WHAT DOES THE VIEW THAT PREGNANCY IS A CONDITION THOUGH NOT AN ILLNESS MEAN FOR ABORTION RIGHTS?
Abortion is more complex than some people let on.
Some who say direct abortion is always wrong seem to permit indirect abortion.
Indirect abortion makes out the loss of the child is an accident or collateral
damage. It is seen as an unintended side-effect. Yet if direct abortion is a
human right they will not admit that the purpose of abortion is to respect the
body and rights of the woman and that it is not really killing for the death is
a side-effect.
If a woman has to take two pills to effect an abortion there is a chance that
the baby might survive if she fails to take the second. But what about the
complications for the mother and the baby? Reason says she is better even for
the sake of the future child to take the second pill.
Once the first pill is taken the pregnancy can be classed an illness.
The placenta prevents the body of the woman from rejecting the baby growing in
her womb. It protects the foetus from her immune system which would end the life
of the foetus. As nature seems to do things a bit haphazard it is clear why some
see unwanted pregnancy as an illness. The body does not want it and so as luck
would have it the placenta has to solve the problem.
Pro-life people often think they win the argument by accusing pro-choice of
seeing the baby in the womb if unwanted as a parasite. This term seems hugely
offensive and medically and scientifically inaccurate. Imagine if a top doctor
needed to be connected to your body and plugged into you and only you can keep
him alive at least until he passes his lifesaving superior knowledge on. You are
kidnapped and forced to be connected to him. The Church would call him a
parasite. And as for the unwanted baby who endangers his mother's life he is not
a parasite! Such hypocrisy.
What if a woman is pregnant and it is known the baby will pass away inside her
or die when it is born. She may seek an abortion to spare the baby suffering and
because the baby will die anyway. The Church condemns abortion even then. It
might say she cannot know what will happen. But even if she could and did, this
knowledge would make no difference to the Church's anti-abortion position. Thus
the callousness or stupidity of torturing a baby over alleged respect for its
life is plainly seen.
Ireland legalised abortion if the mother to be threatens suicide. It is true
that this rule can be abused. But we have to take the mother to be's word for it
that she will kill herself. And as many people commit suicide without being
depressed or mentally ill nobody can prove she is probably lying or probably
telling the truth. In such cases pregnancy can be treated as part of a bigger
illness.
Ireland can jail a woman for 14 years for having an abortion. It is evil of
Catholicism to exert such an influence that this could be done to a woman who
had a very early abortion when nobody in their right mind thinks the embryo is a
person! To say you think that is to indicate that those women should be treated
as if they killed adults and to indicate hatred for those women. It is hypocrisy
to say any different.
Some people who oppose abortion totally knowing that the abortion law cannot for
now be ended completely compromise with it by seeking a ban on later abortions
and want laws that lower the time-limit. The Catholic Church cannot agree with
that approach as it regards the abortion of a fetus that isn't even visible to
the naked eye as bad as aborting a baby at 24 weeks. They trivialise and mock
the issue by equating the two. They complain that looking for earlier term
abortion leads to an increase in abortion. Mothers to be know that their time to
decide is short and so they have an early abortion just in case they decide they
don't want the baby when it is too late. They have an earlier abortion because
it is easier to feel they have done nothing wrong then. The later the abortion
the bigger the risk of bereavement or the feeling that one is a murderer of
one's own child. And it is physically safer.
The Catholics claim that abortion is never needed to save a life. The Catholic
"expert" cannot supply a single reference to a peer reviewed scientific paper
that is of the opinion the abortion is absolutely never medically necessary
under any circumstances. Do you not think Catholicism is being fundamentalist
and untruthful? It must be for it asserts something as a fact while ignoring the
facts.
Even if abortion is wrong, is it not the business of women who are faced with
the personal choice to decide if it should be allowed? If they agree with it,
they are not forcing their will on others so why do men and bishops for example
want to force their anti-abortion views on them?
In the USA in 2019, it was decided in some places that if an embryo was removed
it should be reimplanted in the womb. That is alarming if the woman has an
unwanted pregnancy.
Women have been artificially and cruelly kept alive on machines so they can
carry their unborn babies to viability or to term.
What about hybrid embryos? They are mostly human with some animal genetic
material. Are we to keep them alive?
The Church condemns PGD - Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis. This is where
embryos that are in test tubes or developed outside the body of the mother and
are screened for genetic defects that can lead to them becoming unhealthy babies
or babies with a poor chance of survival are destroyed. This is condemned by the
Church as murderous eugenics
We conclude that abortion is healthcare in many cases. It can be healthcare in
all cases for pregnancy does do damage to the body of the woman though it is not
an illness. Banning it forces women to harm their health by going to dangerous
practitioners.
Affirming a woman's choice to end a pregnancy is an essential part of abortion
care for society must not trigger guilt and self-hate and regret. They can lead
to suicide and self-abuse.
We should feel by now that abortion is tolerable at the very least. A necessary
deduction from that is to call abortion murder is to call doctors and the mother
murderers and is hate speech. If calling them scum is hate speech then calling
them murderers is worse. If you really believe it is murder you could end up
going berserk and killing a woman for having had an abortion or working as an
abortionist. The Church might disapprove but it should call it manslaughter not
murder. We need to ask if it is time to legally penalise those who demonise
abortion? What about those who use the morning after pill which often causes an
early abortion without the mother even knowing? What about users of the abortion
pill? If you call them murderers then you have to agree that the state should
prosecute these women at least in principle if it chooses to. Nobody would
regard you as sane if you called a girl who took the abortion pill a murderer.
If you believe it or if you claim to know that it is true then why not tell her
to her face?
A person can accuse women that had abortions of murder and claim he is
exercising his freedom of speech as in his right to put his view forward.
Freedom of speech brings responsibility with it. If you claim to have the right
to say something so dangerous and so damaging to the women - some of whom were
pressured into the abortion or were confused about what they really wanted -
then you have to show that you have done your homework. Anybody who opposes
abortion just because his religion or friends do is not exercising his freedom
of speech but his prejudice.
If a person wants to see abortion as tolerable that is up to them and how they
work this out in their heads. If a person wants to see abortion as liberating
and to be celebrated that is up to them too. But in the end the evidence has the
final say.
Affirming and embracing the woman's choice is a part of healthcare. Healthcare
is a community matter and only starts with the medical professional. It is much
more than that.