I'm an atheist. I believe in reproductive rights for women. I believe a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy no questions asked. Why should I have to also believe the nonsense that "life begins at birth"? It seems to me that a human being is created as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg. The DNA of a human being exists from that point onward. Are we so under the thumbs of the religious right that we can't say, "Yeah, life begins at conception. So what? The woman still has control."?
I tend to agree with you. I have known a couple of guys who have had girlfriends in the past have abortions, and it haunted them. If it was me in that position, I would definitely talk to the father, unless he was a complete bastard, like abusive or something. But I do think that men should at least have some rights in making the decision.
I think that it is admirable to discuss it with the other person, if the situation is amenable to that discussion. I felt hurt and betrayed when I was not consulted about an abortion years ago. I never felt I had the right to be consulted, however. I much later discovered that it was very likely not even mine in the first place. I've been more haunted by the betrayal of trust on many levels than the actual abortion.
I'm not sure how it is a subjective matter outside of the realm of personal opinions. It is a complex and oft debated matter, but not a subjective one. One person's legal abortion can't be another person's murder in a legal construct. That the issue is to apply an objective point to the issue does make viability a poor marker because we know it to be variable. Whatever limits are set by the law must, by necessity, have an objective nature about it. If viability is pushed back to conception, will we charge fertility services with mass murder? Perhaps retroactively if the technology advances faster than statute of limitations run out?
Limits set by law? ummmm...christian lawmakers or secular or both?
I think I get what you are saying. That there are myriad circumstances that would lead to a woman considering an abortion and they are not all created equal. I agree with that. But, my point is that this is all moot when it comes to the reproductive rights of women. Rights are not granted selectively based on a case by case basis. Rights are not bestowed based on mitigating criteria; you have the right or you don't.
It is not much different than free speech rights. We don't grant that to some people because we have estimated their words to be worthy while denying others on a case by case basis. It doesn't matter what the words are or whether we find value in them or not. Freedom of speech is a right all enjoy regardless of how those words are judged. Similarly, it doesn't matter what reason a woman has for aborting a pregnancy. She has that right and as long as she does, it doesn't matter if I, you, or anyone else think her reasons are not worthy.
In your example, does it matter if the older woman became pregnant intentionally or not? You frame one woman's need as being justified because she is some innocent victim while the other woman's need is unjustified because she is young and selfish. What if it were the other way around? What if the older woman had a healthy fetus but didn't want to ruin her lifestyle? Does her age even matter at this point? And what if the 25 year old was the innocent victim by "unintentionally" becoming pregnant? And what really is the difference between a woman who doesn't want a kid because of the inconvenience and a woman who doesn't want a DS child? Downs kids are great and loving children. Will it be too much of an inconvenience? And if it doesn't survive in the womb, why is the abortion even necessary, let alone justified?
Point is, with the law there needs to be logical standards. Because once you start applying that law, if it isn't logically consistent, unfairness (and sometimes absurdity) will result when situations arise that fall outside of the perfect scenarios that were contrived to validate the law in the first place.
Ning is silly that way.
Well technically, babies are just clusters of cells for a time. So are tumors... We have no problem removing tumors. Hell, life shouldn't be considered began until birth.
That's the beginning of worldly life. Your standard is ambiguous. Does life begin when the baby crowns, is halfway out, all the way out, or after the umbilical is cut? Until then, what is it? Dead? I only know living and dead. What is this intermediate state your position implies?