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.
Fully understand that people with polar beliefs will never agree on this issue however forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want is denying her (all women) a basic right to controlling her life. The vocal men should not have a say on this issue given the condition will never happen to them.
Exactly.
I'm a man, and I should not have 'veto power' one way or another.
There's the basic sensible point that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their body. There's the basic sensible point that many people who are anti-abortion are also anti-contraception, and don't want women to even control their own sexuality.
But the most basic thing that anti-abortion people don't seem to grasp is this: If you allow a government to rule what happens to your body, it can go both ways. In other words, a government that has permission to forbid you to have an abortion, can also require you to have an abortion (as with China). One of the oddest things, for me, about Republicans is that they object to government interference with corporate greed, but they're fine with government interference with an individual's more personal decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
You're making a sound argument...unfortunately as a liberal statist you won't apply it consistently across the board.
That's the difference between being a person of principles as opposed to being a Team Red/Team Blue pawn.
A woman's body has her own DNA.
A fetus has DNA that is neither the mother's nor the father's.
It is unique because it belongs only to the person that is the fetus.
The "women's own body" argument requires us to believe that part of her body, the part she wishes to dispose of, can be male.
One of two things must happen before a human being can be legally put to death.
The first is that he or she must be convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant a death sentence.
The second is that he, she or they must be declared a non-person(s) by the state.
Throughout history, individuals and select groups have been declared sub-human and therefore unentitled to the rights and protections that they would otherwise enjoy.
In our own history, the same Supreme Court that declared blacks sub-human (Dred Scott) also decided that anyone not yet able to survive outside the womb is also sub-human (Roe).
Of course every rational, intelligent person realizes that a fetus cannot be anything except a person.
And no one should force me to pay for yours (collective). Have all the abortions you want. None of my business. But it should be up to the states and not the federal government.
First of all, you don't pay for anyone's abortion. Whether to have an abortion or not should be up to the individual not any government, state or federal. Abortion is legal.
There's the basic sensible point that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their body. There's the basic sensible point that many people who are anti-abortion are also anti-contraception, and don't want women to even control their own sexuality.
But the most basic thing that anti-abortion people don't seem to grasp is this: If you allow a government to rule what happens to your body, it can go both ways. In other words, a government that has permission to forbid you to have an abortion, can also require you to have an abortion (as with China). One of the oddest things, for me, about Republicans is that they object to government interference with corporate greed, but they're fine with government interference with an individual's more personal decisions.
The issue is you are not considering the rights of the unborn. Personally I find arguments against the morning after pill to be ridiculous and if you are someone that supports abortion at nine months I have no words for that. That's the extremes, I think most people can agree that somewhere in between we have a moral obligation to protect the life of the unborn. It's not really an argument about the rights of the Mother but when the rights of the unborn begin.
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.
LOL.
