1. Religion & Spirituality

Discuss in my forum

Many people who oppose legal abortion or who only weakly support legal abortion will often focus their objections on the idea of "abortion on demand." They see something wrong with abortion being readily available. But if abortion is not available when women want it ("on demand"), what is the point of it being legal? If abortion is legal because women should be able to make autonomous decisions about what happens to their bodies, how can abortion not be made available when they demand it?

Read Article: Abortion on Demand? What Else is There, Except Abortion on Demand?

Comments
May 22, 2006 at 12:10 pm
(1) Chuck says:

Hi Austin,
Your ‘Book Note’ reminds ME of two points:
1] How the anti-choice people NEVER bring up the subject of ‘Miscarriage’ [I believe the statistics are: (approx.) 1 out of 5 pregnancies ends in miscarriage...(What!...'God's abortions?)...is there any family NOT affected by that? I know mine was!]
2]A GREAT article (or ‘Tract’)at: ffrf [Freedom From Religion Foundation] which, I think, effectively articulates the problems inherrant in the anti-abortion position taken by the ‘Bible Fundies’ [or as SOME of us atheists refer to (amongst ourselves, of course!): 'Jeebus Asshats']
I’m guessing you’re probably already aware of ffrf’s ‘MAHvelous’ ‘Tracts’; but specifically, here’s the link:
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

May 22, 2006 at 1:17 pm
(2) stevedoetsch says:

“But if abortion is not available ‘on demand’, what is the point of it being legal”
Good point, and since prescriptions drugs aren’t available on demand, what’s the point of them being legal? We need to make all prescriptions drugs available “on demand!” And while were at it, guns are legal too, but there’s a waiting period. Lets make guns available “on demand!” Heck, there’s a myriad of rules and regulations governing every legal thing from building on one’s property to owning unusual pets. I demand everything legal also be legal “on demand!” Otherwise, what’s the point of it being legal, right?

Just because something is legal, it does not follow that it must also be legal “on demand.” The abortion industry works to hide the truth about abortion, and the pro-life argument against abortion on demand is the response to this industry’s obfuscation. Just like the tobacco companies don’t want you to know the health hazards of tobacco, the abortion industry has a vested interest in hiding from women the health hazards & dangers inherent in the abortion procedure. The danger of punctured uterine walls, increasing one’s risk of cervical cancer, and the number of mal-practice cases against a clinic are not information they are likely to share. The label “pro-choice” does not apply to the privately owned abortion clinics that operate like any business interested in making a profit. It’s in the self interest of the abortion clinic to provide only information that supports their business.

May 22, 2006 at 1:29 pm
(3) Joe says:

>Good point, and since prescriptions drugs aren’t available on demand, what’s the point of them being legal? We need to make all prescriptions drugs available “on demand!”

May 22, 2006 at 1:30 pm
(4) Joe says:

That didn’t post right…

>>Good point, and since prescriptions drugs aren’t available on demand, what’s the point of them being legal? We need to make all prescriptions drugs available “on demand!”

You make Poppema’s point for her. Prescription drugs are available ‘on demand’ in the way that abortions should be: a woman can obtain one if, after consulting a medical professional, she decides that that’s what is best for her. That’s how I obtain prescription medication: see a doctor, weigh their advice against what I know, then ask them to prescribe what I decide is the best option for me.

I’m glad to see you support the availability of abortion to be as broad and easy as prescription medication.

January 10, 2009 at 11:12 am
(5) Ron says:

To Posters 1 2 and 3
If the American people as a whole reject abortion on demand, fine! BUT! The reasons for a ban MUST! be secular, and not sectarian.

January 11, 2009 at 11:38 am
(6) BEX says:

How about…no one can tell me how to live my life and take care of my body! I don’t care what anyone’s reasons for wanting to ban abortion are (religious or secular)…they have no right to tell me how to deal with my own body.

October 31, 2009 at 1:03 am
(7) Hex says:

Joe what are you thinking saying that prescription drugs are the same as abortion on demand!!! Steve… is right they are totally different!

Are you really that ignorante (its not an insult take it by definition) or are you just trying to deceive people.

For prescription drugs you have to be sick and a doctor has to prescribe what he thinks is best for you. Normal abortion for rape, incest and endangerment of the mother is already allowed. But abortion on demand is so wrong because it kills healthy nine month old babys. It does not need a doctors permision only a consultation for the surgical procedure that will happen!!!
Women can do what they want, use safty when they want and abort if they are at risk. But killing healthy nine month babies is wrongs. And the SOME (not all) doctors are getting rich because they want that to be normal.

February 22, 2010 at 11:41 am
(8) Robert says:

A person:
Person is a legal term. Black’s Legal Dictionary, the legal dictionary used by all higher courts, defines a person as: 1) A human being.

The Supreme Court made their decision on the assumption that the fetus was something other than a living human being.

Amendment 14 – Citizenship rights:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, “Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations,” New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed… The zygote is a unicellular human being… Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

You do not undergo a metamorphosis to change to a human being. Being created by two humans, and having human DNA and cell structure, you are a human being in the sense that you cannot possibly be anything else.

Reasons for aborting one’s own child, aside from risk of death to the mother, all fall under convenience. The right to life trumps all other rights, and although morally there may be disagreement, legally, there can be no argument that does not suffer from logical falicies.

February 22, 2010 at 4:24 pm
(9) Austin Cline says:

Reasons for aborting one’s own child, aside from risk of death to the mother, all fall under convenience.

Does that make it wrong?

The right to life trumps all other rights,

So, your position must be that a person has a right to use the body and organs of another human being, even against their will, when that use is necessary to sustain the life of the first person.

Pleas provide support for this position using the law and judicial precedents.

and although morally there may be disagreement, legally, there can be no argument that does not suffer from logical falicies.

Then you must be able to provide a really winner of an argument. I can’t wait to read it.

May 2, 2011 at 10:15 am
(10) red_pill says:

Against their will? A woman isn’t aware when she has sexual intercourse that a baby could be conceived?

August 25, 2010 at 4:25 pm
(11) connie Coute says:

I find that when a abortionist kills inesent babys
they must not think God is not going to remember. That his commandment states THOUGH SHELL NOT KILL. I BELIEVE HE WILL GIVE THEM A LIFE SENTENCE IN HELL AND THAT THE UNBORN AND THE JUDGEMENT IS JUST

August 4, 2012 at 4:45 am
(12) Mikko says:

screaming threats of hell does not work

August 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm
(13) Virginia says:

I don’t want ANYONE, other than a MEDICAL doctor, regulating my birth control.

I happen to have used the IUD (intrauterine device) for 10 years and since it is an ABORTIFACIENT, I’m positive that I’ve had many, many, many, abortions/miscarriages. I CHOSE the IUD even with the KNOWLEDGE that is is an abortifacient. So does the GOVERNMENT need to set up a bureaucracy of the vaginal police to check my vagina and ensure that it is not a hazard to children? Will my IUD be yanked out against my will? Should I be arrested since I endanger the lives of zygotes?

The IUD and the pill disallow implantation of the “tiny person” as they affect the lining of the uterus. I’m sure I’ve booby trapped my uterus and transformed the space into a concentration camp, a Dachau, for “tiny people”. Anti-choicers better get ready to regulate IUDs, birth control pills and shut down fertility clinics since these clinics discard embryos AND investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide…Opposition to these measures illustrates what these wide-eyed anti-choicers really are: insane bullies with a loathing for autonomy which far surpasses their love of zygotes and sticky menstrual matter.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.