So the question then, which is still pretty much one in the same as pointed in my OP. Does the fetus's right to life, OVER RIDE, the womans right to control her own reproductive functions? Should a woman be forced to give birth against her will?
?sorry, but this example you set up doesnt work. The reason is, that a slave will not DIE if his "owner" no longer decides to care for him. He can easily go forage, or find other means of food. Simple as that. A baby in a mothers womb cannot do that. If the mother decides she does not want to give birth, the baby has no other option than to be terminated. IT cannot survive. So this analogy you made up simply doesnt work.
I think you do a dis service. Most "pro abortion people" as you put it, do care about human life. I for example want abortion to be as absolutley rare as possible. I think most of us feel this way. But at the same time we dont feel like it should be made illegal.
Most white slave owners do care about human life - they want black slaves to be employed as infrequently as possible, but at the same time don't feel like it should be made illegal.
A Down's Syndrome child cannot survive if his mother decides not to care for it, therefore the mother has a right to execute it since it's entirely dependent on her for survival.
This is the "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" position that most of us hold. I actually got it from my mother who's a very devote Christian that opposes abortion but at the same time she's also highly conservative and opposes government involvement in the personal decisions of the individual. She doesn't endorse abortion and she opposes laws that would prevent it at the same time. She recognizes that the tyranny of government is a greater "sin" than anything the woman could do related to her pregnancy.
This is false although the mother has no obligation to care for the child if she chooses not to. All states, to my knowledge, allow a mother to drop off her baby at a hospital which places the child in the custody of the state. She does have an obligation to care for the child if she doesn't turn the child over to the state though but that is a voluntary obligation she takes. The child, any child, does not have a Right to Be Fed but as a society we do care about children and if the parent(s) choose to abandon custody then we, as a society, assume responsibility for the care of the child. This is not based upon inalienable Rights though but instead it's based upon compassion for the helpless.
Foolish belief then. Would be like saying that outlawing child porn and pedophilia is a greater "sin" than anything a pedophile could do to a child, just cause it's "govt tyranny". Tyranny's totally fine by me, most people wouldn't know tyranny if it hit them in the ass - they're just narcissists who think the only virture is being able to do whatever they want - like 5 year old kids who never psychologically evolved - that's probably why they're such miserable sad sacks - got not values or honor other than their imagined 'rights' to do stuff that no normal or decent person would have any desire to do to begin with. They aren't Gods - they're nobodies with a megaphone - they want to be free of tyranny, then they should learn how to be successful or important were they can be on par with the "elites" - cause they know they're just nobodies who's "rights" mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
There is a fundamental difference. A woman has inalienable Rights because she's a person just as a child has Rights because the child is a person. Pedophilia is a violation of the child's Rights as the child has not reached a logical age of consent. Child porn is a slightly different issue because the definition is often spread too far. Simply taking nude photographs of a child is not "child porn" IMO because I believe the human body is beautiful but if the child is engaging in sexual relations then it would be child porn because the child is not of the age of consent. I might also argue that publishing nude pictures of a child can logically be prohibited because the child is not of age to consent to the publication. In any case this doesn't address the preborn which are not considered "persons" under the US Constitution. The issue of "personhood" would first need to be established by Constitutional amendment and then the issue of Rights becomes important but, as I've previously mentioned, the paradox of the woman already possessing Rights creates a conflict where possibly not Rights would exist for either. Ultimately I believe this can be worked out but it would take a super-majority to finally decide one where the Rights of the Woman end and the Rights of the Preborn begin. Those arguments have not yet been made because the issue of personhood is not being presented in a Constitutional Amendment.
The question here is what should be done when a woman does NOT want to give birth. Weather its a human or not is up for debate. The point here is that the woman does NOT want to give birth. Would you force her to? And if so why? Is it because the rights of the fetus is greater than the right of the mother to abort? Do you make exceptions for rape or incest?
Come one now. He isnt saying that. I think 99% of the people regardless of what side of the debate they are on would agree for the life of the mother. Thats not really applicable here.
