Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.
Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.
So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!
Notes:
Notes:
This argument is generic in the sense that it can also be used for similar ethical positions such as euthanasia/assisted suicide/willful suicide and legalising cannabis and possibly others!
In my text, I want to limit the pro-abortion position by saying that abortion is, in this context, limited to within 20 first weeks and that it does not include "emergency medicine" where "extreme" measures are used in order to save either, the mother or the fetus. If they intend to kill either the fetus or the mother then, ethically, why not overdose them by sedatives or similar that must be better than "other extremes". I guess this should be part of standard procedure for these cases either way! So as to reduce the dread/brutalities of medicine (by standard procedure)!
(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)
In my text, I want to limit the pro-abortion position by saying that abortion is, in this context, limited to within 20 first weeks and that it does not include "emergency medicine" where "extreme" measures are used in order to save either, the mother or the fetus. If they intend to kill either the fetus or the mother then, ethically, why not overdose them by sedatives or similar that must be better than "other extremes". I guess this should be part of standard procedure for these cases either way! So as to reduce the dread/brutalities of medicine (by standard procedure)!
(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)
Just a note: In my text I want to limit the pro-abortion position by saying that abortion is, in this context, limited to within 20 first weeks and that it does not include "emergency medicine" where "extreme" measures are used in order to save either, the mother or the fetus. If they intend to kill either the fetus or the mother then, ethically, why not overdose them by sedatives or similar that must be better than "other extremes". I guess this should be part of standard procedure for these cases either way! So as to reduce the dread/brutalities of medicine (by standard procedure)!
ReplyDeleteNew standing on stem-cell research: I oppose stem-cell research if the women are pushed in terms of time of abortion, that is, if the stem-cell research requires the women to delay their abortion then I oppose stem-cell research (stem-cell extraction) and most adamantly if the stem-cell research pushes the women beyond the 20 weeks limit. One should remember that some women may be in a difficult situation where they are easily swayed by the authority of the physician.
ReplyDeleteI do not consider "emergency medicine" abortion! Sometimes, the emergency arises where the physicians must choose between the life of the woman giving birth or the child being born. However, these instances, where the child is killed to save the mother, do not count as abortions.
ReplyDeleteThus, abortions within 5 months, but as soon as possible, seem moral to me, including the much earlier chemical abortions.
Tips til Rosa- #Feministene
ReplyDelete"Kjemisk" abort er ingenting annet enn ekstra p-pille stoff og er tilnærmet smertefritt.
Så hvis legene er ille og ikke gjør jobben sin så kan man altså ta en p-pille ekstra eller mer og fremprovosere abort på den måten innen 3 uker. Mellom 3 og 5 uker, vær varsom! 5 til 10 uker, utvis større forsiktighet. Fare! Kan bli farlig! Sikkert blødninger og annet. (Værsåsnill å kontrollere denne informasjonen!)
Så: Krev din (tilnærmet) smertefrie "kjemiske" abort!
Kos og fortsatt god jul!
New arguments for the pro abortion position:
ReplyDeletePro Abortion
- Not a newborn for the cannibal right after birth...
- Not a newborn for the unfit mother or parents...
- Not a newborn as some kind of sextoy early in life or later...
- Not a newborn to fulfill a pervert hope...
- Not a newborn for the sadistic sodomy at any point in life...
- Not a newborn to fulfill parents' wish apart from the newborn itself...
- Not a late abortion to fulfill stemcell research need... (pro abortion limitation)
- Not a newborn to abusive parents...
- Not a newborn to dire social circumstances, like extreme poverty, hunger, thirst, insanity, war, neighborhood of crime...
It's more Christian to fight evil than to follow dogma. The little reference in the Bible may say "do not rape women", but is rather unreasonably used to defend the pro life position. Naughty?!
I'd like to inform the forum of a more complex situation too, regarding the availability of c-pills and possibly the availability of abortion too:
ReplyDeleteLet's say a woman has no other option but one special physician. And this physician sees this or gets ideas in the head that this virtuous woman must give birth to babies if not only one. Because c-pills require prescription from the physicians, often, the woman is left with condom option or celibacy. However, whether by "social contract" or other (social scheming) this woman gets targeted by a man who makes her pregnant! Now, should not this woman be granted abortion instead if a situation like this makes it so? I happen to think abortion can be called for justifiably for this kind of situation.