That's just a load of hogwash.Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy when they have no wish to do so is unjustifiable, whatever their reasons and whatever the circumstances which caused them to become pregnant. The touted justification, that it preserves the life of the unborn, is insufficient, clearly so in early pregnancy.
Framing the matter in terms of "force" is unnecessary, unwarranted, and poisoning. I might just as easily replace that word wit "responsibility," or "privilege." It is their responsibility to bring that pregnancy to term. It is their privilege to do so, to bring new life into the world. The force is justifiable in light of the human life inherent in the pregnancy. There are literally scores of laws preventing people from killing other humans; no one has a right to kill the human life in an unwanted pregnancy.
Yep, and that is a valid justification.The touted justification, that it preserves the life of the unborn, is insufficient, clearly so in early pregnancy.
There are no degrees of justification when it comes to the unnecessary killing of a human life.It becomes more justifiable as pregnancy progresses, for a number of reasons.
Your opinion is murderously malodorous.In my opinion...
If by "health" you mean "physical life" then I agree and have stated that very position earlier. If by "health and well-being" you mean quality of life then I thoroughly disagree; quality of life does not outweigh existence of life. This is where the pro-abortion side has long asserted and taught a fallacy. They been able to argue a false equivalence and fool some. Your, my, her quality of life does not trump another's existence of life.....the best paradigm for deciding whether an abortion is justifiable or not is to consider the risk to the health and well-being of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy continues.
Look at what else you've just done. You started out asserted the length of gestation and then switched over to the mother's quality of life.
I respectfully recommend you get educated. Most miscarriages occur within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. Less than 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and less than 5% of them occur after 20 weeks. Similar statistics apply to other risks. What you're arguing is a case of extremes. Reasonable, rational social and legal policy is not set by argument ad absurdum.If this is greater than the risk of the abortion procedure, then the abortion should go ahead if she wishes it. All pregnancies carry risks. In early pregnancy, chemical abortion is virtually risk free, hence abortion on demand is quite acceptable. In later pregnancy more intrusive abortion procedures entail more risk, so risks of continuing the pregnancy would need to be greater than the base risk that any pregnancy entails. A woman wanting an abortion at say 14 weeks would need to convince her doctor that her health, physical or mental, was at risk if the pregnancy continues. By 24 weeks the risk of continuing would need to be extreme, or the chances of delivering a healthy baby very slim, for abortion to be justified.
And quality of life does not outweigh existence of life. A woman does not have a right to a speculatively "better life" over the existence of the human fetus's life. When her physical (not mental) life is at risk then the matter becomes one life or another, the existence of one life or the existence of another. Everything else attempts to make quality of life equal with the existence of life and that is a false equivalence. They are not equal.
That's just hogwash and since no rationale for that opinion was provided it is unjustified hogwash. You're going to end up predicating abortion of medical science and medicine will eventually be able to help a fetus outside the womb from conception. The day that happens your line of reasoning will instantly render abortion illegal.You will notice that I do not consider the effect on the unborn foetus of abortion at any point. At least not prior to 24 weeks. That is deliberate. Until capable of surviving delivery, the foetus has no integral rights at all.
That is called situational ethics.
All life has a right to exist. That is what is enshrined in the US Constitution.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The pro-abortion side has always attempted to pit "Life" against "the Pursuit of Happiness," but 1) they are not equal, and 2) the Constitution then stipulates how the federal government is supposed to do that and the limits it has thereof. This may be different in your country, but in the US that unborn human does in fact have a right to life and that right always and everywhere any and all questions of another's quality of life. There can be no quality of life without the existence of life. There can be no pursuit of happiness absent the existence of life.
The false equivalence has always been incorrect. From that one fallacy a plethora of others have ensued.
The resistance to Godwin's Law is palpable.If she loves and cherishes her unborn child, as most women do, then so should the medical professionals looking after her, for her sake. She is the patient, not the foetus. If she wants rid, and her abortion can be justified, then her wishes should be met. This is not a wonderful or praiseworthy reality, but the alternatives are worse. Oppressing people for the sake of an early foetus is just not acceptable.
People's emotions change. We do not base sound social, political, and/or legal policy based on affect. Love is irrelevant. Yes, it should exist but one person's value or affection for another does not entitle or empower killing.
I again respectfully recommend you become better informed. The patient status of a viable fetus is an essential ethical concept. Look it up. Just as a doctor can be prosecuted both criminally and civilly in the court of law for neglecting or abusing medical care that injures or kills any child-out-side-of-the-womb or adult human, so to can and should that happen when done to humans inside the womb. The fetus is the patient, along with the mother.She is the patient, not the foetus.
With respect: you have a number of factual errors in your case, and you have a number of logical fallacies therein as well. Assuming you value reason, I encourage you to reflect on the elements of your case and examine them more closely because they do not stand up to critical examination.