You are aware that sometimes, birth control simply fails for whatever reason? It is not 100% effective. I know this because a girl I was seeing HAD this happen to her. She got preg. We did end up having an abortion. We were both 16/17 years old. It would have been far more devestating to both of our lives, birth / adoption, OR birth / raising the child. The abortion was the best answer for everyone involved in this case.
She should suck it up and take her birth control pill next time. She don't want the kid, she can send it to foster care. No it ain't, it is a human by biological definition. And if it's up for debate as you say, then the safest option is to outlaw abortion until the debate is decided 100% that it is not a human. Yes that's correct - the rights of a baby's life are greater than the right's of convenience. No, why should a child suffer for the sins of the father? That sounds like a Dark Age belief.
There's no real argument, just a bunch of bureaucracy and Constitutional hullabaloo holding it back. So let's get cracking and just end this nonexistent "debate", by executive order if need be. By biological definition a fetus is a human life, which is fact - so it's already completely clear that it violates the right to life granted by the Constitution (and would still be wrong, even if the Constitution didn't exist).
The woman had lots of options for avoiding the pregnancy in the first place. Abstinence is 100% effective and there are numerous kinds of birth control, most of which are almost always effective. By choosing to engage in sexual activity, a person accepts the potential consequences of that activity, many of which could be deadly. Can a person change their mind and stop having aids or HPV? Likewise a woman shouldn't be allowed to take a human life just because she changed her mind. Would it be acceptable for a doctor to change his mind halfway through a heart surgery and walk out the door? He also has a right to his own body. He shouldn't be forced to do anything he doesn't want to do.
In this case though. someones rights DO have to be deemed as greater than the others. In this case, we have a preg woman, who does NOT want to give birth. The question at that point comes to this. Whos rights are greater? Because SOMEONES rights have to "win out" Either you say the mother has greater rights to control her own body, thus you must allow an abortion, OR, you say the fetus has greater rights, and thus the woman must be forced to give birth against her will. This is a realistic scenario if you create a blanket ban on abortion. And sorry. I am not one of those people who thinks that the act of having sex signs a contract to give birth if you get preg. So whats your saying basically, as far as I can tell, is that, without voting, you still voted. You would force a woman to give birth against her will if she got preg. If the choice were yours of course.
Having sex does not automatically mean you agree to have children. I know this is a hard concept for a lot of people to understand. But that being said. So, if it were up to you, a woman who got preg, would be forced to give birth against her will? What about cases of rape or incest?
Understood. Thanks for the replies. I dont agree with you, but I can at least respect your point of view. And as a side note. BC does indeed fail sometimes, even if used properly. I know. I have had it happen to me. You shouldnt just assume that the lady was lazy or something.
If 16/17 year old kids are having sex---they they should be responsible for the life they created to give it a home and not take its life.. There are many two parent homes waiting on a baby to adopt. But the choice made was a selfish one--not a "best" one. Simply put---you didn't have a bond with this human life and thus it was easier to kill it then to have any responsibility for its welfare.
From our point of view it was the best option. In fact, if we HAD kept the baby, instead we would just be one of those welfare leeches that you guys are so fond of blaming things on. Cause I would MAYBE have finished High school. She prolly wouldnt have. I certainly most likely wouldnt have had a higher education. If The same thing happened NOW, TODAY, I would choose to keep the baby. But at the time, I simply COULD NOT financially or emotinally support a baby. Neither could she. We would have lived in poverty and squallor. We made a choice to finish our educations and be productive members of society instead. You can choose not to agree with my actions. I dont really care. It wasnt your life, and you didnt have to make the call at the time. We did. I still think, that we made the right call. So does she. We have regrets sure. But we dont ultimately regret that we had an abortion. It was tragic enough at the time without having to carry guilt about it for the rest of our life to boot.
Adoption was not an option? That would have been the best choice. You have life. Your girl friend has life. The baby has life and a couple waiting anxiously to raise a child--has a child. Of course its not my call. But I will call it for what it is. It may be an easy option but its not the best option.
Or the baby could have been given up for adoption. Then the baby could have been raised in a loving home and a couple would have been given an opportunity to love and raise a child.
