I think when it comes to having children, it is a matter of choice. Same with someone in a coma on life support. Hospital bills are fucking atrocious, as is the general medical process. I think once you're in that situation, termination can't not be an option.
I agree, having sex is a choice. Regarding hospital bills, I assume then if you have some kind of healthcare state like Australia your views would change? You're not going to go bankrupt here if you don't execute your brother on life support.
That said, I don't know many people who would do what you're suggesting even if it would be a struggle financially. I would go utterly broke to make sure my brother has a chance to wake up one day. I know you're not a moralist and I don't consider myself one either, but you seem to be an immoralist at this point lmao.
Ironic that we the so called pro-capitalists care more about humanist standards than our finances.
A child's existence demands more of the woman than another person's random existence, which is why I don't see killing someone as comparable to abortion. I do agree that late termination isn't ideal, but it's not as though women are just lollygagging until the third trimester before having a pregnancy terminated. They tend to seek an abortion when they discover they're pregnant. It's not late-term abortions that are the issue; it's anti-abortion fundamentalists who want to prohibit it altogether.
I think the issue is the second trimester abortions, third trimester abortion is only supported by sociopaths and people with extreme ideologies that are essentially anti-humanist IMO and first trimester abortions are only opposed by religious people who believe a soul enters the zygote upon conception.
Second trimester abortion is where the real divide in opinion lies and mostly with people who could be convinced to swing either way. Also it's where the real moral/ethical/legal conundrum lies because this is the beginning of viability.
So again, you're an outlier, and actually more in line with those in favor of reproductive rights (I think, anyway).
I oppose abortion at the second and third trimester, so no I do have more in common with the pro-life side. I just don't believe an outright ban of abortion is justified or is necessary socially.
That said, I'd happily throw my lot in with a ban all abortions future than a allow all abortions future. Women being forced to take a pregnancy to term and then keep it or give it away is much more
p r e f e r a b l e than chopping up full infants solely because they're inside a womb.
I also think there are situations in which an abortion isn't advisable (specifically late-term, but I'm not willing to draw a line in the sand and say it should never be allowed).
Why are you not willing to? Do you have a hard stance on killing infants outside of a womb? What's the difference to you?
But generally speaking, I think that if we're talking about a woman who finds out she's pregnant in the first trimester, she should have access to abortion no matter what, pending extenuating circumstances, most of which I probably can't imagine.
Agreed.
I absolutely do not believe that appeals to "personal responsibility" should stand in the way of someone getting an abortion, especially if they can pay for it. Forcing someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy (especially if that person can afford an abortion and learns of the pregnancy early) simply because they were "irresponsible" or whatever strikes me as the height of pretentiousness and lunacy.
Your whole position thus far has been quite looney TBH. You seem to have nothing at all underlying your views and it makes me wonder why you would even believe in any laws against harming any person of any context.
