No-one forced the women to get pregnant in the first place. The point is they have already made their choice.
The issue is cast in terms of a woman's right to choose. This is an incomplete sentence - what is being chosen - so it needs completing:
i) A woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy
ii) A woman's right to kill her unborn child.
Apart from judicial execution of service in the armed forces doesn't nearly everyone deny there is a right to kill other people? Thou shalt not kill is something everyone would agree on as covering something morally wrong.
So the argument is not about women's autonomy or attempts to control them, it is does the new life that is created at conception come under thou shalt not kill? That abortion is about the unjustified ending of human life. The right to life trumps autonomy. This living being even when still a clump of cells is not part of her body. It may even have been fertilised outside of it.
The acccount was highly compressed and was intended to show why some object so strongly to abortion by virtue of what it actually is. The horrors he described are what is happening in an American context.
In what way was MacArthur's presentation garbage? Is it garbage in the sense of not true, or gargabe in the sense of you didn't agree with it?
Roe was enacted by an all male supreme court, all white with one possible exception.
The support you talk of is called marriage! The father of any child is morally bound to provide and look after it and the mother. Makes men grow up and take responsibility. If abortion is morally wrong, and I think it is, men are at least as culpable as women, possibly even more so.
Yes a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue being pregnant, and whether or not to have a child..
The argument is her autonomy It's her body, it doesn't belong to anyone else, If you say an unformed foetus has more right to use her body to grow in than she has right over her own body then you're elevating the rights of that foetus over hers.
No one has the right to force her to have a child.
I don't know why anyone sees any good in that, for the woman, for an unwanted child, or society.
Apart from the fact that she may well have not chosen to have sex at all (rape)
She may not have chosen to have sex in order to become pregnant .
Humans have consenting sex for many other reasons than procreation, this is why contraception exists, and has done as part of medical science for a long time.
Before that a variety of other methods were used, with varying degrees in of success, but outside of sterilisation, or infertility, nothing is infallible.
Do you only ever have sex with your wife when trying for a baby??
Depending on your technique, poor, or lucky her..
Sometimes contraception fails, inside or outside of marriage.
You seem to think that women should always bare the consequences of having sex, where contraception failed (or where there was rape) and be forced to have unwanted children.
Why, what good comes of that.??
Bearing , and birthing children, let alone raising them is a heavy burden on a woman's body, and a big responsibility.
Why do you want to force that, on a woman especially when there is a safe effective way of terminating those unwanted pregnancies early on.
I said that your quoting of the pastor was garbage because the vast majority of what he alleges happens isn't true. Any half truths he puts are presented in such a way as to be deliberately inflammatory..
If that's what 'pro-lifers' are believing then they need to give their heads a good old shake, and get educated
I could list any number of horrible situations where the consequences for a woman being forced to have a child, or the way in which a woman was forced by a man to become pregnant, have been horrific, there are many millions of instances, of women being treated terribly, and they are true, but those horror stories are not necessary to support the 'right to choose' .
They lend weight, and draw peoples attention to bad situations, but however an unwanted pregnancy occurred it's still a woman's own body, it's her choice .
If you say as you did earlier that terminations might be ok in instances of rape or incest, why then, and not any other bundle of cells??
Does that bundle of cells that was formed by a rapist impregnating a woman have less 'right' to grow in a woman's body, than any other bundle of cells, why?, it's not their fault how they were formed is it?
As for the idea of religion or state, somehow forcing people into marriage, and then forcing them to stay married, if a pregnancy occurs that's a fine recipe for miserable people, miserable children and further abuse.
Or are you going to somehow police against all sex outside of marriage.??
Good luck with that..
Come to think about it, you're going to police against all sex inside marriage too, if that sexual congress is not intended for procreation purposes then stop it now!!
Yes men need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions.
Part of that 'growing up' would be to stop trying to force unwanted pregnancies on women, or trying to control them in other ways.
tldr.
The only humane option is allowing women to choose whether or not to have children .
Principally through the provision of freely accessible and appropriate contraception.
But if that has failed, and the woman has no wish to continue an unplanned pregnancy then she should have the right to end it through an early termination.
Her body, her choice.
Anything else is forced continuation of a pregnancy which is inhumane.
She knew when she met me I was a Atheist ! I can't say I ever remember her or anyone from her family trying to convert/push religion on me.They might take the piss on a regular basis though.I find it interesting as in it's a nice story,but that's about as far as it goes for me.
