And you'd never have known the difference if you were a newborn baby either, or if you had been a hospital patient in a coma when somebody pulled the plug. I've read some terrible stories about little children being molested and they didn't really realize what was happening to them at the time. Surely not realizing what's happening doesn't make it okay.
All those you mention are BORN persons, with rights, who can think. When a fetus is aborted it cannot think, even if it could it has nothing to think about. When children are molested they may not know what exactly is happening but they know they're being harmed, they can feel fear and feel pain....a fetus cannot.
You didn't think through your post. If the baby is a person, then it has all the rights and protections of every person, which translates to being assigned an unbiased advocate for representation in medical and legal proceedings. If it is a person, then the mother cannot have unlimited power to abort, and must convince an objective review that she must abort.
A baby IS a person. What's your problem? A fetus is not a person and if it was it would NOT be able to use another person's body to sustain it's life....NO one has that right....
Have you seen those videos where fetuses appear to be trying to get away from the suction catheter ripping apart their bodies? Maybe you should ask a little child to write a treatise. They can't do it, it's not going to happen. Having human rights is not contingent upon being able to write a treatise.
And this is the problem Many people would rather adopt babies - ofthen forgetting that they turn into teens What it means is that there is a huge market for baby adoptions whilst older children languish in foster homes. There was a wonderful story here on our ABC about a gay male couple who because foster parents for teens. They have now fostered dozens of teems who it was obvious love and respect the pair. Mostly girls becuase they did not want to be seen as "influencing" boys but still showed the wonderful and caring commitment such a couple could bring to the world
No, I don't watch that unscientific Anti-Choice propaganda crap... You have been shown that fetuses cannot feel pain. They do have reflex activity.... A fetus has no knowledge of what a catheter is doing or going to do....they can't think....
What if that person put the other person in that situation? I mean, it's not like the fetus just crawled up in there on its own accord.
You did not think yet again. If the unborn is a person, then a mother aborting is using the body of another person (the baby) against the baby's will. Its easy to tell when abortionists have lost, they always resort to the same 2 or 3 simple talking points, all in desperation to avoid the real question of whether the unborn is a person or not.
That does NOT change the FACT(look up "fact") that you cannot use another person's body to sustain your life without their consent...
You (hilariously ) ""If the unborn is a person, then a mother aborting is using the body of another person (the baby) against the baby's will"" Baloney! That's just cockamamie BS...makes no sense... You can always tell when Anti-Choice For Women people know they are losing again, they start flailing around with preposterous scenarios and convoluted crap...
So that utterly ridiculous "self-defense" claim. Exactly how did the baby get there? Unless it was rape, it was a direct result of the mothers actions. And the baby is there through no act of its own. The "against her will" argument is old and weak and futile. Its shows your utter desperation.
As you have been told numerous times consent to one act(sexual intercourse) is NOT consent to any other act (pregnancy) NO woman can consent to get pregnant , she either does or doesn't. The fetus is USING her body to sustain it's life...something NO one has the right to do. And the only way a woman can stop the UNCONSENTED use of her body in this instance is to kill the fetus. There is NO baby involved in abortion.
The real point here is that no one beyond the mother and father have any say or reason to stick their nose into any of it. Take your opinions and put them in a box.
Your post claims its all about what the woman wants. Totally "woman-centric", which ignores the real issue (the personhood of the baby) but of course that's your point. And that's why you will over time lose your argument. Your post claims that a woman who does not want to get pregnant, does not use any birth control, and gets pregnant, can still get an abortion presumably at any time (1 week or 9 months). What if she wants to get pregnant, gets pregnant, and changes her mind later?
Yes the father... we should have a few legal protections for him, perhaps. (Like after a certain gestational age the woman would be required to obtain the permission of the father if she wanted to abort their child)
Then its no different than when a woman agrees to have sex with a man and then decides she doesn't want to anymore after they've started. Just because she consented to let another person use her body at one time, that doesn't mean she can't withdraw that consent.
