THE PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENT
Pro-Choice states that a woman has moral status which overrides that of the fetus she is carrying. A woman has the legal  
right to determine what happens to and within her own body to maintain her liberty, body integrity and to possibly save her  
life (where birth may put the woman′s life in jeopardy). Therefore legally a woman is not obligated to complete an unwanted  
pregnancy. Having said that Pro-Choice does not condone abortion as a means of contraception, and who would want to?
For a fetus to be be given a moral standing where it′s life can be considered by a Pro-Choicer it must achieve what is called
pershonhood. The following attributes create a state of personhood:

1. The capacity to have conscious experiences, including pain and pleasure.
2. The capacity to experience emotion.
3. The capacity to solve complex problems.
4. The capacity to communicate.
5. Having a concept of Self.
6. The capacity to regulate one′s own actions through moral principles and ideals.

Basically only those who have the psychological attributes of a person can be morally considered with regards to abortion.
It seems negative from one point of view but legally this allows women the choice of abortion where the pregnant female is  
underage (and particularly where having the baby may jeopardise the female′s life), where the pregnancy is the result of rape  
and where the baby is the victim of a congenitally debilitating disease or condition (AIDs for example). Also it is a
confirmation of female rights in our society, one in which patriarchal religion has denied women for centuries, and without
clinical abortion some women may feel the need to use more dangerous home methods.

One negative is that the attributes that allow a fetus′s life to be given a moral consideration are anthropocentric and exclude some nh
animals fetuses′ (with current knowledge and beliefs about animal personhood) from being valued at all. Then I′d say that a  
female human most often chooses abortion whereas a female nh animal cannot be proven to make this choice therefore it would  
be immoral to carry out a nh animal abortion not knowing the what the nh animal desires to be done.


THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT

Pro-Life believe that killing a person is absolutely impermissable and that killing an adult and abortion of a fetus are
synonymous.

Killing an adult is immoral because doing so denies that person the right to discover and live a hitherto and thereupon
unknown future potential; abortion denies the fetus this right also.

Pro-life believe that to choose a point in time in which the fetus becomes a person is arbitrary and denies the fetus a  
possible future conscious life of pleasures and good experiences. Having said this, Pro-Lifers rarely believe that a woman
must put her life in danger if a pregnancy becomes complicated and rarely would they believe that one must carry out the
pregnancy of a rape (noted exceptions being the Catholic Church in some instances, maybe all).

SUMMARY

The Pro-Choicer stance is a psychologically based stance where a human must have a certain psychological maturity to have the  
right to life.

The Pro-Lifer stance is a genetically based stance where a human has a right to life because it carries the human genome. I′m
not sure where Pro-Lifers stand in regards to animals but I′m sure there are supporters there.

A plant based metaphor for the two arguments is:
Pro-Lifers would say you cannot destroy an acorn because you are in essence destroying a tree whereas Pro-Choicers would say
that the acorn is not a tree.

Where do Vegans stand in relation to human abortion?

I think I commented on this on a previous thread, but my views are that veganism is about compassion and the caring and concern for the weak, the defenceless and the voiceless.  I don′t buy this "foetus not being a person till X number of weeks" - it is a live, growing and developing person from conception.  It has been shown that the new being reacts to soothing music, loud noises, anger, its mother′s moods, all sorts of stimuli.  Ultrasound pictures have shown the unborn smiling and thumb sucking.  Any woman whose pregnancy has progressed far enough for the baby to be kicking like it′s at football practice, will tell you that it is very much alive!!
Anyone who says otherwise is kidding herself.

1. I think that these actions prove that they do have the capacity to have conscious experiences.

2. As it is, a good percentage of the world population would appear to be completely devoid of emotion (especially those contemplating abortion for convenience!)

3. The capacity to solve complex problems??  Come now!!  I know of many adult people who hold positions of authority who can′t solve SIMPLE problems!!!  (We might feel like flushing some of THEM down the loo, but the law says we can′t!!)

4. Communicate?  A kick in the belly when there is too much racket going on, is, to my mind, certainly trying to tell you something!!

