Why isn't abortion seen as a woman's right-to-life issue instead of the fetuses right-to-life?

Some people are not reading the question.

If abortion was ILLEGAL. Then illegal abortions would be the only ones possible (back alley).

If they are illegal then there would be no limit on the term of the fetus disposed of. So less preterm abortions and more viable fetus's killed.

For those who are anti abortion, i see no good consequences of making abortions illegal.

I don't think your reasoning really holds up. First of all, let's get rid of the word viable, no matter who it pertains to, because it is too subjective, arguable and imprecise.

So we are back to right to life.

Let's divide pregnancy into 3 trimesters. How many women have an abortion in the first trimester because they know they will die if they don't? How many women who have an abortion in the first trimester know that their baby will die? (You may not want to call it a baby, but I know plenty of people who immediately start decorating a nursery and buying booties for their...whatever.)

Repeat that analysis for the second trimester. So far, I don't think we have many women who had abortions to save their lives. Now in the third trimester, that number increases, but frankly I don't think that number approaches even 10% of abortion figures. much less pregnancy figures. The death rate for whatever you want to call what was aborted is close to 100%.

It is true that women have died in childbrith and continue to do so. But I am guessing that the majority of these deaths are last minute flukes.

Now let's consider the deaths of women from illegal abortions. (I doubt that many die from legal abortions, but some do). Those back alley deaths can only happen when abortion is CHOSEN.

Abortion is still nothing more than one option. It has convenience going for it of course, and carrying through an unwanted pregnancy can be very life-changing, especially for very young girls. But adoption is a very (I want to say viable, lol) option, particularly for whites. And keeping your child is not always a living tragedy.

Pregnancy rarely harms the mother, it's PURPOSE is to bring new life into the world; and there is prenatal care available - the PURPOSE of which is to preserve the lives of mother and child.

Childbirth rarely kills women, it's PURPOSE is to bring a child into the world; and there is care available whose PURPOSE is to preserve the health of mother and child.

Even so-called 'back alley' abortions rarely kill the mother - yes it happens but not nearly as often as NOW or NARAL would have you believe. After all, the PURPOSE is to save the mother, if only because dead patients don't pay well. Even under the best of circumstances, an abortion may have fatal consequences, a hazard that Planned Parenthood goes well out of its way to conceal. The most likely complication is endometrial scarring which impedes subsequent fertility; you'd think those women would be more grateful since they obviously don't want kids anyway.

Abortion *always* kills the fetus because that is its PURPOSE - to end a life. I'm not with the 'life begins at conception' crowd, but it is a proven fact that fetuses are capable of conscious thought at 10 weeks (2 1/2 months) - that's as close to an objective definition of personhood as you'll get. For them, I'd say it is a right to life issue.

OLdbashold, Go read a Biology Book stupid. Life begins at conception it is excepted in the entire Field of biology.

A little science for the atheist morons. Your not a scientist because you hate God, your probably a High school drop out and low wage earner.

A sperm and an egg are not organisms in the same way that apples are not organisms. The Apple Tree is a living organism not the apple. The Zygote (later the Fetus) is a living organism not the sperm and the egg.

Life has: The ability to reproduce DNA, displays growth and development, metabolizes energy, creates waste, homeostasis (at the cellular level), etc. This is science and religion seems to be with it and not with you.

You should learn a bit of science before you start giving lectures. I had a professor Bayne at U-Mass Boston (Phil108) try pushing this ****. Go learn basic biology.

You're making a wild assumption here:

That ALL who are anti-abortion want to illegalize it completely, overnight.

Most of us do not.

What I WOULD like to see though is:

1. Abortions made illegal in the third trimester, except where the mother-to-be's life is concerned. And even in those cases, labor can be induced, and the baby can be delivered prematurely.

2. Abortions restricted in the second trimester to documented rape victims and those whose lives are endangered by the pregnancy.

3. Parental consent REQUIRED for all girls under eighteen wanting an abortion.

4. At least one consultation prior to the abortion, in which the woman is informed of ALL physical and emotional pain she may experience as a result of the abortion. She should also receive a list of people in her area who are willing to adopt, and take on all medical costs, as well as provide her an income for any time lost from her job in delivering the baby.

