Is it okay to kill this?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

don't forget though that the woman can have 3 abortions.

So?

If abortion is so awful, why even allow her to have 3?

If 3 abortions are okay, then why aren't 4? Or 10? Or as many as she wants?

After this time she should have learned that there are such things on the market as condoms, birth control pill or other methods.

a woman chooses to get pregnant, but in general , a person does not choose to need a transplant.

Well, no. An unplanned, unwanted pregnancy - i.e. the type of pregnancy most likely to end in an abortion - is by definition not chosen.

But a live human child is no less chosen by the parents than a fetus. Why does the "she should have known better" argument apply before birth but not after?

Your argument is that if people have sex, then even if they take precautions, they should know that there's a risk of pregnancy, right? Well, by the same logic, if people have sex - especially if they're trying to conceive - they should know that there's a risk that they'll have a child that will some day need a kidney, bone marrow, blood, or what-have-you. How is this any different?

different issues here.

No, they're exactly the same issues, actually. The only difference is that after birth, we can apply the argument of "parental responsibility" to both men and women, so you would be affected. If we limit it only to pregnant women, you would never have to deal with the negative consequences of your position directly.

 

[nnmartin]

So, I suppose that when a woman using birth control faithfully experiences a failure, she doesn't deserve to get an abortion? She should have been "more careful." Even the best oral contraceptives used consistently do have a small failure rate.

ok, yes, failures with contraceptives do occur, but 4 times?

That is pushing the viability of the excuse somewhat.

if you've already had 3 fails, then it's time to switch condom brand or something.

Which doesn't answer Penguin's point--that a woman ought to have the same right to bodily security as does someone refusing to donate an organ.

could you go to a doctor and ask for a healthy organ to be taken out of you , such as your liver? I doubt that would be allowed, and it's the same principle here, except we are talking about another human life which will then be no more.

Not all pregnancies are the woman's fault, and not all serious birth defects are apparent before gestation has advanced beyond the usual point of viability.

that's true, and in these cases the woman could still have an extra abortion.

So it's 3 times under normal circumstances that I am proposing.

 

[nnmartin]

So?
Well, no. An unplanned, unwanted pregnancy - i.e. the type of pregnancy most likely to end in an abortion - is by definition not chosen.

what kind of example would you give here?

But a live human child is no less chosen by the parents than a fetus. Why does the "she should have known better" argument apply before birth but not after?

the possibility of having a child is chosen at the moment of undertaking unprotected intercourse.

Your argument is that if people have sex, then even if they take precautions, they should know that there's a risk of pregnancy, right? Well, by the same logic, if people have sex - especially if they're trying to conceive - they should know that there's a risk that they'll have a child that will some day need a kidney, bone marrow, blood, or what-have-you. How is this any different?

because it is impossible to see that far into the future - but we do know that unprotected sex can lead to conception.