing this.
When a government can decide on a child limit and force you to have abortions, it really puts things into perspective.
Government is force. That's all that it is.
Of course upvoted, great article, thanks for sharing @msgivings!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Lynne-Truss/dp/0007329067
This subject always has two issues that people try to roll into one.
A person can be pro-choice AND pro life. But a person who is Anti-Abortion is always Anti-Choice. This is people wanting to control others based on their beliefs.
The question is not "when does life begin". Everybody knows that "life" began long , long ago.
The real and true question is when does an individual person's life begin? A: At conception/fertilization. There is no other correct answer to this question.
I'm surprised that that Catholic hospital didn't perform the abortion as the Church teaches it is acceptable if the life of the mother is in danger.
What about the unborn baby's "my body, my choice" to not be killed ? And the father is just as much the "owner " of the child as the mother is. Its just coincidal that the mother carries the child, and not the father. Women seem to think that because the pregnancy is in them, they own the child
The creators of Planned Parenthood wanted the exact sentiments expressed in this article to become the norm in the minds of women and men in general. It looks like they won. We now treat human life like its some disposable garbage. Its really sad. I think abortion is selfish and any well meaning citizen of the human race should not even consider it as an option. What if the child was going to be the next Einstein in-spite of the circumstances in which it was born?
From the point of view of modern biology (genetics and embryology) human life as a biological individual begins with the fusion of nuclei of male and female gametes and formation of a kernel, containing unique genetic material. Throughout fetal development the new human body cannot be considered part of the mother's body. It cannot be likened to the organ or part of an organ of the parent body. Therefore, it is obvious that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the deliberate termination of human life as a biological individual.
Agreed.
I think abortion should be legal until age 18 lol
Really? That's pretty unorthodox, lol.
Abortion is the deliberate murder of a person.
»»» Alimony: His Wallet, NO CHOICE! «««
Is there anyone here who has looked up whether or not a fetus eligible for abortion has enough feelings to be considered a person yet? It's obvious what a religious person would probably think about it, but what does science say? Everyone can look this up and the answer seems to gravitate towards no. So if you're trying to form an opinion based on science, please look these things up yourself and consider that this 'poor child' may not be a 'poor child' after all. Please consider that they may however become a 'poor child', if society denies people a choice in the matter.
Pain sensations can be detected by the fetus as soon as the first bits of nervous tissue lay down. It has been confirmed by experiments where they poke her and she recoils in pain. This is immediately prior to the stage you would really call "fetus".
Let me be more clear, there is a scientific consensus, since 2005 more or less, that says otherwise. You may choose to believe in one study, over years of multitudes of studies and reviews of them. Or you can be reasonable and go with scientific method until your case is actually proven.
@msgivings
I agree with you in general. In reality, if we want to be objective the fetus is a form of a parasite. It would do anything to survive, including killing the mother. Since the mother is the sole provider of the fetus' life, only her can decide its fate. Nobody else, for whatever social, cultural or religious reasons.
Invividual rights are above collective rights. The fetus is an individual living at the expense of the host. Even if there is 1% chance of miscarriage, even if the woman doesn't feel carrying the baby because her future will be altered in any way, she can abort it and nobody get to have a saying.
What about the other half of the dna aka the Father?
It had to be the decision of the mother, she is the only one who can decide what's best and she has to live with that decision. People have to much say on what goes on in private
I see life starting at conception and not at some arbitrary points. This life in your body may be dependent on you but it remains a life that you voluntarily murder. You were yourself, once upon a time just an tiny clump of cell but if someone decided to kill you then, you wouldn't be here to write this article.
Latest statistic: 699,202 babies were aborted in 2012 in the US alone. That's an holocaust every year of people who could have brought something unique to society.
Since this article is coming from someone who advocate free sex and poly amorous relationships...it somehow add to the disgust I felt reading this.
This is one of those issues with no obvious right answer. It's almost more a question of faith, belief, or what have you.
A fertilized human ovum -- a zygote -- is the only substance on the planet that, if left alone, will turn into a human. (Reliable cloning is a ways off yet.) You can't say that about any other substance on the planet. Sure, it's just a mass of tissue, but it's a special mass of tissue unique from all other masses of tissue. To a mother (and father) that actually want a child, it's the most important mass of tissue on the planet. It's not a disease or a nuisance or an inconvenience, like having cancer. It's something that's supposed to happen as a naturally occurring result of sex -- which is a natural biological behavior of humans.
On the other hand, women are uniquely burdened by pregnancy. Obviously, there are health risks, and the HUGE majority of the world, even in places where abortions are illegal, makes an exception for saving the mother from death or serious disability. But women also face social consequences -- when you walk around with a fat baby belly, you have to deal with the way people treat you, which could be positive or negative, but still different than if you weren't pregnant. And physical consequences -- pregnancy and childbirth are hard on the body, even in cases when a woman isn't facing a serious medical risk.
And all of the financial, social, and professional restrictions -- once you have a child, you are legally responsible for that child, which means you have to pay for the child, sacrifice your social life and your professional advancement, and take care of the kid, to your own detriment, until it reaches the age of majority. Unless you give it up for adoption or it gets seized from you (and you get thrown in jail), both routes having significant emotional consequences.
I've always felt that, more important than any of the tangible consequences of abortion, is the intangible one: The right to decide whether or not to become a parent. Even if you give a child up for adoption, you've still reproduced. You're a parent. Interestingly, this right isn't just a female right -- men also become parents when a woman has a baby. There were some interesting U.S. court cases, after Roe and its progeny of later cases, dealing with in vitro fertilization. Situations where a couple going through the in vitro process gets divorced, the woman wants to implant the embryos, but the man wants them destroyed (or vice versa - the man wants kids through a surrogate but the woman doesn't want her unborn children being born). Those were some interesting reads, because the balancing of rights was a lot less obvious when the mother's body was taken out of the equation.