5. Having a concept of self?  Watch them on ultrasound for a while, and tell me that they don′t know they are there!!

6. The capacity to regulate one′s own actions through moral principles and ideals?
Well THAT takes the cake coming from the Pro-Choice crowd!!  Talking of abortion and moral principles in the same breath would be the height of hypocricy, wouldn′t it?  If that was the criterion for whether a person was allowed to live or die - well - wouldn′t THAT reduce the world population dramatically!  No meat-eaters, no vivisectors, no "sporting" shooters, no pedophiles, no murderers, no thieves, no....................!

Actually, it doesn′t sound such a bad idea after all!

Hey Dark horse - don′t hold back will you! I tend to agree with you but I would be more diplomatic - good on you for being totally honest.
I also think there is a big problem with the pro-choice definition of personhood. If this were the case then there are lots of human beings already alive who would fail. I will give the benefit of the doubt to George Bush, John Howard and others who don′t seem to be very good at solving complex problems and/or seem to be lacking in decent moral principals and ideals. This definition would mean that the parents of children with intellectual disabiliities could take their children to a doctor to be put down just as we can do with our pets. It seems to me the definition of personhood needs to exclude numbers 5 & 6 and 3 needs to have complex omitted.
The problem with a lot of pro lifers is that they also hold to this inadequate view of personhood. In reality this means that if you are a human you are automatically a person but if you are a non human you do not meet the criteria and therefore you are not a person and have no rights. Although most primates would pass the test as it is.
Ultimately as a community I think we should heavily condemn abortion for convenience. We need to put structures in place help the mother who is poor/scared/pressured to have an abortion so she can have her baby with confidence that she will be supported.

Yeah, I found the Pro-Choice argument lacking and the Pro-Life argument seemed a much better argument to me.

Most Pro-Choicers though do not believe abortion is a convenience. There are hardly any women who would suffer abortive surgery for convenience sake.

As regards the definitions of Pro-Choice, their solution to having children put down would be that they have the ability to support themselves outside of their mother and so are no longer subordinate to their mother′s moral standing.

Point 3 does exclude Intellectual Disability, but then we return to the question of higher order animals.  Society is hell-bent on distinguishing how we treat and value animals from how we treat  and value ourselves based upon our intellectual capacity. Without wanting to sound churlish this view does put some animals′ moral value and interests above that of some of the intellectually disabled in our species.

So currently it would seem that a Vegan should be Pro-Life in all matters but this makes for problems in our society. If we legally enforced this (Family First Party scenario) then we enforce that women must continue a pregnancy that is the result of rape, or an underage female must continue a pregnancy where it is not feasible or safe to do so. It also abrogates a woman′s right to decide what happens to her body and the Women Liberationists would have a field day with this.

On the other hand if a Vegan is Pro-Choice (flimsy Pro-Choice argument aside) then a Vegan is hypocritically condemning involuntary animal abortion whilst providing choice for our own species. Involuntary or not both nh animal and human abortions are carried out by persons with greater moral standing and value than the beings who are subjected to it.

Your thoughts?

I am going to take a deep breath and come at this issue from any different perspective...

For me abortion is a inherently a human rights issue.  But the right to life is not a right to any kind of life and other rights then determine the standard of that life for example, the right to be free from torture, the right to participate in society, the right to vote etc.

Rights inevitably clash.  Hate speech is a clash of the freedom of speech can clash with the right to equality.  When they do each claim has to be weighed against the other.

In the absence of any kind of social assistance for mothers to be who go through with their pregnancies (tipping the balance in favour of the unborn child), the consequences of the birth will lay squarely on the mother to be and, where applicable, her partner and family.  So she is the only one who can balance her right to a life and the unborn child′s right to life (again bearing in mind this is not a right to any kind of life).
I see the failure (in both human rights and criminal law) to adequately protect women from domestic violence, this being seen as a private issue, as at odds with abortion as a public issue.  Without the provision of adequate (and I mean adequate) social services, this is a private matter.  Make the issue a public issue, by providing proper support for the mother and the child after birth, or leave it as a private one.