Abortion should be RESTRICTED, rather than illegalized completely.

I agree with you that otherwise, many women would simply obtain "back-alley" abortions. It would be horrible. We don't want to go back to that.

Would you support the right of a person with a failing heart to kill someone with a compatible organ in order to save his/her life? What you are asking is to accept the death of one in order to avoid the death of another. How can you weigh which life is more valuable, especially when there are options that allow everyone to live? Don't forget, the woman does not have to keep the baby after it is born. However, the baby has no other options.

Saying the woman will just break the law anyway and get a "back street abortion" is accepting a crime instead of enforcing it. Why bother to ban heroin...kids will just buy it anyway and overdose. Why bother to ban rape...guys will just do it anyway. Why bother to ticket speeders...people will just speed anyway. Where do you draw the line?

It's not truly a pro life issue, or what you say would play into it. So would the quality of life for these unwanted babies that would be put up for adoption (in an already stressed system), left in dumpsters, abused, or raised without hope or options. Why should an innocent pay the price for 18yrs for a mistake 2 ppl made in one night? The truth is it is about control. Control over a woman's body, control over what they think your moral judgment should be. We are blind to the truth. I feel each woman is in the best place to decide whats best for her-and to pay consequences either way.

The "wire hanger" argument is a major myth, and those who believe that women would be so utterly stupid to insert steel into their bodies and risk death are naive at best. Even if this were the case, it does not change the essence of the unborn baby: a separate human with its own genetic code, blood type, finger prints, etc.

Before the Supreme Court's judicial power grab in 1973, women who wanted an abortion against the law of their state simply went to a doctor willing to break the law and be paid under the table. Testimony to the contrary was simply a lie and used to manipulate the Justices to vote their way.

Irish laws also prove you wrong. Ireland has banned abortions for years and the streets there are not running with blood.

No, women would not start dying from coat-hanger abortions. They would realize that they would now be responsible for their actions. In the vast majority of cases, they had already "made their choice". Killing another human being is not one of the options.

In like manner, men need to be held accountable for their actions. They need to provide support.

No one has a right that depends on ending the life of another. If a woman thinks that she has the right to get herself knocked-up, then she had better realize that she has incurred an obligation to do everything possible to deliver a healthy baby. You can't have it both ways.

Dear Child: You are a thousand percent correct! The real and only true difference is that it is in every way and in every jurisdiction in America, slavery is illegal and unconstitutional. The holding of people against their will is slavery in the most critical sense of the word. The difference is that a newborn baby or very young toddler will not realize that they are a highly sought-out commodity. If you could go to Wal-Mart and buy a healthy white newborn baby, no one would care whether women had abortions or not. The purpose of the Right-to-Life groups is to make it extremely difficult for a woman to get an abortion, and if that were not enough, they also make it harder and harder for a woman to keep and raise the child herself. A highly important distinction: If the commodification of healthy white newborns is not their goal, why not construct protections for women to not be forced to decide to get an abortion? Out of the other side of their faces comes the demand that not only women be forced to give birth to what is basically an economic parasite, if the women decides to keep her child and try to raise it herself, she is confronted with one of the most hypocritical of statements: If it is not coercion, why is it called being "forced" to relinquish a baby for adoption? If it is just adoption, why are foster homes filled with children who have been orphaned and are readily available and waiting for families to love them and care for them? If it is about availdance of pregnancy, why is birth control and voluntarity sterilization not offiered free to anyone who wants it? If it's about not having sex outside of marriage, why are young people thrown together tinto situations where they are expected to pursue and "score" with the opposite sex from pre-school age onward? I dare all the so-called Pro-Lifers reading this to be honest, at least with yourselves. Don't expect to be allowed to control the lives of others unless you want to have to pay for it, up front!

The number of women who died each year because of so called back-alley abortoins numbers in the hundreds.

But, we've aborted more than 40,000,000 babies since 1973.

Statistics also show a 17% in teen pregnancies in the first year when a state enacts a parental notification law.

Abortion is far too convenient and the statistics show just how disposable babies have become in this country. It's disgusting.

An unborn baby is not given a choice.

Note, I'm not opposed to abortions in the case of medical necessity.