This is a variation on the “Violinist argument” described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment). It has been around for a while, and as one of the few arguments which allows for fetus’ humanity, it has a lot of force. However, there are many good refutations (just google it), including here http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/02/violinist-argument.html and here http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html. The simplest, to me (although maybe not the most convincing to everyone) is that we don’t have the right to kill people because they are dependent on us. In the case of a pregnancy, particularly, the physical dependency has a reliably limited time span, and in most cases, the physical dependency doesn’t incapacitate the mother for long (if at all). A mother caring for a child with profound disabilities usually has much greater physical hardship, with no natural end in sight, and we don’t allow her to kill the child. Rather, she is expected to (at least) keep the child alive until other arrangements can be made for his/her care.

Speaking of other arrangements, here’s a plug for adoption.

Another POV also mentioned that “If a woman uses a contraceptive pill or a ‘morning after’ pill, or a condom is used are the parents then guilty of failing to provide the neccesities of life? In both situations you are preventing a possible life from coming into the world.”

The problem with abortion is not that it prevents a possible life from coming into the world, but that it kills a human who is already here.

I don’t mean to pick on you, Another POV; others have made similar points to yours. I’m just jumping on yours because they’re more recent, and better stated than most.

1. The focus here has been murder or killing, but what if you looked it at instead as death as an inevitable result (there is a subtle difference). To end someone’s life, lets say by shooting them, is considered murder. However it is not considered murder if you refuse to use your life to support theirs, such as by donating blood to someone with a bullet wound who will die of blood loss if they don’t receive a transfusion. So – you are forbidden from using your body to take a life, but you are not required to support a life by using your body. If the choice is made by the mother that she doesn’t consent to the embryo using her body for life support, then although it may die as a result of not having that life support wouldn’t that be just an associated outcome?

2. The point was raised about pregnancy being part of the natural development of a child – isn’t conception also a natural part of this? How far back do you go? If a woman uses a contraceptive pill or a ‘morning after’ pill, or a condom is used are the parents then guilty of failing to provide the neccesities of life? In both situations you are preventing a possible life from coming into the world.

As a side note, I echo the comments of others, there is no rational basis for excusing what the author seems to consider murder on the basis of rape. The crime itself is not punishable by death, and punishment in any form is given to the offender not a random family member. If the basis of this loophole is that the mother did not choose to become pregnant, then
a) the rights and choice of the mother are taken to be above the rights of the embryo, and
b) any situation then in which the mother could demonstrate that she did not want to be pregnant, such as pill or condom use, would also be excusable if the contraception failed (as it does in a small number of cases), or you could go so far as to include situations in which the mother was drunk at the time of conception and not able to make informed decisions.

I will attempt to explain what you have asked the best I can. Firstly, thanks for your post, it was an interesting, insightful read.

I am interested in Anon1’s comments. Solo parents are in fact better financially supported by the government than they were 40 years ago when my mother decided to bring me up as a solo parent. I am not suggesting it is easy and I accept that my mother and I were stupendously fortunate because my grandparents supported her decision (despite probably not agreeing with it) and helped her with raising me. However, this government does supply the Domestic Purposes Benefit and while it may not be easy to raise children on it that is still an improvement on the way that it was 40 years ago.”

We have all read the numbers of the ‘highest paid’ DPB mums. That said, I know a lot of women who are reduced to poverty due to choosing to keep their unborn child. This is also includes women who have been married or who had partners.
It is fact that when a divorce occurs, or where a woman is on her own to begin with, then she is almost always worse off than the male involved in the situation.
Legally yes, a male is required to pay his ‘share’ of the bill for a child, but this (I believe) is slanted in the favour of the male – or the non primary care-giver. While the person has full custody may pay for a room, clothing etc. the other parent essentially is required to pay a ‘percentage’ of their income. The primary caregiver has no such choice – their income is shared instantly.
I am personally aware of many cases whereby men (and one woman) don’t pay the required amount, or they then go on to have another child and instantly the primary care-givers income goes down.

The primary care-giver also has difficulties in getting employment – their hours generally need to be shorter, they take more time off.
The recent research at Stanford University’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research calls this the “motherhood penalty”, which I suggest looking into for interest sake, if nothing else.

Most, if not all women I know and have known on the DPB take on other work on the side in order to make ends meet.

Have we an improvement? I hope so. But the fact remains that the mother or primary caregiver is very often reduced to poverty.

JAMES: I do have some problem with Anon1’s assertion that many moms cannot provide for their children. It seems to me that the basic physical needs of children can be met by use of the DPB. Note, that I have been careful about my choice of language and have specified “basic” and “physical needs”. It may be that they are to young or otherwise insuffciently mature to supply emotional needs. I am not sure that is a sufficient argument to support abortion, though I would be interested to hear arguments on that point.

Agreed, I am not sure that it justifies abortion either. What I do think it does is open up discussion of the realities of raising an unwanted, unplanned child on your own. Do the day-to-day and long term realities justify abortion?
For many women, motherhood is a sacrifice beyond measure in terms of quality of life. (again, let me know and I’ll point you to the research). Some women who go on to have babe’s will be fine, of course, yet for others it will trigger a path on a downward spiral for decades – financially (logic), emotionally (PND, psychosis, etc), socially (judgment of solo parents, mistrust from other women).
Does a woman losing these basic things (rights?) in her life justify an abortion?

If we live in a country whereby abortion is labeled illegal, then that same country must provide for the mother and child. Otherwise, who are you to sentence a women to that?

Please note – I say these words for women who are not on here. I personally love my children, and had a baby (on my own) at a young age and I found something beyond measure. That said, I’m aware that this is me – I know far too many cases of women who have had these babies, only to not be able to care for them or in other cases CHOOSE not to care for them and I watch while the govt steps in and never really manages to change these children who were screwed from the outset.

Which actually brings me to another entire topic, that of brain development, which I shall write soon.

James – in terms of your established bias towards mother’s I couldn’t agree more! I’ve seen great dad’s deprived of their right to be there for their children. That said, it doesn’t deal with those children who have one or other parent walk away.