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?
I'm against abortion on a personal note, as in i'd never abort my kid. I'm pro-choice with everyone else making that decision and it's their bodies, their baby.
I agree with that statement. I'm not saying that abortion is evil and that nobody should ever do it, I'm just saying that, in my opinion, aborting a child is wrong.
Like I said in another thread, in Switzerland it's legal to abort in the first 12 weeks. After that period of time, you can only abort if the birth would cause medical problem for you
I think that is a sensible solution. Aborting at a later date is worse for me. Aborting early on if you wanted to may be better. To me, aborting a child at a late date when it's forming is close to murdering a child.
I support it. Not just because I'm a woman, but because this should be considered under the America's "Freedom" thing. Part of freedom is choice. I support choice in all things, and when choice is removed from someone... I get angry.
after 7 or 8 month's when the unborn child alrdy has brain activety. then i whold call it murder. but befor that its a good thing.
No doctor with a sense of ethics would would preform an abortion that late unless it's going to cause medical problems. I think the latest is 24, although that does seem a little late.
I support it. Not just because I'm a woman, but because this should be considered under the America's "Freedom" thing. Part of freedom is choice. I support choice in all things, and when choice is removed from someone... I get angry.
But there's also the 'fair and equal' crap. If you think it goes in the freedom thing, then ask yourself if the 'baby/fetus/almostbaby/person/notperson/whatever you want it to be' deserves that freedom of choice'.
If you feel that the unborn child does have those rights, then, by giving the mother the right to do something to her body, you are taking away the babies right to choose if it wants to live in the next few months or not.
Just saying. It's not that simple. Sometimes the rights that America offers to the people clash with each other. An easy and out there example is our right to security vs our right to bear arms.
If you feel that the unborn child does have those rights, then, by giving the mother the right to do something to her body, you are taking away the babies right to choose if it wants to live in the next few months or not.
So by this logic, any 'baby/sperm/egg/almost baby/person/notperson/whatever would also have freedom of choice? Sperm could potentially become human in a few months, does that mean that by masturbating you just committed genocide?
Just saying. It's not that simple. Sometimes the rights that America offers to the people clash with each other. An easy and out there example is our right to security vs our right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms is security, last I checked. Since when do they clash? And when do any other rights clash, anyway?
On the rights thing, I guess a foetus cannot yet be seen as member of the community, and one only gets all-inclusive rights when born. Even when you give the right to 'decide' to an unborn, there are problems. First, an unborn isn't able to decide such a thing, it isn't aware of what is at stake or even what it represents itself. Second, it's right to 'decide' will, in cases when abortion makes sense, probably be voided because it may endanger the mother if it "decides" to stay alive. You'd have a situation freedom of one individuum against freedom of another. How to decide?
The right to bear arms is security, last I checked. Since when do they clash? And when do any other rights clash, anyway?
It also offers the possibility to run out there and shoot anyone. Or, if we have to stay realistic, shoot someone who passed you with his car and insulted you. Yes, such things have happened.
It also offers the possibility to run out there and shoot anyone. Or, if we have to stay realistic, shoot someone who passed you with his car and insulted you. Yes, such things have happened.
So? It also offers you to shoot anyone attempting to shoot at your car. Legally defend yourself, instead of running and being stalked by that obviously mentally unfit man, even if your both unarmed, if he really wants to kill you that badly he can fallow you home and use a knife or something. The difference is with a gun, the smaller guy has a better chance.
Just look at Montana. Guns everywhere, something like half the people carry a gun in the truck. But according to that "Safest State" thing I skimmed over, we are #7. Guns are not the problem.
On the rights thing, I guess a foetus cannot yet be seen as member of the community, and one only gets all-inclusive rights when born.
It would be interesting if they did, now wouldn't it? "Hey lady, are you trying to pull something? There are only two passports here!" "But it is just me and my husband..." "HA! I see your pregnant. Now where is that fetus's passport?"
did you check countrys that allow guns and countrys that do not? countrys whit guns especialy USA has a skyhigh crime rate compared to the rest of the world where is no war at the moment or last 10 year.
guns to the people is a problem and it sure does not help the security.
did you check countrys that allow guns and countrys that do not? countrys whit guns especialy USA has a skyhigh crime rate compared to the rest of the world where is no war at the moment or last 10 year.
guns to the people is a problem and it sure does not help the security.
Would you care to bring up a list? Last I checked, having no war has nothing to do with allowing guns. Bring a source.
countrys whit guns especialy USA has a skyhigh crime rate compared to the rest of the world where is no war at the moment or last 10 year.
I don't want to go off-topic, but that's not true. Look at Switzerland. We have a very low crime rate but there are more firearms in private housholds than in the USA.
Back to topic.
If you feel that the unborn child does have those rights
As long as the embryo/foetus can't feel pain or has a conciousness, there's no reason to give it rights. The problem is when does the embryo/foetus start to feel pain and becomimg "human-like"?
actualy i do not care enoufg to seek it up for you. (google is your friend ) usa has the highest crime rates since 1960's it has been lowerd alot the last 20 year yes. but still in overall crimes (the total of all crimes), usa ranks the highest, followed by Germany, United Kingdom, France, and South Africa. i can not care anymore about showing a american thats thinking usa is to great to have high crime rates. that they are not that great at all.
it's not that i mind. you shooting eatchother will only make less of you. =)
As long as the embryo/foetus can't feel pain or has a conciousness, there's no reason to give it rights. The problem is when does the embryo/foetus start to feel pain and becomimg "human-like"?
Like I said a few posts back, I think it is problematic to give unborn ones some rights or freedom of choice about existence. A child gets rights as soon as it's born, there is no reason to abort after a certain stage anyway, when it's born it's 'safe' for sure. But the unborns rights might clash with those of the mother in cases where abortion would be reasonable, for example if the mother would likely die from non-aborting.
