Here's another thought. What if you were in the exact same position (debts, education, low paying job) but were a woman and found you were pregnant.
Okay, I have read all your points and taken it into account, and I have come up with a new view on this issue. The conclusion I have come too is that abortion should be allowed for libertarian reasons. Currently, thought I am trying to address the issue of abortions in later stages of a pregnancy, and currently I am trying to come up with an answer for that. What do you all think about this part of the issue? Should it be allowed in later stages or not?
Care to address the post of mine above? There is nothing wrong with abortion at any time to save the life of the woman or end the life of a problematic fetus (ill/disfigured). There are laws protecting fetuses from late term abortions (after viability). There doesn't need to be though because women are not all insane and get pregnant just to "enjoy" 8-9 months of pregnancy for the "fun" of having a late term abortion. Doctors do not perform late term abortions unless it's for the life/health of woman and/or fetus. Canada has NO abortion laws and women don't line up in droves for late term abortions.
The answer to that question comes from studying who has late term abortions and why they have them. As far as the latter goes late term abortions are only legal if there is a threat to the life and/or health of the woman concerned. Do you have the right to tell someone that they must risk their life and/or health purely to satisfy your own morality? Is it even moral to force someone else to die just because you believe that abortion is wrong? FTR legislating morality has always been a mistake and there are plenty of examples to choose from. (Prohibition, DOMA, etc.) Women who have late term abortions usually WANT to have a child. If they didn't they would have terminated the pregnancy in the 1st semester. So the decision to have a late term abortion is usually a medical one. Most of these women either already have children or will subsequently have a child. So again the question to ask yourself is it moral to demand that a woman who already has children or who wants to have a child should run a risk because of someone else's "morality"? Why should anyone's "morality" override the judgement of a qualified doctor and the patient whose life is on the line? There are extremely few late term abortions in this nation and they happen because of medical reasons because no doctor is going to risk their license and violate the law of the land for the bogus religious right allegation that it is for "convenience" in the 3rd trimester. And since you are male consider this scenario. You are happily married with 2 small children and your wife is expecting her 3rd child when her doctor tells you that she stands a chance of dying if proceeds with the pregnancy. Would you insist that she put her life at risk and leave your two small children to grow up without their mother? If you wouldn't do that to your own children why would you do it to anyone else's? Yes, those are emotive arguments but the relevant point is that every women takes them into consideration when deciding whether or not to have an abortion. It is not an easy decision for her to make and it is her decision alone to make. As males all we can do is to support their decisions because they are not our decisions to make.
Isn't it strange how the abortion supporters NEVER use the arguments made by the Supreme Court Justices. Maybe we need to fire the left wing justices and get some new ones.
I would say what you earn has more justified rights to privacy than the matter of life or death has. Democrats always support intrusive income taxes, and make the incomes of the rich, their business. (They demand Trump tell them his tax affairs) Back to approving the death of the unborn. Sorry for being honest with you all.
You *do* realize that R v W was decided by mostly conservative justices, right? 6 of the 7 who voted in favour were Republican appointees. One of the 2 voting against were Democrat.
Of course the REAL justices on the SC can't be fired but I am kind of poking fun at the forum Justices. LOL
I figured the forum experts would get it. As I told the other poster, certainly I am aware who was anti Roe v Wade in the decision and who was pro. I was poking fun that these never used in court arguments keep coming up is all.
And what would that be? Please educate this Aussie - what "arguments" are those in particular? (am willing to bet that they are not what you think they might be) - - - Updated - - - You mean the Aussies, Brits and Canadians on this forum? The ones who are interested in allowing choice for all women across the world?
Why exactly do I need to use only the arguments presented in the Supreme Court case? I felt it was safe to assume the Topic Creator had done some research and was aware of those arguments, thus presenting them wouldn't bring any new thoughts to the table. Do you take issue with the point I made? If there is fault in the logic I presented then I would be happy to hear your take on it.
As far as I'm concerned, there are two reasonable, non-hypocritical approaches to abortion; you can be a pro-life vegan, or you can be a pro-choice meat eater (like me). Pigs, when fully grown, are generally estimated to have an intelligence equivalent to that of a three year old child, and numerous other commonly consumed animals aren't far behind. I've accepted that I'm ultimately okay with humans killing entities-with-the-intelligence-of-a-three-year-old for convenience, so it would be extremely hypocritical for me to not be okay with people killing entities-with-the-intelligence-of-a-negative-three-month-old. The morality of killing something is determined by that things self awareness and intelligence, not by its species, and I've abundantly established by my actions that I'm okay with killing things of fetus level intellect. All that's ignoring the fact that outlawing abortion doesn't actually prevent abortions from occurring. Pomegranates, when consumed in sufficient quantities, can cause abortions and miscarriages. What are we going to do, outlaw pomegranates?
One key fact you're missing is that, at the time that abortions occur, the embryo/fetus is not yet a person at all. The embryo/early fetus is physically incapable of having a thought, feeling, or mind in even the most primitive sense. For that reason, it is not a separate entity in a morally meaningful sense and so abortion is morally neutral.
My argument wasn't meant to address moral principal, as abortion is not moral or immoral. It's simply a medical procedure, as is giving birth. Neither one is good or bad, but forcing a person into either option is immoral.
So, for example, everyone has a right to know about your erectile dysfunction and hemorrhoids but not the amount that you are drawing from social security? Is that what you are seriously telling us that you are advocating here?
I would be against abortion as well if I thought it was the same as "killing a child". In fact, in the latter stages of pregnancy when good arguments can be made for calling the fetus "a child", I am personally against abortion as well. What is "scientifically ridiculous" is the claim that a single human cell (at conception or otherwise) is a child. What is also ridiculous is thinking that folks make the argument that a the fetus is not alive ? Only one completely ignorant of biology does not realize that a human cell is alive. I have never heard anyone try and make this argument. It is logically ridiculous (logical fallacy) to suggest that "being alive" turns a human cell into a human being. Another problem with your argument "no reason why abortion should be allowed" is that you do not understand the difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others. If you are against abortion - fine - don't have one. There is a difference between you not liking something and being able to justify forcing your personal belief on others.
Tell that to all the liberals that want to take everyone's guns away. So don't all abortions. In fact, according to a recent study women are at higher risk of death when having an abortion than when giving birth. https://lozierinstitute.org/new-res...poses-higher-risk-of-death-than-giving-birth/ - - - Updated - - - Same logic....if you don't like guns, fine don't own one, but don't try to take everyone else's right to away.
You are off topic, have NO proof of that silly claim, and NO one has EVER tired to take my guns away and NO one has ever tried to take YOUR guns away....... NO one has tried to take away the right to own a gun. No, pregnancy and giving birth are more dangerous......and THAT isn't the point anyway. The POINT is that women have the right to CONSENT to either give birth or have an abortion.