Bringing the discussion back to veganism, it could be argued that veganism is no more than an exercise of a person′s right to life, and to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.  But as a an exercise of a right it is going to constantly clash with the exercise of other rights.  I am a person who is very environmentally aware.  For me veganism forms part of that awareness but at the same time would seem to clash.  For example, I choose not to wear leather or wool but what should I wear instead?  Are synthetic fabrics less likely to break down over time?  What are the by-products of the production of synthetic fabrics?  If I don′t support the use of organic fertiliser, what fertilisier is being used?  How will it effect the environment, my health the health of those using it?  Need I even mention b12?  The list just goes on and on.  That is, veganism for me is not an overriding, supreme ideology it is something that involves a constant weighing of priorities.  In the instances listed above I am weighing my right to be vegan against other people′s right to a sustainable environment.

But these are decisions I make for myself, they are not decisions that I see as having an impact on others. For me, being vegan is a purely personal choice, something I do to feel that I doing the most I can to contribute to a world that is not unduly cruel (humans and non-humans) and that is sustainable.
I think that making abortion a vegan issue is really giving too much weight to our own beliefs and putting the balance out of whack.

I do hope my argument makes some kind of sense...

As an afterthought, abortion is actually illegal in most Australian jurisdictions.  It is reliance on common law which allows the performance of abortions.  That means, that all abortions are ultimately subject to criminal prosecution and challenge in the courts.  Not a very comforting thought for any mother to be and definitely puts the gravity of her decision in perspective.

In reply to the comments made by Jackqueline I would like to add the following: -
Is Jackqueline saying that having children is actually bad for the environment? (and therefore shouldn′t be encouraged)
I admit that I felt that way before I actually had children. However, when my unplanned pregnancy occurred I chose not to kill my daughter. I also chose to keep her, mainly because of the many books I read regarding the consciousness of the (as yet unborn) child. If it hadn′t been for all those people who chose to speak out about this issue I might have made a different decision - and now I would have nothing but regrets. I was certainly never encouraged to make the decisions I made by any of the people around me who were supposed to care for me. By keeping this issue private you will deny support to young women who may make a decision they will always regret.

Firstly, I am not suggesting that having children is bad for the environment, I was using that as a way fo explaining how I feel that my veganism is something that has to weighed against other concerns.

As regards public and private decisions, I am talking about public and private in the sense of public and private spheres rather than public being something is known and private being something that is not.  I would say that that is abortion is going to be a public decision, that is a decision made by the public (through policy, legislation etc) on behalf of mothers-to-be the public sholuld be more involved in each aspect of that decision, reponsible as opposed to authoratative (or dictatorial).

By all means information should be made available, and in all respects (not just abortion), but the decision itself should be of the mother-to-be and not of the public.

I am not commenting on the debate here except to say:   Peter, is it diplomatic to say that you would be more diplomatic ?!

Peter is always more diplomatic Judith, and that′s why he is President.  And he doesn′t get ulcers either!

100,000 healthy babies are aborted each year in Australia, and 75,000 of those with medicare funding, and yet it is a crime for terminally ill people in extreme pain to kill themselves. Huh? Seems to me someone has lost the plot somewhere.

Seems like babies are as disposable as cats, dogs, cows, pigs, chickens....

Personally I feel this issue has many variables.

For me, I believe abortion is murder and I wouldn′t choose to have one. Having said that, I would never judge someone a murderer if they did. I know that doesn′t make sense, so let me try to extrapolate a little further....

Somewhere in the world a woman is being raped every second! That is a lot of unwanted pregnancies! It is unfair to expect a woman to have the baby of a man who brutally raped her.

In some circumstances the birth of a baby could put the life of the mother in jeopardy. I would probably think seriously about aborting in this instance.  I know if the mother was someone I loved I would encourage this too.

If a pregnancy resulted from child molestation (girls are getting their first period younger and younger these days) I would feel abortion is more than warrented.  

There are instances when a man has had a vesectomy and told that there is no chance of impregnating a woman, and he does...

