And people who are opposed to this are afraid to speak out, for the fear of being branded as politically incorrect.
This kind of statement never fails to make me laugh. People who oppose abortion, feminism, gay rights, etc. 'speak out'
all the time. They 'speak out' loudly, in the most widely
read/
watched media outlets in the world. They get elected en masse to governments all over the world. They are never out of the media, and
all they talk about is how afraid they are to 'speak out'.
They constantly repeat this ridiculous claim from their gigantic platform in a cynical attempt to portray themselves as the underdogs, representing the silent majority in a fight against the all-powerful left-wing machine. This could not be further from the truth, as polling continues to show a steady increase in public support for socially progressive causes, while conservative media outlets and political parties continue to enjoy higher levels of funding. They are also (to my knowledge) the only people to use the term "politically correct" - what they really mean when they say they have been 'branded' is that some-one called them out on their bullshit, and a large proportion of the population believes their views are silly.
Back in the world of sensible ethical debate:
The question of when to afford the rights and status of a human is (contrary to many claims) a difficult one. Sure, conception is a neat, easily distinguishable line, but what really is the moral or scientific case for defining it as the start of life? (apart from the religious argument that "that's when the soul enters" - as if we could possibly know even if souls existed, which they probably don't.) A fertilised embryo has the potential to become a fully functioning human, but so does every individual sperm and egg. For me, the most meaningful definition for the start of life - and the most appropriate time to start defending the right to life - is the point at which a being becomes conscious or self-aware to a meaningful extent.
Self-evidently, babies are (very) self-aware by the time they are born, making the idea of a 'post-birth abortion' immoral, but it is also evident that newly-fertilised embryos are not. The question of where consciousness truly begins is a matter for scientific research. I think we should err on the side of earlier limits in the meantime, but I think the proposal to ban all abortions from the point of conception is an insensible one.
Now, debate me. But please stop (a) misrepresenting the daft views of a minority (dredged up and reported by right-wing news sites) as those of the majority of feminists and progressives, and (b) implying that anyone is trying to silence you.
Also, whatever the ethics surrounding abortion, surely we can agree that
after a miscarriage has occurred (deliberately induced or otherwise), and the parents have chosen not to take the remains away to bury or cremate themselves, there is no harm in incinerating them, and in recovering energy from the process.