Nobody really knows when life begins. Obviously, if a woman in her 40th week is in labor, that child in her belly is alive. It didn't suddenly become alive when it was birthed. It didn't undergo any significant biological change. It just moved from one side of her birth canal to the other. If you stab it before it's halfway out, that's not an abortion, it's a murder.
But if you go back week 22 or so, very few babies can exist outside of the mother's body. They're essentially parasites. Around week 23, however, about a third of babies extracted from the mother live. By week 24, about half of them live. By week 26, about 90 percent of them live. Modern medicine is getting better at this, too (for good or ill).
Most people would pick the point of fetal viability (if it were a more definite and obvious target) as the bright line. A lot of laws that permit abortion before the third trimester but restrict or prohibit it afterward are a crude attempt at that.
Abortion is a Sin, you're murdering an innocent baby :(
One tax paid abortion....one complementary sterilization.
Any government provided abortion is probably at such a level of quality, sterilization is a default byproduct. In most cases.
You don't seem to have a high regard for government quality.
"US Government Quality" is on the precipice of becoming about as good as "1984 Soviet Quality".
At some point, you have the the right to pursue your decision to get abortion, however, if you get pregnant, then why not make an agreement with your boyfriend to settle things right before deciding abortion, in fact you were both made the sex, and if that would happen, you must be ready for the possibilities to get pregnant, especially if you don't have a safe intercourse.
I totally agree with you but there is a lot of other factors that need to be considered @msgivings
I was wondering how long would it take for a fetus to die if a pregnant woman refused to eat. Anybody know?!
Anti-abortionists have really rosey coloured classes.
I went to oppose an anti-abortion event and the ppl brought kids with them as some sort of example...only FAIL because none of the kids were adopted.
I agree with your point of view!
It is not only in the body. Abortion is a serious decision. No less serious than to become a mother. Because being a mom is forever. And if you are not ready for this, it is better not to give birth.Thanks for your post! I'm vote you!
I am so sad to read that...
After a point, It's no longer your body.
Hi, could you please do proper introduction post, so we all would know who you are and get to know you better?
Never.
Both pro life and pro choice people have valid arguments. If you believe that at inception, a life has been made, it doesn't matter whether or not a woman wants to keep a baby or not, it is no different than waiting for the baby to be born and killing it. But if you believe it is a simple mass of cells, then removing it is not really that big a problem.
Both sides should respect the others opinion on this topic and only try to engage to better understand the others viewpoints. It won't be solved by shouting and most likely a consensus will never be reached.
This seems to be saying that if you are pro life, one life is more valuable than another, and if it seems too hard you should prevent a life from being born. But for those who are pro choice, then yes it is her body and her decision.
It's a very interesting topic to discuss when people can do it amicably
''The baby's heartbeat starts at around 12 to 18 days, so it's murder to kill someone with a heartbeat, I suggest to you to get a hysterectomy is an operation to remove the uterus to prevent yourself from becoming a murder.
Yes! Your body. Your choice! The mother’s decision should ways hold supreme. Well done.
Nice post @msgivings
Two things.
All of us here today should be thankful that our mothers didn't choose to abort us. We didn't have a say in the matter. Thanks MOM!!!
Second. It's easy for those who don't ever have to make the decision to abort to make these comments as to whether who gets to choose and what is morally right. I think different circumstances require different actions. Either way, I would like to think that it's never an easy decision for a woman to make. That single decision becomes her and something she has to live with for the rest of her life. So I choose to show compassion.
A baby is it's own body. It is a distinct and separate person from the mother and deserves to be protected, not torn in pieces by forceps and then either thrown away or have it's body parts sold on the black market.
It is NOT your body. If you are 'pro-woman' then you will also recognize the tragedy of the millions of little women being killed every year while still in their mother's wombs.
www.abort73.com
A life is a life is a life at any stage.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot
That is a very important issue everybody should be concerned about. If baby grows inside a woman, a woman is the only one that has the right to decide what to do with her body. And all those moralists would rather keep their mouths shut because most of them are men. When you, guys, have such a possibility to grow baby inside of you, do whatever you want with him and your body.
@msgivings China doesn't have a one child law anymore, it's two now:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-lifts-one-child-policy-amid-worries-of-graying-population/2015/10/29/207fc0e6-7e2b-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html
My comment got really long so i made it a post:
https://steemit.com/abortion/@melek/reply-to-msgivings-abortion-my-body-my-choice
Like it or not.
Your body your choice ... You have the choice of fu...ing around with no proper prevention. I don´t care at all. THIS is your choice. Do with your body whatever you like.
The consequences of your choices are something you have to know and accept while making the choice. You´ll have to live with them. Getting pregnant is one of the possible consequences.
Well finally you created life. (The point of when life really starts is much too philosophical in my view and this should be left free for everyones conscience to decide. For me it´s the moment the egg is fertilised)
Fact is: there is a new body - Small perhaps, but there is everything needed to grow to a full new body. This body is not yours, so it´s not your choice anymore.
I get sick with people claiming to be SJW for the "my body-my choice" - movement and by that only covering up bad decisions taken to sleep with the wrong guy.
And before I get me stoned to death: yes there are exeptions... too young... a danger for the pregnant woman... rape... etc. bla. ACCEPTED
At the end I don´t care too much. It´s your conscience you will have to live with. I won´t "forbid" or "let forbid" anything by the state, but I would never suggest ending a live IF EVER POSSIBLE.
Hi, my response is somewhat lengthy and I put it in a separate post
https://steemit.com/abortion/@mgaft1/a-response-to-abortion-my-body-my-choice-msgivings
Cheers