This issue is such a contentious one that I don′t think it will ever be resolved completely. I do think it is important to remember that one can never completely understand these women′s situations until they have lived through the experiences themselves. And, in my opinion, it is unfair (presumptuous even) to set yourself up as their judge and jury.

I would hate to see the days of coathanger abortions and unsanitary illegal abortions return with avengance. I would like to think we are a progressive nation. Perhaps we should be spending more on education and prevention...

Ness

As my husband keeps telling me - I never DO know when to shut my mouth, and this, no doubt, is one of the times I should.   And I′m afraid as I am not very well educated and my brain cells are dying at a great rate of knots, my response won′t be as well presented as jackqueline′s, but---------

This is a bit of an aside, but when people talk about the environment, the choice regarding shoes so often seems to come down to either leather or synthetics, but what′s the matter with linen or hemp or other fibres?  I have had many beaut shoes made from linen with rubber soles.  They looked neat (admittedly they only had a small heel - not spikes) were comfortable, environmentally friendly, a good price and came in an assortment of colours.

But back to abortion -- I don′t know who worked out that a rape occurrs every second, but it certainly sounds like a lot of rapes.   I haven′t attempted to tally it all up, but I feel fairly certain that conception would occur in only a very small number of these cases.  What I would like to say though is that it is even more frightening that there is this level of violence and crime in one particular area, without even starting on theft, murder, embezzelment aged abuse, child abuse and so on.   I find it mind boggling trying to picture this number of rapes and presumably, a similar number of bashings, thefts, murders etc every second of every day.  I′m still having difficulty trying to picture 5,700 dead sheep on the Cormo Express!  Perhaps we should all be too frightened to ever leave our homes?

Contraception is so easily available and it is so cheap and in a lot of cases free - kids have had sex education in the schools for many years (and I DON′T mean in the playground!!), there are even child care facilities at some schools for children who have children of their own!!  I think so much of all this comes down to responsibility for one′s own actions.  There are exceptions, of course, but I think these are few and far between.  I think it would be nice if we went back to a few old fashioned values - commitment, respect, caring for those in need (maybe this is what veganism is about?) - instead of this instant gratification, this obsession with self that is so evident today.

As jackqueline said, abortion is against the law (I always thought it was, anyway) so how come Medicare pays out for all these illegal operations?  Where are the law enforcers?  Is this on a par with the new penalties that were introduced for animal cruelty cases but which are never enforced?

I also think it is a wee bit presumtuous to assume that those who object to abortion have not been in that position.  Perhaps that could be the very reason they do object?

I reirterate, "somewhere in the world a woman is being raped every second." That is actually being conservative! There are 5 billion people in the world. These are the statistics for America alone (240 million people)...

RAPE STATISTICS
· In the U.S., 1.3 women are raped every minute. That′s 78 rapes per hour.

· 1 out of every 3 American women will be assaulted in her lifetime.  

· 1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.

· 78% of rape victims know the attacker.

· Rape has a devastating impact on the mental health of victims.

· Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police. In a survey of victims who did not report rape or attempted rape to the police, the following was found as to why no report was made. 43% thought nothing could be done. 27% felt it was a private matter, 12% were afraid of police response, and 12% felt it was not important enough.

_____________________________________


But don′t just take my word for it. You can do a search on google too.  There is absolutely no reason to remain ignorant, rape is more common than most people think.

You said:
"I haven′t attempted to tally it all up, but I feel fairly certain that conception would occur in only a very small number of these cases."

Maybe you should attempt to tally it up! Good luck...

Ness

A longitudinal study in the United States estimated that over 32,000 pregnancies result each year from rape in victims age 12 to 45 years (Holmes et al. 1996).

CDC - Centres for Disease Control
www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm

I knew this would be a timely debate as now the Liberals are talking about abrogating women′s rights.

That is just too scary to even contemplate.

I believe the abortion issue is too deeply rooted in religious beliefs to allow it to be viewed with a fair amount of objectivity.

I was recently having a discussion about this with some American vegans. They are terrified that Bush′s re-election will force his staunch christian beliefs on their nation, particularly since he has now gained control of the senate. Needless to say he is pro-life (with the exeption of Iraqi women and children, of course!).

