edededed wrote:Human childbirth is a special case - the only way we can have life is via initial long gestation within the womb - and so requires special consideration. I think that your "absolute" reasoning is too binary (black or white) - not everything is so simple.
- Does anyone have the right to kill another person without that person's consent?
I like the Indian idea of ahimsa - "non-harm." That is, I think, the most basal, fundamental moral of all. Although shared by most cultures in a basic way, most disagree on who is included in the list of those not to harm. Benign humans are usually included, animals may not be. What about human babies, born or unborn? What allows them to get onto the list?
It's very simple. The woman has a right to control what happens to her body, and that right is absolute. Just as men have the absolute right to control what happens to their body.
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a woman to obtain a tubal ligation? Using the same excuses you're parroting here, concern for their future husband, and the children they might want to have. Most doctors simply will not perform the procedure unless you're a woman who is married and already has kids and your husband says it's okay.
But men can have a vasectomy any time despite their status as parents or husbands, and nobody else has to approve the decision.
THIS is the problem, which also extends to abortion laws and restrictions, lack of agency and bodily autonomy. The use of faux concern for the children to justify depriving citizens of fundamental rights.
Having a child is not a trivial endeavor, you're talking around 9 months of irreversible changes to your anatomy and biochemistry, and then either a lifetime of caring for the product or foisting it off on an already overburdened and in many cases corrupt foster care system. Having an abortion is not a trivial endeavor, the drive to reproduce is our most primal motivation. When for some reason the woman does not want to go through the process, that desire is more powerful than that primal motivation. The state has no right to interfere with that woman's life and livelihood.
Perhaps most importantly is the penalization of poverty. The rich will always have access to safe abortions for when they or their little darlings have accidents, but those of little means who are least capable of providing for new children are forced to resort to unsafe butchers without proper environments or equipment.
The tl;dr, restricting legal abortion restricts the rights of woman to be in control of their own bodies, and disproportionately affects the poor negatively and honestly I'm just done with the conversation at this point. There is nothing more that needs to be said, but I'm sure that won't stop what doesn't.
Oh, and I am the father of three children, and have paid for one abortion, and have no regrets about any of them.