I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
Don't know how many times I'm going to have to post this, but:
The fetus is causing direct, physical harm to a woman, and she has the right to separate herself from anyone or anything which is causing her direct physical harm, EVEN if that person or object cannot continue to exist without her. If I require your lung to live, I cannot simply take it on the grounds that my "right to life" trumps your rights to self-defense. If I make some attempt to use your lung against your will, you are within all legal and moral right to remove yourself from me, EVEN THOUGH it means my death -- not my lung, not my choice. By the EXACT same token, no fetus is entitled to a uterus belonging to someone. If the fetus IS human, then it STILL has no right to use the woman's uterus against her will, making the debate STILL pointless. So whether or not it is human, it has NO RIGHT to stay inside the uterus if the woman who OWNS her own uterus wants to be removed from the fetus. She cannot be deprived of that right, as it is the first tenet of ALL self-defense. To deny women the right to defend herself against unwanted harm being done to her body, then you subjectively value women less than a fetus and award all fetuses the right to an organ belonging to another human being -- a right which NO other form of human enjoys. This is impossible on two measures: sexism and ageism. Only women have uteri, therefore allowance of the use of a uterus against its owner's wishes is sexist; the rule would therefore have to be expanded to something non-discriminatory, such as "organs." The ageism is showing favoritism towards those who are less than 0 minutes past birth, which is reverse-discrimination, and also illegal; therefore the age limit would have to be expanded -- say, all people who have a specific physical need to live. Now all people are equally represented -- and organ donation becomes compulsory based on the need of another individual in order to live. That is the only legal result from illegalization of abortion.
I value their lives the same, and no lol they can't choose to kill it, again i value there lives the same they are both humans i don't care if it isn't born it is alive. Also why don't you kill the mom then she wouldn't be in pain, also c section.
I value their lives the same, and no lol they can't choose to kill it, again i value there lives the same they are both humans i don't care if it isn't born it is alive. Also why don't you kill the mom then she wouldn't be in pain, also c section.
I don't get your logic. Once again, try to post in clear, legible, well-structured sentences in order to not confuse people, and maybe get a decent point across. K?
Why would i do that?It is the womens choice to have sex...rape i don't sanction it either but we should have easier programs for adaption, perhaps provided by the government.
Why would i do that?It is the womens choice to have sex...**** i don't sanction it either but we should have easier programs for adaption, perhaps provided by the government.
wtf? We are on an economic crisis and you want to spend millions of dollars to save a few kids to adapt?? What the hell do you mean adapt?
I don't get your logic. Once again, try to post in clear, legible, well-structured sentences in order to not confuse people, and maybe get a decent point across. K?
Nah i can't get my point across because you won't consider my logic logic. But i'll try their lives have the exact same worth so if the woman is in pain and wants out then why can't you kill her?she wouldn't have to deal with it then.
wtf? We are on an economic crisis and you want to spend millions of dollars to save a few kids to adapt?? What the hell do you mean adapt?
Adopt sorry and ya i would, lives are more important than are economy it's obviously not their fault where in this crisis.
Adopt sorry and ya i would, lives are more important than are economy it's obviously not their fault where in this crisis.
So you want to force kids into this world, who didn't even ask to be born, into a world on the edge of entering a depression because your bible tells you to?
But i'll try their lives have the exact same worth so if the woman is in pain and wants out then why can't you kill her?
Well, if you're saying that the fetus has the right to live despite the woman's wishes, then they indeed do not have the same value of life. That puts the fetus' worth over that of the pregnant woman's, which leads into my other points that I already posted.
There are only 4 main differences between a fetus and a human.
1) Size. Fetus' are smaller. You don't kill a 2 year old because it isn't as big as a 4 year old now, do you?
2) Level of Developement. A fetus is not as developed as when it is born, but an 8 year old girl is not as developed as a 17 year old girl.
3) Environment. Yes a fetus lives in it's mother's womb, but there is only a few inches through the birth canal into the world. Going down the birth canal does not "magically" change a fetus into a human being.
4) Dependency. A fetus is dependent upon it's mother to live. But so is a 6 month old. You wouldn't kill the 6 month old because it can't take care of itself.
These are the differences between a fetus and a human being. Not much, huh? If you want my opinion, a fetus has every right to live as much as a 2 year old. The only reason for an abortion would be to save the life of the mother. If she really did not want the child, she should put it up for adoption and give it to a family that cannot have children of their own.
