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.
The mother has rights. She just doesn't have the right to impinge on the rights of another individual, such as the right to life.
The mother conceived the child. She made the choice to engage in the act that created the separate life, and thus she made a choice that saddled her with the responsibility to carry this life to term.
A fetus is not alive, your definition of life is not the biological or scientifically accepted one for any organism, and as such an abortion is ending a pregnancy which could result in a life, not a life itself.
The baby inside her is not her life, therefore she is violating the unborn's rights. She is also violating the rights of the child's father to NOT abort.
Men have rights to children, not potential children. A fetus is not alive until it reaches viability. Anytime before that and an abortion is. It ending a life, and if something is not alive, it cannot have rights.
I'm pretty liberal on most issues, but I agree with Pedro on this. If it is wrong to kill a baby on Day +1, why is it OK on Day -1? I think most prochoice people intrinsically agree, but are afraid that giving in an inch on this issue will be a slippery slope. If both sides could agree on restrictions for the 3rd trimester (which affects barely anyone) and no restrictions in the 1st trimester, then we could just debate the in-between.
Abortions are not performed on day -1.
There are restrictions on the third trimester. Late term abortions, roughly 27 week gestation, are <1% and done in extreme situation usually where the child would not live or the continued pregnancy would kill the mother.
Even considering 20 week gestation the percent is roughly 1.3%.
Over 91% (stats from CDC) are performed in the first trimester.
And that means squat......it does not automatically endow the fetus with rights that preclude those of the mother.
Whatever gave you the idea that it did?
At the moment, under Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, you are legally correct. Concentration camps and murder were legally performed by the German socialist government in power at the time. Their own law permitted mass murder. Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are similar in this regard, both do not value human life and permit it's extermination.
The law is one thing, biology is another, and morality yet another.
I support a woman's absolute right to have complete control over her OWN body. If a person cannot control what is done to their body they are not a free individual but, in the case of a fetus, a slave to that fetus and the male that created it.
I DO NOT TOLERATE SLAVERY OR SLAVERS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
At the moment, under Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, you are legally correct. Concentration camps and murder were legally performed by the German socialist government in power at the time. Their own law permitted mass murder. Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are similar in this regard, both do not value human life and permit it's extermination.
The law is one thing, biology is another, and morality yet another.
You are right. Safe, regulated, legal abortions may become illegal again. But that will not stop abortions it will just make them unsafe, unregulated and illegal. As well we will most likely see more dumpster babies, child abuse and poverty.
A fetus is not alive, your definition of life is not the biological or scientifically accepted one for any organism, and as such an abortion is ending a pregnancy which could result in a life, not a life itself.
I am a biologist and can tell you that a fetus is most certainly alive. It's not dead, which is the only other alternative.
Whether the fetus is a person is something that science can't really answer.
That man does not require a parasitic relationship with another human being to stay alive.
His existence does not threaten the health or life of another.
And yes, the life of a fetus is lesser than the life of the mother.
The mother has autonomy, the fetus doesn't.....and until it does it is lesser than.
It is exactly the same in the fundamental disregard of another life, the devaluing it under the rationalization that the one devaluing is better, more important, of higher value. That is, you rationalize the worth of another life just as the examples I gave does. There is no difference and those people in those examples also objected to such claims, noting that their case was special.
The more times change, the more they stay the same.
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.
