Abortonist Kermit Gosnell convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to life
View Single Post
May 17th, 2013 (8:57 AM). Edited May 17th, 2013 by Belldandy.
♥ Cammybear ♥
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Originally Posted by
Are you speaking morally or legally? I'm speaking purely from a legal standpoint, not a moral one. If having a child does not obligate you to donate nonessential organs if they need it, then having sex should not legally obligate you to donating your body for 9 months.
And besides, if a woman doesn't want a child she'll find a way to abort it. Legalized abortions give safer access to healthcare and that's the important thing. Without it, well, we could have more stories like the OP 8(
Yeah, that's where it becomes greyed for me. I think the laws should do something to prevent home-made abortions / dangerous abortions, but still have limits to when abortion can occur and under what circumstances. But because of these limits, some women / men (if it's the father that doesn't want the kid and is trying to force it down the mom's throat) will take
measures, resulting in horror stories. It's happened all throughout history with coat hangers, beatings, etc. There were posters around a few hundred years ago about home-made abortions and how many women died, typically due to infection.
It's awful, really.
But as I said, I think that if it can be proven that the mother (or father) were irresponsible about the conception, they should be legally obligated to carry to term and then have the option of adoption. There are a lot of families who would love a child because of infertility reasons, hysterectomies, etc. so it wouldn't be that hard to do. I know a bunch of adopted kids just growing up, and that's in a small town. One's mother was fifteen when she gave birth, but he was adopted into a really nice family the same day. The case was the same for another friend of mine whose adoptive parents drove 4h away to get her from the agency.
Being pregnant is incumbering and a lot of work, but it shouldn't happen (like I said, condoms + birth control + morning-after pill (or maybe even the "hook," too, since that can all be combined!) if both parties are very careful about sex. There's still a risk for it, but everything together pretty much drops it to 0.001%, following data we learnt in secondary (percentages are chances of it "failing," and not conception itself):
- Birth Control: 0.01%
- Wrongly Placed Condom: 25%
- Condom (In General): ~7%
- The "Hook": 0.01%
- Spermicide Additive: 15%
- Morning-After Pill: ~8% (longer you wait, more chance of failure)
Used all together [properly]? You really shouldn't fall pregnant, lest a freak accident occurs.
And if you realllyyy don't want to get pregnant, you'd use all of those measures, other than maybe the "Hook" because it might cost a lot pending which country you live in. The fact that all of these are openly available to women now (the pill being the reason for augmented promiscuity in our generation to begin with...) makes me believe that there's no reason to become pregnant "accidentally" through consentual intercourse; which is why, in these cases, I think the foetus > mother, since she could've used every resource to avoid the matter... but she didn't.
And if it "costs a lot," then maybe you shouldn't be having sex. Others may argue the government should intervene and lower the costs, but I don't know about that. There's enough education out there esp. with the Internet about sex that teenagers should know the risks. If they can't afford to be safe, then they shouldn't be doing it;
, it's a fact that regardless the risks teenagers will
partake in this kind of behaviour, safely or unsafely, which is why I also think the government's intervention is a grey area.
I'm pretty much stuck between how much we should "forgive" the mother versus how much personal responsibility the mother should have for herself and her unborn child. I don't want the government holding women's hand to the point where they stop using safety methods altogether and simply resort to abortion because "oh, the poor mother." Balogna.
And if she did, and it still occurred (really shouldn't, though, given that the chance is <0.01% when used together), then that's where it gets messy. Adoption's always an option, though.
On another note, kinda weird how if you kill a pregnant woman, it's double-murder in court (because the foetus, in this scenario, is a "human"), but if you give a woman an abortion, it doesn't count. Double-standards much? Once the foetus is wanted, it's a human, but if it's not, it's just a clump of nothing that is easily disposed. Seems the definition of a foetus in terms of its viability as a human is written out of convenience.
Also Known As:
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Belldandy
Visit Belldandy's homepage!
Find all posts by Belldandy
Find threads started by Belldandy