Can you still call a country that makes political decisions based on religious ideals a democracy?

Ness

What about the baby′s rights, Duane?  
And I′m an atheist and nor did I vote Liberal, so where do I fit in here?

How about for every baby aborted because of rape, we execute the perpetrator?  Maybe that would be a good way to cut down on the rape figures? Or are we supposed to take pity on the rapist and try to rehabilitate him and just leave it at killing the baby? We can′t kill rapists or murderers -- terminally ill people can′t kill themselves or get help to do so from loved ones, - just kill the babies who didn′t ask to be in this sorry mess? And animals too, of course.

Sounds to me like we′re a pretty sick and sorry lot and this is a pretty lousy world we live in.  It is no wonder 50 billion animals are killed and eaten each year without a qualm. 

LOL, Dark Horse just to prove that there is an argument for and against just about everything...

You Said:
"How about for every baby aborted because of rape, we execute the perpetrator?  Maybe that would be a good way to cut down on the rape figures? Or are we supposed to take pity on the rapist and try to rehabilitate him...."

I was just reading a scientific article that stated rape may be an evolutionary tactic to increase chances of survival of our species! Apparently, in the author′s opinion, some men are genetically predisposed to rape....

Let′s hope, if that were in fact true, they never find a way of identifying these genes. Some men may see that as permission.

Ness

ROTFL, Veganessa was the study that proffered a genetic excuse for rapists carried out by a male? :-D There′s this cool book called The Mismeasure of Women written by Carol Travis that shows a lot of stupid assumptions and conclusions published when male-centric scientific views delineate upon apparently objectively arrived at results.  

The right-brain/left-brain argument is one of them. It seems over the decades whichever side of the brain is considered the most powerful gets attributed to males whilst the female gets left with a predisposition to the "weaker side" of the brain.

Unfortunately for humans I am pro-nh-animals but not pro-human-animal so I′m pro-choice. Rapists are bottom dwellers and should be executed whenever in visual range, best way to stop a gene is to end its transmission elsewhere.

Women rape too, though rarer and most often in packs rather than the single or two person style male rape; would a male scientist excuse female rapists with the same conclusions?

I honestly thought this argument was dead and buried years ago. I bet if there were extensive tax revenue involved in abortion the Government wouldn′t give it so much attention.

Not one male author..... but two! And, one of them is named Randy! LOL....

Here′s what one woman thought of the book...

http://www.s8int.com/dirty.html

Disappointing the discussion thus far has remained largely within the perimeter of the pro-life/pro-choice argument. Tit for tat the ping bong ball bounces between these two camps. Lets hit the ball out of this semantic
volley, into the stadium stands where we′ve sidelined all the other creatures of the Earth with our philosophical navel gazing.( excuse the pun)

Abortion is just one plank among many issues connected with the overarching topic of human fecundity. By our obscene numbers we dominate, vandalise and undermine the Earth. To give one  sands through the hourglass statistic, there are only 414 000 great apes alive in the wild today which correlates to two day′s human population growth. It only befits vegans to be pro-life when it′s in the full sense of the term, that is pro-all life, felt with a reach that embraces biodiversity. The logical extension of this is an unqualified support for  woman′s right to choose. Or to put it another way. It is because I am consistently pro-life that I am unreservedly pro-choice.

Scientists have a term for the entire amount of plant mass created on the world in a single year, the total budget for life. It′s known as the planet′s primary productivity. It has been measured that humans, one species among millions consume 40% of Earth′s primary productivity. 40% of all there is! A higher uptake of vegetarianism is going to mediate this figure but it isn′t going to go far enough. Human population control within our lifetime is the only hope that exists for all life.

Many forums on this website testify to this movements′s concern for domesticated animals. What of the species we haven′t co-opted into our human endeavours? Where is the concern for the rights of these species? They have the impulse to reproduce, to continue their tenure on the Earth, to associate with their own kind, to interact with a myriad of other species. The swelling plagues of humans is sabotaging all of this splendour. We′ve got a hide applying the term ′plague′ to cockroaches, loccast, pigeons and rodents and yet not being comfortable refering to ourselves that way.

