(Original post by tazarooni89)
No, I don't have any hard statistical evidence for this particular scenario. It's based on a trend that one tends to see in every day life - that people take more care in situations where the risks of negative consequences are perceived to be greater. A person is less likely to spend the night getting drunk if they have their final university exams the next day, as opposed to if they're attending a pub quiz the next day, for example.
No I agree - if abortion were banned, these dangerous forms of abortion probably would spring up. But of course, these dangerous forms of abortion would also be illegal as well. So it would be the mother's responsibility not to try to use them - or if she does, it would be at her own risk.
That may sound harsh, since some will probably still try it anyway. But the principle is based on people's duty to take responsibility for their own actions, and accepting the risks of their own actions, which we apply in other areas of life.
It's not some kind of dead end situation, where you're ruining their life from beforehand. They had the option of taking care with the choice of having sex to begin with, and even after making a mistake, they have the option of giving up the child in other ways besides abortion. Avoiding the need for a back alley abortion is entirely in their own hands.
Again, I agree - I'm not denying that some people may be weak or lack discipline, but I think they
should be the ones to bear the consequences of that, as opposed to their child. I think it is right for the child to grow up and bear the consequences of its own weakness or lack of discipline, rather than that of its parents.
The arguments given for abortion seem to be: It allows people to avoid the consequences of their own mistakes or lack of responsibility; it allows them to choose a method of avoiding becoming a parent which suits them despite other methods existing; it prevents people from turning to back alley abortions which would be illegal and unnecessary anyway. All of these are designed to suit the wishes of the mother (and father) as much as possible, in a situation which was brought about by their own shortcomings.
But if you consider the foetus to be a child whose life must be protected as much as any born baby, then none of those arguments can supersede the fact that the child has the right to live, and is in this situation through no fault or weakness of its own.
These arguments usually stem from the belief that actually it isn't a 'real' child, and it doesn't have a right to life. But the point at which you draw the line seems very arbitrary to me. I get the impression that people first decide that abortion must be available (as it is more convenient for them), and then justify it on the pretext that it isn't a proper child. As opposed to first deciding through some objective means that its life does not need protection, and then concluding that abortion is acceptable. The process seems to be the wrong way round based on people's own priorities.
Again, even if they are not "emotionally capable", does this supersede the child's right to live?
Consider the situation if a woman ended up giving birth to her rapist's child, but after it was born decided that she wasn't emotionally capable of knowing that this rapist's child exists in the world, and wanted to kill it. Anyone would agree that satisfying her emotions is not the priority. The child's right to life takes priority, and she just needs to deal with the emotional trauma separately.
This argument too, seems to be based on the presupposition that the foetus' does not have a right to life, and that in every sense, the needs/desires/convenience etc. of the mother must take priority. But I've explained my view on this matter above.