General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Being pro-life doesn’t make me any less of a lefty [View all]redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)If the answer is yes, then it is logical that this person has rights which must be taken into account. It is in such a case no longer a question of a woman's right to her own body, since it is no longer only her body, but also the body of someone else, who came into the situation of being dependent only due to decisions that were made by other people.
If the answer is no, then abortions are of no significance, and it doesn't matter whether you have none or one or twenty.
I think there is no definite answer to this question. It will always be a question of philosophical nature, which to a large degree depends on personal opinion. There is no definite scientific answer, since it at the end of the day depends on what definitions you use. Historically, people have defined infants below a certain age as "incomplete" humans, for reasons which were plausible at the time (mostly high infant mortality). Nowadays, a fetus of only a few months of age can be considered "viable".
I think because of these difficulties a compromise is sensible. A policy that starts with abortions being freely available, no questions asked, for the early stages of pregnancy, but becomes progressivly more restrictive as the pregnancy progresses, to a point were in the very late stages of a pregnancy there must be valid health concerns to justify an abortion. This is mostly what is done in Europe, and I think this is at the end of the day the best one can do.
Also, I don't buy the idea that being "anti-choice" is mostly men wanting to control women's bodies. From my personal observation, it seems like there are just as many women who judge other women for having abortion. I would even go as far as to say that very many men don't give a shit either way, especially if they are not the father.