EricBess -- You don't really see the big picture, do you? The value system through which you view the world evidently does not allow you to hear what you don't want to hear, and reason beyond what you want to know.
OK, for the third time, (fourth if you count Spiderman) : there is enough space on Earth *for now*. If one carries the rate of human growth to its logical conclusion, the Earth will not be able to sustain an infinite population. The relevance to the argument is that if this happens (drastic overpopulation) abortions of unauthorised children will be mandatory due to sheer necessity.
I carry my arguments to extremes because it is at extremes that one can see most clearly. My question is : does a fetus have the same right to life as an adult? If it does, then how does that right to life mesh with the rights of a woman over her own body? If the fetus has the same rights as an adult (and we cannot kill innocent adults) then logically even a baby resulting from rape should have the right to life. (Also, please note, I never said that you did not say that abortion was not an option for a victim of rape)
An example of the way your value system resonates in your arguments is the when you presume to speak for others, and make assumptions on their behalf. Adoption is not necessarily the best option for the mother. I personally know a woman who had a child, gave it up for adoption, and is wracked with guilt and loss, whereas another who had an abortion seemed just fine with it. With abortion there is a sense of finality, whereas with adoption there is guilt about whether it was the best thing to do, is my child OK, what are they doing now, etc. Of course, I don't claim to speak for all women.
Let's say a woman hypothetically must carry an unwanted child to term because the law states that she must. Again, you automatically assume that she would lay off hazardous activities out of concern for a child that she doesn't want. Remember we are talking about children who would otherwise have been aborted. Permit me to doubt on logical grounds that a woman that likes to drink & party will quit doing that because she must carry an unwanted child to term.
The only way to ensure the child's safety in such circumstances would be to prohibit these activities for pregnant women, which of course then infringes on their individual liberties.
It seems to me that one of the main reasons that you oppose abortion is because you feel that people should deal with the "consequences" of sex. Possibly you feel that casual sex is immoral and that abortions are too easy an escape route for behaviour that is offensive to your tastes.
Let me say it now : My PERSONAL feeling about having casual sex is that it is a cheap thrill. Not for me. I am a one - woman, long - haul type of guy. But this does not mean that I want other people to suffer the consequences of pregnancy, or that I neccessarily condemn casual sex. I think it is unwise (STD's) and sad, because a lot of people who sleep around are searching for comfort and acceptance, and have not found themselves yet. But I can't tell other people that they must suffer the consequences of sex because I disagree with their behaviour.
Look, abortion is a very touchy issue, and with reason, because ultimately we have to ask ourselves some deep questions about our humanity. Such as : how do we define a human? When does a fetus become "human"? When does it live? Is the fact that it is alive mean that it automatically gets the rights of an adult? Also, does the potential of a fetus count towards its intrinsic value? A mouse is more intelligent and capable than a fetus, yet the fetus has the ability to become something far greater (or worse). Does a thing's potential outweigh its current state?
I personally believe that although a fetus is alive and human, this does not automatically grant it any rights at all. I think that the bearer takes precedence. It lives or dies at the mother's whim. If you suggest a there be a time limit as to how late in pregnancy a child can be aborted, that could be something I could get behind. After all, how long does it take to decide that you don't want a child?
There are worse fates for unwanted children than abortion.
Here in South Africa people who can't afford (or don't have access to) abortions have found other interesting things to do with unwanted newly born babies. They suffocate them in plastic bags and leave them in the trash; flush them down public toilets; leave them in cardboard boxes at rubbish tips. There was even a case where a new born was found half eaten by ants at a landfill site, still alive. Others just bury them in their backyards.
The fact is, people will always find ways of dodging responsibilities that they don't want, and sometimes the dodges they find are worse than aborting. A key issue to the problem, again, as Ferret touched on, is education. It always seems to be the poorest and most ignorant that end up with unwanted children. If the world as a whole was better educated, then I think there would not be this overwhelming issue of abortion, as there would be far fewer unwanted pregnancies.
A thought just occurred to me before posting. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that medical technology moved to the point where unwanted fetuses could be aborted (without mangling them) early on in pregnancy. Let's further hypothesize that doctors could take them to term in artificial wombs, and the babies were then raised in a state orphanage. How would you feel about abortion then?
-- Astranbrulth --
) If the mother feels guilt, it seems education or something along those lines need to be implemented, akin to taking teenagers to the hospital to see the results of drunken driving crashes and accidents (which, it appears, is being ended in MD due to state budget cuts). If that education leads to fewer number of abortions, that's all well and good. But the choice should still be there.