Unfortunately most abortions don't have anything to do with rape or future disability of the child (or women's health, for that matter...)
And that proves what in relation to women's right to have an abortion? Answer: Nothing. Still can't address those
Yes, but is only up to the woman who is pregnant to decide what is the right decision in every pregnancy. Some Anti-Choicers say they would make an exception in the case of rape....why? An abortion is an abortion. That proves that they want to punish women for having consensual sex.
A woman cannot be forced to do anything, all that can be done is make the contact, educate, and offer help. She has to make the actual decision and some do end up getting an abortion. Its usually easy at the start to tell whether a women is going to get an abortion and reject help. Contact is still maintained with those women because a lot of women have emotional problems after the abortion and will want counseling.
It is not an issue. It is clear and has been for a very long time. The unborn are not people or person.
Would never had the foggiest. So in reality, nothing lost on my part. Same result as will be in 100 yrs for me.
But you did exist. Maybe not in the same way you are now, but you don't exist the same exact way now as you did 10 years ago either. Cells in the body are gradually being replaced, growth is slowly taking place, new experiences are being added to our consciousness... Is it ok for someone to do whatever they want to a baby? Because after all, the baby probably won't remember it. Babies aren't really the same as adults. Are you today the same as you were when you were a baby? Of course not. But if someone did something to you as a baby, they would still have been doing something to you. And where exactly is that line between existence and non-existence? I'm not going to sit here claiming a zygote constitutes the existence of a person, but when abortions take place it's rarely just a clump of cells.
"""..a lot of women""" ??? NO, not a lot.......NO Anti-Choicer has ever come up with an unbiased site that says "a lot of women"... In FACT most women , after an abortion, feel relief. Women are not children or cattle who need busybodies to monitor their mental health. Women sometimes also have emotional problems after giving birth but the poster doesn't really care about that..... Again, a post filled with facts that the misogynists will ignore...
Ya, when most abortions take place it's nothing more than a clump of cells.... It is not a person until birth and you can scream about that until hell freezes over and it won't change a thing. COMMON SENSE says no, it's not OK to do anything to a baby because a baby is a person with rights... ....are you looking for an excuse to harm babies?????
I see you can't honestly answer my question: Why wouldn't you ban it ? If it's murder as YOU claim, it's murder. Is it murder or not? How can it be murder sometimes but not all the time? Why can't you answer? Is the question too INconvenient?
See how quiet the Anti-Choicers get when faced with facts and inconvenient questions........proves they really have no argument or point...nothing to back up their silly claims...
No one has argued in favor of forced abortions.If anything, your argument supports the opposite. If you give the government control over ones body, what is to stop them from forcing other intentions, like forced abortion, on others?
Let me correct you. You would have good intentions and would attempt to restrict abortion, but would only succeed in creating wealthy people in the medical tourism industry, wealthy criminals selling black market abortion drugs, unsafe, illegal surgery, and maybe if you're lucky, you can catch a few and increase our prison population. Having control over ones body is anything but an extreme view. One thing I am sure we can agree on is that no tax payer should be forced to contribute to abortions. If she can't keep her legs together, she should have to pay the entire cost. Maybe she will take measures to prevent it next time.
You know, I still have a problem with the question that the OP asked, because you wouldn't have any self awareness nor would you have much of an idea about the world outside, so you probably wouldn't know anything about what was going on. Asking for people with adult attitudes, self awareness and knowledge of the world to think as a fetus is kinda silly.
Having control over your body is a fundamental part of "property rights". But you are still working from a position that the baby is not a person. If the baby is a person, then it has the right to protect its own body. The unique issue is the dependence of the baby upon the pregnant woman, which means the rights of the 2 must be balanced - which is not an uncommon issue.
So I will give you the benefit of being right about a fetus being a person. Now what? How do we address those issues I listed?
A baby has the right to protect it's own body but you do NOT want pregnant women to have the same right ??? ....and yet I bet you don't think you are a misogynist who wants to take away women's rights..... BTW, NO baby is dependent on it's mother. A fetus is....a baby isn't.... Again, if a fetus is a person then it has the same restriction other person's have, it cannot use another person's body to sustain it's life. Again , you wish to take rights away from pregnant women ...have you ever heard of the Constitution? Or are "rights" just for you and fetuses??
Your issues were: You would have good intentions and would attempt to restrict abortion, but would only succeed in creating wealthy people in the medical tourism industry, wealthy criminals selling black market abortion drugs, unsafe, illegal surgery, and maybe if you're lucky, you can catch a few and increase our prison population. Making abortion for convenience illegal would have multiple effects, one being that women would take more care to prevent pregnancy which means fewer unwanted pregnancies. I also think there would be more interest in holding men accountable for the resulting pregnancy as well. An "abortion tourism industry" is an interesting issue. Hypothetically, can an American citizen with another American citizen who is a minor, travel to another country which allows murder, murder the minor, and return to the USA having gotten away with murder? That's really the issue given the assumption is the unborn baby is a person. I would claim that cannot be done, and the "abortion tourism industry" would be an illegal activity. The same applies to your other issues - given the assumption the unborn baby is a person, then killing it for convenience is murder. Are you willing to allow murder because there are some people who engage in facilitating or committing murder? The magnitude of these issues will depend upon America's acceptance of restricted abortion. America needs to have an open, honest debate about abortion, examine all the issues, and come to a consensus. That has not been done, and for obvious reasons the abortion fanatics (a minority) desperately do not want that type of review.
"making abortion for convenience illegal" Abortion is never convenient. Good grief. What a bizarre opinion. Having said that, the reason for the abortion does not matter. A woman's body is her own. Period. A man's body is his own. Period. No one should or does have the right to force anyone, man or woman, to reproduce. Period. Abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution and that's as it should be. As to the rest of what you wrote, name a country where murder is legal. We've been having an open, honest debate about abortion since the first woman got pregnant. There has always been abortion, there will always be abortion. There has never ever been a time when abortion was not debated. The result of this debate is that abortion is legal, guaranteed by the US Constitution.
The discussion between the other forum member and myself already assumes the unborn is a person, and proceeds to look at the ramifications. Read the posts before jumping into the middle and making yourself look stupid.
The US Constitution says a fetus is not a person. I agree. Learn the facts before jumping in and making yourself look stupid. The rest of my post stands.
The US Constitution nowhere states the unborn is not a person. Show the section that makes your claim. And you still fail, you jumped into the middle of a discussion that was based on the agreed assumption that the unborn were people. Are you going to remain stubborn or are you mature enough to admit you were wrong?
