I think that they have natural rights, just not recognised by government, but like I said, they still have the same protection from being killed that people with rights have.
Then how the hell can you know that I have "NO idea what women are told" and that I have "NO idea what women believe or think?"
Do you not agree that there is a difference between how a woman sees her unborn kid to how she sees her born kid?
Which rights is it in violation of? Your entire point is that without government, there are no rights! Yeah, so "it is right to act on his own free judgment" as long as it doesn't take away another person's rights. Absolutely! There is a massive difference between a person in the womb and a person outside of the womb! You haven't been capable of saying whether or not I can kill the comatose patient! That tells me that you know your answer will be very revealing! Then why the hell are you arguing that fetuses are NOT completely dependent on the life, of the woman carrying it? So then I can say that your favourite colour is blue and your favourite food is pizza!
Thankfully, they are not. Then there is a contradiction in the system that needs be looked into. I can, however, not think of any such rights. How does my right to vote conflict with your right to vote? They are individuated from their mother and thus have rights.
A ban on abortion violates an unwillingly pregnant woman-s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- In other words, all of her rights. I am not saying that there would not be any rights without government, I am saying that a proper government's only job is to ensure those who violate rights are punished. Yes. Yes and the biggest one is that the previous is not a person. I have answered it a trillion times; if you are the one paying for the plug that is keeping them alive, you have the right to stop paying for it. However, you cannot walk into his room and just shoot him in the head. I am? What?
Maximising life by forcing an unwillingly pregnant woman to give up her life in favour of a piece of protoplasm? Who are you trying to fool here? You are anti-life.
What you are essentially saying here is the massive contradiction of "if a woma wants to be left alone, she should live her life according to my standards." That is just truly disgusting. A woman has the right to fall in love, she has the right to have sex, she has the right to plan her own life and she has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Ordering anything else is to prevent her from being left alone. You do realise that it usually takes a couple of weeks to realise you are pregnant? "Countinuosly engaging in sex". Finally, an anti-abortionist on here states it in a very straightforward and explicit manner; you do not give a damn about the fetus, you are just against sex. In other words, you are against people having fun living their lives -- you are anti-life.
Then abortion, in your mind, is an assination where the woman is guilty of crime too by hiring the assasin.
Her not wanting to be a mother is always the only reason. It is no more complicated than that. You are just, obviously, extremely conditioned by your faith that teaches sex is bad, life begins at conception and parenthood is a moral duty. You cannot give up a fetus for adoption. You are suggesting an unwillingly pregnant woman takes on the immense work of 9 months pregnancy and all the physical pain, psychological and emotional stress and health complications that comes with it only to then hand over the newborn baby for adoption. This is ridiculous.
Only thanks to modern medicine. In the Third World, rates are still extremely high and the US is actually the industrialised country with the highest rates.
A fetus is not embraced by the pregnant woman in a hug. She cannot just let go of the hug to stop being pregnant. A fetus is actually inside her and she cannot hug it until it is out of her. A fetus is not a physically individuated being. Take your geometry to the lab and leave it at the door before you come in here.
As far back as #1697 I made a point none of the anti-abortionists dared touch upon and since we are once again discussuing rights violations, I will just copy paste it here; What anti-abortionists do not realise is that their assault on the right to abortion poses a threat to individual rights as such because rights form an unity which means threatenning one is to threaten all of them. A woman's right to control her own body logically connects to every other right including those in the economic sphere. A ban on abortion means a ban on volumtary, economic exchange; doctors, nurses, pharmacists, insurance companies researchers, you, me and everyone will have our rights to trade and production violated. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. A boyfriend assisting his girlfriend to get medical help would be a criminal. The doctor/provider would be a criminal. If the government is handed the power to ban or restrict one type of medical service, it sanctions bans and regulations on every other sphere of the health-care system and broader economy. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. Young people would be afraid to seek out relationships because of fear of committing the crime of falling in love and sharing an intimate experience with each other. The convenience store owner will face jail time for committing the crime of selling condoms. Everyone would be forced to live in fear. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. What is perhaps most dangerous about this is that a ban or restriction on abortion opens up the door of the State to the Church. Legislation will now be based not on observable facts but on divine revelation. When these people are seated in legislative positions and mix with the other nutjob social-conservatives, we will soon be brought back to the Dark Ages. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. You can sit there and say "aBoRtIoN iS mUrDeR" and "pRo ChOiCeRs wAnT sOcIaLiSm" all you want, but remember that the day your demands to ban abortion becomes reality, your whole life will have been banned too. ... And for what? I guess it is all fine though because embryos are, afterall, homosapiens.
Then why haven't you done your civic duty and reported these "murders" to the police ????? BTW, anyone who hires a hitman is also charged with murder....so a woman asking for and getting an illegal abortion would be tried just like the one performing the abortion..
Why do you make blanket statements about women as if they are drones, or cattle, or "things" that all think alike??? Don't you know any women?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Let everyone keep in mind that kazenatsu believes women should die in pregnancy rather than have an abortion. ...unless it's a woman's life and then it doesn't seem to mean anything at all....
This goes much more deeper than that. He does not think anyone's life matters except that of the fetus. The implication of his oppostion to abortion is one that regulates everyone's love life, control over their bodies and right to produce and trade. Religious Conservatives become "champions of life" only when two topics are being discussed; (i) abortion and (ii) assisted suicide. In other words, they care only for those who are not yet even born and for those who are already dead. Their sole intention is to bring down man to the level of animals.
Two teenagers who experience love for the first time will be punished and have their entire lives and futures destroyed if the anti-abortionists get their will through. The girl who has not even fully developed her brain and barely even exited childhood will have to take on the role as a mother. The boy will have to take on the responsibility of fatherhood when he cannot even look after himself yet. They both will be rushed into a marriage they have no intention of entering. How are these two supposed to care for the child? Medical bills, clothong bills, schooling fees, sports activities, party dresses, summer camps and food? What if the girl gets pregnant again? Now the costs are doubled. It does not even have to be a teenage or college couple. It can be a single woman who is ambitious and hard-working, focusing on her career. She does what she loves, she is productive and she does not yet want motherhood. I know anti-abortionists will call her a slut for this, but what if she gets pregnant? Should she give up her whole career and her satisfaction with life for the huge responsibility that is motherhood when she does not even want it? Give me a break. "But, she can give it up for adoption!" No, she cannot. You have to suck out 9 months of life out of her first, a period that is very demanding on her health not to mention the psychological pain caused by her knowing she is not doing it because she wants it. Adoption is an alternative if you cannot afford a child. Abortion is the option when you do not want a child. "But, the couple can use contraceptives to prevent that!" Sometimes they fail and government is in no position to tell people how to make love. Accidents happen. Even people who look after themselves better than the average person does can get sick, but I guess they should be denied health care because "they should not have skipped their vitamins that one day!" Conservatives often claim to uphold "family values", but what kind of families do they think are built when none of the parties even want a family and when they cannot afford it? Truly sick.
Fetuses of certain age have the same protection from being killed that people with rights have. This is the case in the majority of the US. You know this!
