Pants-of-dog wrote:
I am not discussing medical procedures. I am discussing how another person is using the body of the pregnant person for their own ends. We do not give born people the right to do this to each other. The question then becomes “why do we give unborn people this right?”.
I have again and again given you an example when we do exactly this. An example when we us "the body of another person for (our) own ends. In fact we use it when the consequences are far more likely to provide permanent damage or death. All male adults of the US are subject to having their bodies used this way. It is called Selective Service, or the draft. It is not voluntary. One cannot be excused for inconvenience or danger to his person.
One could make a good case for considering the Fireman, Policeman, coal miner, fisherman or any number of other dangerous jobs. These people, like fertile women, have the absolute right to not get themselves into a dangerous or just inconvenient situation in the first place. They could avoid these jobs. Or, seeing the inconvenience of the job resign right away. Yet once they are in these jobs, though an army of people try to keep them safe, they are still expected to do the dangerous and inconvenient work.
I will continue to use the term "convenience". The statistics on danger to the mother are pretty convincing. A woman "forced" to give birth is doing something 4 times safer than driving a truck and 7 times safer than delivering pizzas or merchandise to stores. In fact, if a woman stays home during pregnancy and reduces the amount she drives, childbirth is one of the safest things to do.
A bit further:
Less than 1% of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother. Full stop. Even so it is a real thing. One in 100 pregnancies is a considerable number of lives saved.
But, pay attention. Saving the life of the mother is NOT the same thing as "for the health of the mother".
Why do women have abortions:
Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four. Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems. A multivariate analysis showed young teenagers to be 32 percent more likely than women 18 or over to say they were not mature enough to raise a child and 19 percent more likely to say their parents wanted them to have an abortion. Unmarried women were 17 percent more likely than currently married women to choose abortion to prevent others from knowing they had had sex or became pregnant. Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71 percent attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or parents that they were pregnant. A multivariate analysis revealed that respondents under age 18 were 39 percent more likely than older women to have delayed because they were afraid to tell their parents or partner. NIH.
There folks, is pretty strong evidence that my use of the word "convenience" is not far off of the mark. Perhaps it is a bit catty to use it but you pick a better word. Or just go with the above. It is damning enough.
Fun fact. "To save the life of the mother was allowed in all states before Roe V. Wade"
Let's throw a monkey wrench into this.
Soon someone will talk about the "mental health" of the mother. They will, in essence, argue that the inconvenience of having a child rises to pathology. I could make the case for just about any job but certainly being a mother is a hard job. One that shouldn't be taken lightly. But look at the above:
"About two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child".
So economic hardship is a good reason to have an abortion? OK. Then consider this. What if the father of the child makes that argument? Can he force an abortion for the same reason the woman can? Pro abortion advocates assert an absolute right to have one without an excuse. But we look a the why's and see what they really are. Why should a woman be able to impose financial responsibilities on a man without his consent when she reserves to herself the right to abort a child for the same reason?
Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities,
A man can make the same argument, can't he? Especially if he intends to share in the parenting. When these women use this excuse to have an abortion it does not mean that at some other time or in some other circumstances she might choose to have the baby. These reasons are simply convenience. They are not "not ever" they are "not now". Why can't the father make the same case and force an abortion?
I do mean "force an abortion". Pro-abortion advocates argue that a fetus before birth is not a person. It is simply some goo inside of a woman. So why can't a man simply assert that it is as much his goo as it is hers and require it to be purged? I am not persuaded that I should think much of the "invasion of person" such a procedure would require is much in the face of the rather cavalier reasons for abortions present in the latest statistics.
Now add to this the issue of abortion after viability and you can clearly see why anti late term abortion people like myself have a cynical view of this whole issue of personal sovereignty which only applies to pregnant women and nobody else. And remember. Forcing a mother to deliver a child after viability is NOT requiring her to spend a life as a mother. She is free to give the child up for adoption, ask the father to take it (which he may willingly do) or allow another family member to raise it. The options are legion.
Since pro abortion people love to cite rare examples, I will indulge myself in the same thing. A young man gets back from the war. He meets a woman in a bar who has made the immature private decision to not use or ask for birth control. They have sex. She gets pregnant and wants him to be a father forever and pay a near lifetime in child support. He is a responsible person and believes fathers should care for their children financially and personally. Unfortunately his experiences at war have left him with a severe case of PTSD. The stress of having a child and caring for one would damage his mental health. Why can't he exercise one of two options. First to require the woman to have an early abortion. Or failing that, to accept complete responsibility for having and raising the baby. In other words, terminate his parental rights and responsibilities.
I offer all of these examples in this wall of text to, among other things, make an additional point. It all but the rarest of circumstances, abortion is not a health issue. It is an issue of lifestyle and convenience. Overarching this fact are issues of morality. I am uninterested in those of the mother. We can see from the statistics above what a great many of them think about that. I am talking about issues of morality held by the community, the majority of voters in some jurisdictions and those of the other involved party.
Women have rights with regard to their bodies. Those rights are not unlimited. (Or clearly should not be.) Not only when they decided to have an abortion but also when they do not.