Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not up to men or government to tell a woman what to do but it is the governments job to ensure the safety of others.
In situations like abortion, someone has to get cut loose, whether it's...
The fetus that's being aborted
The emotional, physical, and financial factors of the mother
The medical/judicial safety of the mother
Still not the choice the government should be making of a woman's body. Deciding what to do with a fetus is one of the hardest choices a woman has to make, but it should be her choice to decide if she is ready for a baby or not, unless you are saying the government should take care of all babies until they are adults, which I doubt is the case, and I would still stand by my point of view that the government should not be in control of a woman's body like this.
To answer your question: a fetus has the potential for life the same as an acorn has the potential to be an oak tree.To many people a fetus is not a human life until it is viable outside the womb. That IS a fact that people disagree on when life begins. What Akin's said is total bull designed to help redefine rape and public opinion of rape so that abortions in turn can be denied to all rape victims. i.e. if "they got pregnant then it wasn't a 'legitimate' rape."
I think your analogy is a little off. A seed is dormant and not developing until something triggers it.
A better analogy might be, is an oak tree sapling an oak tree? One might hardly believe that a two-week-old oak tree could possibly ever turn into the giant tree you are familiar with. At early development, the oak saplings have no bark on them at all. They look like little green stems, rather than trees.
So is an oak tree sapling an oak tree?
But more to the point. You talk about child development in regards to viability outside of the womb. But this is only relevant because of how the human reproductive strategy works. Basically, we don't lay eggs.
Lets think of it like sea turtles for a second. A mother sea turtle buries her eggs in the sand, and then leaves them. The question is, at what point do those sea turtles become turtles? Is it while they are still in the mother sea turtle once the eggs are fertilized? Is it when they are laid into the ground? Or is it when they hatch from the eggs? Or maybe even some later date?
I realize it inconveniences women to have to actually carry a baby to term before they can give it up for adoption. But I think it is foolish to pretend that something that is most certainly a human being, just because it doesn't look or act like a human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
It's not up to men or government to tell a woman what to do but it is the governments job to ensure the safety of others.
You want to make this a woman vs government scenario. But in reality, it is a woman vs her unborn child scenario. And since the government has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens. Thus, all it has to do is declare that the unborn child is a citizen, and then that citizen must be protected by the government, even from its own mother.
Would not you say a woman that has an abortion is pro abortion? Would not you say doctors whose living depends on abortions is pro abortion? There are people that are pro abortion. I am pro abortion. The less welfare bums having babies the better off we are.
Tell me what doctor makes a living only upon abortions?
No one is "pro-abortion", people are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice."
Todd Akin is a jerk and he just said what the rest of his party was thinking. There was only one ignorant statement.
I think your analogy is a little off. A seed is dormant and not developing until something triggers it.
A better analogy might be, is an oak tree sapling an oak tree? One might hardly believe that a two-week-old oak tree could possibly ever turn into the giant tree you are familiar with. At early development, the oak saplings have no bark on them at all. They look like little green stems, rather than trees.
So is an oak tree sapling an oak tree?
But more to the point. You talk about child development in regards to viability outside of the womb. But this is only relevant because of how the human reproductive strategy works. Basically, we don't lay eggs.
Lets think of it like sea turtles for a second. A mother sea turtle buries her eggs in the sand, and then leaves them. The question is, at what point do those sea turtles become turtles? Is it while they are still in the mother sea turtle once the eggs are fertilized? Is it when they are laid into the ground? Or is it when they hatch from the eggs? Or maybe even some later date?
I realize it inconveniences women to have to actually carry a baby to term before they can give it up for adoption. But I think it is foolish to pretend that something that is most certainly a human being, just because it doesn't look or act like a human being.
You want to make this a woman vs government scenario. But in reality, it is a woman vs her unborn child scenario. And since the government has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens. Thus, all it has to do is declare that the unborn child is a citizen, and then that citizen must be protected by the government, even from its own mother.
Do you see?
This is the flaw to your entire post, which makes the whole post flawed. Go to any woman with a child and ask her if pregnancy was an inconvenience. Being stuck in traffic on the way to work is an inconvenience, having a massive shift to your hormones and body is much more than an inconvenience, a fetus is basically a parasite to a mother.
And in the end, it is the mother's choice to decide if she is ready to birth a child and raise it because we don't live in a society that takes care of every child to adulthood, if we did every child would be fully covered in health insurance in this country. Also, it is not the government's say if a woman should be forced to give birth to a child.
Making it so abortions are illegal is the same as forcing a woman to have a child even if it is an unwanted child or a child that the mother is not capable of raising for various and often times serious reasons.
In the end, you can disagree with this statement, but this is one of those small government things I do believe in, our government should never tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies and that includes not being able to tell women what can and cannot grow inside them.
Well I guess you are pro-abortion. I am not, but I think it is important for a woman to have the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies and I don't think it is a man's place or a government's place to tell a woman what to do.
The time to "choose" was prior to becoming pregnant.
Once pregnant, another human life is involved, and it's not just "your body" anymore. A child in the womb is not part of "your body." It is only receiving nourishment from you. It's flesh is different from your flesh. It's DNA is different from your DNA. It's blood is different from your blood.
So, what about the baby's right to life? What would the baby choose, if she could? Irrelevent?
The time to "choose" was prior to becoming pregnant.
Once pregnant, another human life is involved, and it's not just "your body" anymore. A child in the womb is not part of "your body." It is only receiving nourishment from you. It's flesh is different from your flesh. It's DNA is different from your DNA. It's blood is different from your blood.
So, what about the baby's right to life? What would the baby choose, if she could? Irrelevent?
So when someone is raped they chose it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
You know, a few decades ago there wasn't the technology to show women what they were murdering but what's their excuse now?
You can't kill something that has never been born. What's your excuse for not knowing you need to be born to die?
Todd Akin is a jerk and he just said what the rest of his party was thinking. There was only one ignorant statement.
Todd Akin was speaking for himself, not the Republican Party. It was his belief and his alone. But you people jumped on the chance to say, "See? See? Republicans ... blah, blah, blah."
Actually, what Akin was trying to say, but couldn't make his point, was that a life is a life. He explained, though poorly, that he believed pregnancy was rare in the case of a violent act of rape (a myth), but he in no way was attempting to diminish the crime.
The worst Akin can be accused of is ignorance of medical fact (he believed a myth).
Those who are pro-abortion (the choice comes before intercourse) believe the myth that a baby is something other than human life. They are equally ignorant, or they choose to believe that to assuage their guilt.
Abortion is just as violent an act as rape, and results in the death of a child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
