*sighs* No... I was merely correcting you. Many people attempt to point out how terrible to the world is by using subtle emotive language, others use EMOTIVE language IN capitals, ATTEMPTING to point out the emotive language more so. So in that post, I was actually pointing out that not only was your emotive language ineffective, it was also incorrect. However, if you feel that I twisted your words around, I apologise profusley; it would seem you have to be anti-abortion to twist peoples words around.
The answer is very simple because the question is not about if abortion is good or bad, it is about who has the right over a women body. Either she should have the right to decide over her body or the man or the government. Among the three choices, I have to chose the first alternative because the other 2 alternatives are too dangerous and unreasonable.
I didn't say that you are taking away any body's right to be pregnant. I am talking AFTER SHE IS PREGNANT. WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE OVER HER BODY: A) THE WOMAN B) YOU C) GOVERNMENT It is a simple question, just answer A, B or C.
if everyone should have the right to do what they want to their own body, why is doing heroine a crime? It's my body... Also, i think your fundamental misunderstanding is that the baby is part of her body. The baby happens to be IN her body, but it is not a part of her body like her hand is or her foot is or her face etc.... A woman can do whatever she wants to those parts of her body. But a baby is not a bodypart....
Actually most countries and states is a crime to buy, sell and carry heroine but using it is not a crime, unless you are operating a vehicle. The fetus does not exist outside her womb which makes it part of her body. What happens if the woman doesn't want to lease her womb to you, can she ask you to take it out and do what ever you want to it?
Do you think it should be legal to have an abortion all the way up until it is out of the womb? If not, why are you using it being in the womb as an argument?
So, if the woman chooses to have the child. despite the man's opposition, the man is obligated to support the child till emancipation. If the woman chooses the have an abortion, despite the man's opposition, the man has no options to keep the child and release the woman from obligation. See my problem with this "woman's right"? It is a dichotomy. In essence, the man and the child becomes second to the woman's wishes, no matter of the circumstances.
I agree that life is not fair and it sucks, what can we do about it? I believe that women should not be entitled to any money if she decides to keep the baby against the father's will but that is another discussion.
You forgot option D the baby that she made with her consent. Anyway the argument is she has already had her choice, her right whatever you want to call it, nobody forced her to get pregnant.
Again more irresponsibility, when you have sex you know of the repercussions. You gave the women a baby it's your responsibility to fund the child.
We are not talking about your dreamland that everything is rosy, we are talking about reality and women who get pregnant for thousand different reasons. What are you going to tell them? Which alternative do you chose A, B or C? Get back to discussion when you are ready to discuss the real world and you won't avoid answering the question by escaping to your fantasy world.
Your question is based on the assumption that the baby has no rights, it's a loaded question unless you believe that.
There's only one reason why a women gets pregnant, shall i spell that out for you. Since you want to focus the discussion on the actual "body" by saying it's the women's body blah blah blah, then what about the body that she created, whose body is that? not the women's. If the women gets to choose what happens to her body (even though she already has) then what about the baby, do they get any say in what happens to their body? And since you want to focus the discussion on "rights" also, by saying the women has the right to choose, then what about the rights of the baby? oh that's right, they don't have rights, although you like to bang on about rights. Basically you believe it's okay to bring something into the world that could be prevented by many, many, many ways then simply abort it because it's not convenient. Let's flip this: I am talking AFTER A BABY IS CREATED. WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE OVER THE CHILDS BODY: A) THE IRRESPONSIBLE WOMAN (Who has already shown her bad judgement) B) YOU C) GOVERNMENT It is a simple question, just answer A, B or C.
A it is still her body I am really starting to wonder if you like women at all, if a woman gets pregnant unintentionally does she deserve your lack of respect and assumption that she is irresponsible and has bad judgement? I am guessing you choose "b" because you believe you should control her and that she is too irresponsible to control her own body and the government has bad judgement as well, right?
The questions are: Are fetus braindead? If not there's no way for abortion, it would be simple murder. Is there a soul attached to a fetus? If so untouchable for abortions. If a defect can be dedected in a fetus like cerebral palsy - watch out what people with cerebral palsy can do and what they have to say. Second video on that page, he got injured during birth I think. http://www.civoc.com/society/2006/12/04/team-hoyt/
I don't know Arnie. I wonder at what point are babies conscious, aware or able to think? I don't know if babies have souls either, or even if adults have souls. Yeah, and I wouldn't think that you would need to abort a baby simply because it has a "defect". We all have defects in one way or another. I think abortion is pretty sad really, but I also believe it is important for women to have that option after careful consideration.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html As far as income goes it looks like women who "can't afford the baby" have them more often then those with a barely living wage and then most abortions are done by those who "can't afford to lose their job." As far as reasons go, if 93% were done because of rape, incest, or medical reasons and 7 percent were out of convienence, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. I think most people are willing to accept there are some people that are wicked and who will kill their baby no matter what as long as the vast majority of the time it's a sad necessity to save a life. But when 93% are doing it for wicked reasons it's no shocker that people want to put a stop to it. We're allowing the murder of 93% of 46 million babies per year to maybe save a few million lives per year. Banning abortion could save up to 43 million lives a year. People are so focused on that small percentage of cases that might in someway be sadly justified that they fail to notice the giant percentage that is not justified. It might even cut down on the number of people being idiots so we have far fewer people put in the position to even consider an abortion. Personally I think all abortions not sought because of rape, incest or medical reasons should be banned. Those sought because of rape or incest should be given other options such as giving the baby up for adoption. The baby shouldn't be punished for what someone else did. In the case of medical problems where one or both could die then the doctors should do everything they can before making the hard decision to end a life. Right now it seems like it's a pretty easy decision for most people and that's pathetic.
The answer is simple, the correct answer is A. Being irresponsible doesn't take away the right of people to make decisions. You can be financially irresponsible and go buy an expensive car that you can not afford and there is no law against it. The only way a person right is removed is when that person is declared mentally incompetent by a doctor and incapable of making sane decisions. This is how honest people answer a question, now that I have answered your question, can you at least try to be honest and answer my question?
Yes it's still her body, what about the body she created though? is that not the child's body & not hers? Aren't the women rights restricted once her actions cause her rights to impose upon others? How do you unintentionally get pregnant whilst taking part in an act that ultimately you know can ultimately cause pregnancy? Creating a baby that is not wanted is irresponsible from any perspective & does display her bad judgement, surely you can't say having a baby that is not wanted & will be killed/aborted is having good judgement or being responsible? I choose the women too, although you don't see this. It's the women's choice to get pregnant as she is not forced & fully knows that a pregnancy can occur even if the chances are small & she takes that risk & should behave as a responsible person & with her actions like many millions of people do every day. You have sex with the intention not to get aids, but once you get it, you live with it as there's no going back, it's not nice but that's life & you accept it. You have a car accident & kill people, you have to live with it, there's no going back, it's not nice but that's life & you accept it. Yet creating a child is similar to the above things a very big thing & a part of life, yet you can undo it because killing babies is legal.
Where does the baby's right and will to want to live come into play? The absence of a heartbeat is death. I think we can all agree on that. The presence of a heartbeat is life. A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks. Life is the presence of a heartbeat. Death is the absence of a heartbeat. If you take a baby's life after five weeks, you've taken away a life. A mother shouldn't have a right to murder, she should have a responsibility to preserve life. The life of her child.