As usual you totally missed the point which is not unusual considering your other posts. The point is that a fetus is not a baby, is not a person and no one knows what a fetus wants or don't wants. The only living creature with a brain and a will, is the mother who should have the right to decide over her own body. It is not government job to decide over her body and definitely is not the job of some lunatic "pro-life" Christians to decide for her.
It doesn't matter if they are rich or poor, I just used the example to answer all the BS about a child saving the world. Any women has the right to make a decision if she want to be a mother or not. This is her personal decision that should be made by her since she is the one who has to live with the consequences.
I'm not religious so that is a poor generilization. Also a fetus has a brain. and why is it not the fathers choice? And at what point is it a baby? 9 months? 8 months? 7 months? A fetus is just a term for a living creature inside the mothers whomb. Just b/c it is a "fetus" does not mean it isn't a living thing....
Similarly one has to live with the consiquences of getting pregnant. the only case that can be argued against this is rape. And i still don't see why the father has no say? another thing that bugs me about libs is that they are so pro animal rights, but so quick to kill "fetuses". it's as if an animal is more important than a human. Doesn't a farmer have the right to kill his cow, or a pet owner his dog? etc.....
I'm curious, what is a pro-choice opinion on a fetus born prematurely? Does it then become a baby? What if the doctors stick it back inside for a few minutes, does it revert back to a fetus during that time?
That is the point, they live with a consequence of getting pregnant by having abortion as some other women live with it by keeping the child. You are trying to FORCE them to live with one alternative because you want it that way. It is THEIR CHOICE, what kind of right or qualification do you have to decide over other people's body?
I would love to stay up all night and argue, but i have work in the am. so i am off to bed. We'll just have to disagree on this one. I hear where you are coming from b/c, like i said before, i used to be pro choice. But the more i thought about it the more i could not justify KILLING anything (especially a fetus) unless it posed a severe threat to someone elses life. Most fetuses don't. I think the mother can live with the effects on her body for 9 months in order not to kill something. It just seems selfish that if a mother doesn't feel like she wants it she can just kill it b/c it's her body. If she decides she doesn't want it after 9 months, she can give it up for adoption and move on with her life and not kill anything. It's called responsibility. Sometimes people have to do theings they don't like b/c they aren't the only ones in the picture. I know it sucks, but it happens all the time and we don't just tell people they can go around killing things b/c of it. That's just life. I tore ligaments in my ankle and i was on crutches for 6 months (twice), does that mean i can just sit around my house and never leave b/c it was a pain in the arse to get around? No, b/c i had responsibilities. i had to deal with the pain and inconvenience for 6 months b/c that is just life. I really think that a lot of woman feel like they were mistreated for so long due to lack of womans rights (and they are right), that this is the ONE thing that they can have total control of and have a complete say in no matter what anyone else says b/c it is there body. I amy be wrong, but it's just what i think b/c most women i know who are pro-choice, are very feminist. I don't know very many non-feminist woman who are pro-choice. that is what has lead me to this belief. In closing, i feel the bottom line is that even though it is just a fetus, and you can't see it, and it can't talk, and it can't do a lot of things, it is still LIVING and i don't think that can be disputed. So i don't think you can KILL (and it really IS killing, think about it, it really is a living thing that is having it's life taken away. Doesn;t matter what you CALL that living thing, it has the scientific propertis of having life) for your personal reasons... Anyway, that is all i am saying on this as it is way to late for me to be up. I know we won't agree on this so i'll leave it here. I hope we don't become "forum enemies" now that we disagree. And there really is no need to get personal on anything. Have a good night everyone!
ok, i couldn't resist one more point: There are many things that are illegal that just involve a person doing something to their own body. Like doing heroine (or any other drugs) Do you think ALL drugs should be legal b/c everyone can choose for their own body? Commiting suicide is also illegal (you get arrested if you attempt and fail). Plus those are things that onle harm you, an abortion KILLS another LIVING thing! I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. How should a mother be allowd to KILL a living thing b/c it's her choice. Plus, i have asked multiple times why the father has no choice and have gotten no answer. If i own a box and you put your fragile antique in there, can i throw my box down a flight of stairs and say "sorry, it was my box, i can do what i want" The father should have a say. ok REALLY going to bed.
