[user104658]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

I support abortion and oppose the death penalty, but there isn't a contradiction there. I support the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. I don't support the state to make decisions about whether a person should live or die.

But you support the right of an individual to decide whether a person should live or die?

I actually think most people's support of abortion hinges on an inherent misunderstanding of the abortion process; that it is clean, quick and clinical. They believe the "bundle of cells" rhetoric which in fact only applies to very early stage abortions. Later stage surgical abortions, are effing barbaric. They follow one of two scenarios; either the baby is removed whole, in which case it can live (kicking, trying to breathe, making little noises) for several minutes after removal. It's an ethical minefield for the abortionist to physically kill it, so they tend to just be put in a surgical tray with a cloth over them and allowed to slowly die.

In the other scenario, they are mechanically torn limb from limb inside the womb and then extracted piece by piece. Research on this has (obviously??) shown very high levels of fetal distress during this process. They certainly feel it.

Of course - there are even worse, outdated methods... like when they used to use chemical solutions that effectively burned them out. Then you get a combination of the above. Sometimes they came out alive, writhing, covered in hideous burns. Before dying, of course.

A society that finds this morally acceptable in the name of "woman's body, woman's choice" is abhorrent to me. Not least because it's very rarely actually about the woman's body; it's very rare that people choose abortion because of the physical toll of pregnancy. They choose abortion because of the toll that a baby will have on their life. And that is... well... it's ****ing hideous.

There are only two scenarios where I find abortion ethically reasonable. The first is if a pregnancy (healthy baby or otherwise) poses a direct risk to the LIFE of the mother, in which case, there's obvious justification. The second is where there are severe abnormalities in the fetus that mean it's unlikely to be able to live any sort of normal life or, especially, where it's likely that they will be born (and live) in pain. But then, I also support euthanasia, so that sort of falls in line with that.

The issue of rape is also quite murky. But I think it should be a part of "rape general knowledge" if you will, that the morning after pill should be taken as a precaution. I'm aware that people might obviously not be thinking clearly, but that's why it should be driven home as "the thing to do". If anything, it's far less traumatic than discovering a pregnancy after rape and having to make that choice and then go through the abortion process.

Other than that? Yes, her body her choice. The choice is to not get pregnant. If you take risks during consensual sex (and it's ALWAYS a risk, just a smaller one with contraception) then you have already made the choice to accept the possibility of pregnancy. You don't get to just kill human beings because you made a mistake whilst getting your rocks off. It's madness.