Duane suspects that " the attributes that allow a foetus life to be given moral consideration are anthropocentric." I′d go further and say the whole pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy is anthropocentric. While we debate whom it is we shall admit to our moral community we do so through a filter of western individualism the result being we prevaricate over the rights (or lack of) of each human foetus as though it was of great import. Meanwhile the dark ages have truly descended over the non-human beings of the Earth. The scale and sadism of contemporary methods of exploitation and extermination is without precedent and without check. Recent media has reported Australian′s have the 4th largest ecological footprint in the world. We who abstain from animal products may grasp at the idea that this isn′t a reflection of our chosen lifestyles yet who among us can deny the ecological cost of monocultures of cotton, soybean,corn,sugar not to mention the production of petrol, plastics and synthetics. Our pattern of consumption looks good comparatively. But the point of reference is the inefficient, meat-based system, It′s time we sought a new reference point. Shouldn′t our concern be not only for the beings we coopt into our factories but also for the one′s we displace with our housing, agriculture and industry? We are all implicated in this.

Jacqueline contradicts herself on one hand being self-depreciating ′..being vegan is a purely personal choice." and then stating "..abortion is inherently a human rights issue. " I affirm both decisions are political acts and further state the issue of unfettered and universal access to abortion is an animal liberationist′s issue. There can be no question of the human population burgeoning without the rights of animals- to exist, to have food, to successfully rear their young being infringed upon.

Peter Milne reccommends " ultimately as a community I think we should heavily condemn abortion for convenience." I guess I′m not a member of your ′community′ as I′ll never ostracise women for exercising their reproductive freedoms. It′s time we abandoned the antiquated Christian belief that women are invariably afflicted with a lack of moral fortitude if they procure an abortion. In all our actions we should be empowerig women. Considering that women occupy 80% of the animal rights movement doing this is perhaps the only outside chance this planet has of enduring. Abortion is not a dirty word, is not a moral crime nor should it be a shameful secret. Abortion is part of the arsenal we have at our disposal to limit population growth and the attendant tyranny of humans over non-humans. It is as negligent not to accept the use of abortion as it would be to ′heavily′ chastise those making use of contraception. (don′t misunderstand me I′m not equating one with the other.)

We′d do a greater justice to the creatures we currently do not ′share′ this Earth with if we expanded this forum to the question "Where do vegans stand in relation to the expanding  human population?"
I′d be very interested to read what others have to say.
Those interested in catching up on the sobering extent of the crisis/robbery can visit
www.population.org.au

I agree with you, spidermonkey.  There are far too many humans on this earth, and many of the ones already here we could well do without!  But I do not think abortion is the way to go about reducing the population.  What I would like to see is a scheme similar to that in China where only one child is allowed per couple -- and to improve on that, the male then has to front up for a vasectomy.  This is far more cost effective than the female undergoing a tubal ligation.

As for women having the right to choose an abortion, they also had the right to use contraception too.  In the case of pregnancies which are supposed to be a result of rape, are tests ever done to ascertain that these babies are not from other sexual activity?  And of course it is TOO much to ask that a baby be carried full term and given to a couple who desperately WANT a child but can′t have one of their own!

I read at the weekend that the majority of women who line up for an abortion are NOT the poor innocent, uneducated kids, but well educated, working women often from two income families, who presumably, want to pay off their houses quickly or whatever.  Everything is "instant" these days.  No-one is prepared to go without for a while.

As for monoculture, most of the grain and soy is fed to food animals, and the logical answer is to make it harder and too expensive for people to eat meat.  Maybe then the crops could be kept to a more realistic level.  And if we were not supplying all this food and water (for food animals) we would not have the same number of kangaroos and mice etc taking advantage of the easy pickings.

I agree with your comment "The scale and sadism of contemporary methods of exploitation and extermination is without precedent and without check.", but I also apply this to the foetus who is as innocent and voiceless as any of the non-human animals who are also being butchered by us.  Let adults take responsibility for their actions.  I see the "attendant tyranny of humans over non-humans" to which you refer, spidermonkey, as being akin to the tyranny being inflicted on the human beings which  cannot speak for themselves!   I wonder the reaction from some of the women if they were asked to hold the bucket containing the baby, while the abortionist finished tidying up.  I wonder too, just how many abortionists are women?