Who cares what you think? Who died and made you the God? What qualification do you have to decide over others? It is not your body and that is all that matters. I don't give a damn about who supports this and for what reason or if they are feminist or not, I defend the principal of the right that every human being has over their own body. Don't ever worry about arguing with me about any subject since I don't take it personally. I also have a very hard time to take pro-life, Christians or "Republicans" in this board, serious enough to even consider them as enemies.
Just out of interest I looked up the most current opinion poll here It says: An April 2006 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked the following question: "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?" In reply, 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition
It is good that 49% of people are reasonable but no matter what is the percentage, there are some principals that shouldn't be tramped on just because a majority thinks that way. What would happen if the majority decides to have a vote about killing the minority and then go ahead and do it because it was a democratic vote? Any person should have the right to decide over own body, no matter if everyone else thinks differently, the same way that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to due process,... should not be tramped on just because the "majority" in this moment likes to do it.
A fetus might have some form of brain, however for the greater time that an embryo is an embryo, it does not have a brain. Electrical brainwave patterns can only be recorded after at-least 1 1/2 months. It isn't the fathers choice, because at the moment it isn't, thats the way the laws are, its not my choice and so I can't change it even if I wanted to. And it is a baby, when it is born. In my opinion, when it is born, regardless of whether it is premature or not, it then becomes a baby, within reason... for example a miscarrage at 4 months, is not a baby, it is a fetus, however after say 8 months, when it is then born it is a baby. Being a guy, I don't really think that views on abortion are necessarily all about femininst women. I totally agree with you!
This is actually the one point where i can agree in some manner. I do think that if a baby will be aborted that it should be done before a certain time. I happen to the that three months is TOO long, since the baby has a heartbeat by then. I think if a mother needs an abortion is should be done BEFORE the baby has a heartbeat, which i believe is around 40 days or something like that. At that point you can make an actual argument that the baby isn't technically "alive" yet. This is also why i am a HUGE supporter of stem cell research. I don't think it is wrong to stop "potential" for live (especially for research and if other lives can be saved). But once something is already ALIVE then i feel it is too late and that living thing cannot be killed for any reason... So does your point mean you are only arguing abortion up two three months? if so, you should clarify that point. If not, don't bring in an example to support you that only covers one small part of your position..
So you think life is a function of one's surroundings, not a function of physical developement? Also, i agree the brainwaves aren't there until around 2 months. But what about after then? then you can't argue it does not have a brain... Also, just b/c it is the "law" that the father doesn't have a choice doesn't mean that's the right thing. There are tons of really bad laws. I don't see according to that logic WHY the father should have no choice..
Gworld, Rebecca, here is a good article froma NEWS site (not a pro or anti abortion site). please read it and let me know your thoughts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rem05.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/05/ixhome.html
I think that it is the point at which the fetus leaves the mother's body and is no longer living off the mother and requiring her specifically to live that it becomes a baby, or in the period before the birth, as in the last few weeks where the fetus could survive were it to be born prematurley. Of course I'm sure no one is suggesting that abortions should be carried out, this late in pregnancy (7-8 months onwards). The fact that that law is wrong, is not a thing I debate, I think it is a very difficult law, because you can't really say that one parent should have more say than the other, and yet it wouldnt be fair for a mother to be forced to have a baby by the father.
That article says: 25 weeks... Thats nearly 6 months into the pregnancy. So according to that article, a fetus cannot feel pain until 25 weeks into the pregnancy, and yet the latest time a fetus can be aborted (in the UK at least) is 24 weeks. So does that not mean that a fetus cannot feel pain during abortion?