This is going waaaay out of hand.
As far as I can see, everyone agrees (except marko_river) that abortion should be allowed in certain cases. Everyone states that.
So...
There is no more reason to argue over something 99% of the participants agree upon.
If we (the elite, as Sebatianos call us) were to rule this world, we would mess it up even more than it already is. We continue to argue about something we agree upon? Who are we to decide anything, when we can't even understand our own goals and statements?
So, to continue the debate;
"Abortions are acceptable in certain conditions."
That leads us to the following questions:
- What are these conditions?
- Who shall decide upon these conditions?
- For how long should an abortion be allowed? First trimester? Second? Third?
Like FPJ says "It is legal to kill a person in self-defense and war". It states that it is legal to take a human life when you yourself is under attack and violation. Surely rape can be considered to fall under both of these terms. And, yes, the unborn kid is innocent, but it was left there by the attacker. It is an unwanted element that causes the mother nothing but pain. Much like an invasion force taking control of a foreign land (to still use the war image). Such invasions only destroy the land, and the soldiers are all innocently just following orders.
And what about incest-rapings?
What about mentally unstable girls, that are in no way fit to be mothers?
What about jerks (men) who seduces woman after woman claiming her to be "the one", getting her pregnant in the most romantic settings ever... just to suddenly disappear and find another woman? Should the mother be forced to go through with the birth? Should the man be unpunished for his acts?
And...
Who shall decide if a girl should be allowed to have an abortion?
A future mother?
A gynecologist?
A psychiatric?
A court of law?
In the case of the latter, let me just warn you that in order to actually get a case to the court there is a long waiting time with lots of paperwork. The more cases the court of law gets, the longer the waiting time. And if every potential abortion should go to a court of law... then their workload would be unbearable. We would have to build new courts to cope with all the work. And what if either the actorate or the defendant appeal for a second verdict? Time passes, and the child grows...
When the baby is so old that it would be illegal to perform an abortion in any case, why should we even use the courts? Those that are against abortions would simply win every trial, they would just have to let time pass.
And if the girl, out of desperation after a rape, performs an "illegal" self-abortion after noticing that she is pregnant. Should she be punished, or set free? After all, she is acting in a non-rational way due to emotions of despair. Should we send her to a mental asylum?
To me, the best law of abortion is that it should be an offer to those that want it. And a tool to be used if needed against the mother's will. But, as I said before...
no-one should force a girl to GIVE birth against her will. And especially not men. Men who wants to have a vote in the topic of abortions should allow women to have votes in circumcisions and vasectomies.
To make it fair; every child needs two sexual participants, so..
If the girl should be forced (by the male population) to go through with the birth because she had casual sex for pleasure (without protection), then it would only be fair that the guy (who naturally didn't use protection either, and also had sex just for pleasure) should get a vasectomy at once. Obviously he will never learn, and will continue to have unprotected sex with other girls in the future, so he should not be physically able to produce kids in the future. But that verdict is up to the female population, of course. Males control abortions, females control the sperms. Seems fair to me.