I think it will be a sad day when morals have flown out the window completely and "empowering women" means that they can choose abortion at will over a good, safe form of contraception such as tubal ligation.  Morals isn′t a religious or political issue- it′s a simple matter of right and wrong and caring for the weak and innocent rather than concerned with self all the time. But if abortion is to be seen as part of our arsenal to limit population growth, I would like to think that the baby, rather than being flushed down the toilet, is put to good use - used for experiments such as trying to grow organs, instead of using pigs -  and other animals which are bred to endure all manner of horrors for our supposed benefit.

If we do not think of abortion as a moral issue we will never be free of slaughterhouses.

I think the poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox, that most of you would know, says it all for me.

I am the voice of the voiceless;
Through me the dumb shall speak,
Till the deaf world′s ear be made to hear
The wrongs of the wordless weak.

And I am my brother′s keeper,
And I will fight his fight,
And speak the word for beast and bird,
Till the world shall set things right.

I used to feel the same as DarkHorse when I was younger. All those teenage girls being irresponsible and falling pregnant. Then in middleage I fell pregnant. I could not believe this was happening to me. I prided myself on being responsible. I was on the pill. I had only gone to the doctor because I had been bleeding for 6 weeks. My son was grown up. I had been a single mum who loved her child but I was looking forward to my freedom when he left home. I had spent my life looking after other people and wanted time to look after me. I had an abortion. I didn′t even need to think about it. The bleeding alone was enough cause for concern that the foetus was damaged. The experience made me realize how lucky I was to be able to have a safe termination by skilled medical practitioners. If it had been illegal, I would have had to choose between a dangerous backyard abortion, having a child I certainly did not want, or going through the trauma of birth and adoption. I have since had a tubal ligation. Sometimes life puts us to the test and we have to make decisions on things we did not anticipate. Every choice we make depends on the circumstances of the moment. We just do the best we can.

A couple of quotes to add to the mix-

"Within the context of nature, all animals abort their young if they cannot guarantee the welfare of their offspring...Anthropocentric society values quantity of life over quality of life. The greater the number of humans on the planet: the cheaper each individual life becomes."
  Paul Watson. Head of the Sea Sheppard Society

"I think women can be morally responsible to know when a child should be born and when a child should not be. I trust women. I don′t think the anti-abortion movement trusts women. For the antiabortionist the absent referent is the woman. It′s clear when you look at the pictures of fetuses they′re floating in the air as if they are coming down from the clouds. ...There is no reason to think that carrying every human fetus is natural."
Carol J Adams. Author of "The Sexual Politics of Meat"

And from Jim Soorley in response to the current parlimentary discussion.
"You have to wonder why these men feel so strongly about this. One of them is suggesting that any woman seeking a later-stage abortion must submit to intense counselling.
     If only women intending to have a baby and raise her/him for 18 years were required to have even one session with a professional to assess their suitability for the role.
     No, the intervention is reserved for the woman who decides, usually with a lot of pain, that for many reasons it would not be right for her  to have a child."

Artist,
this brings up the issue where a person has gone out of their way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and it happens anyway. You know one of the more prevalent causes of an unwanted pregnancy is the Menopause Baby.

Lots of women are given the false impression that once menopause hits there is no further need for contraception and hey presto menopause hits and next thing they know they are pregnant with a child who will be anywhere between 40 to 50+ years younger than themselves.

I was talking yesterday to one of my work colleagues and she said that menopause is to be expected to arrive anywhere between 20 to 55 years old these days.  

It was only some months ago that medical science finally realised that women are not born with a set number of eggs that eventually run out but that the eggs are produced continuously throughout a woman′s life (It took us less time to work out the Earth wasn′t flat!) Common sense would have told them that. So there is always a fresh supply of eggs available for pregnancies way into a woman′s fifties. The oldest known pregnancy that I know of was a woman of 64 years in some Southern European country.