I am a Libertarian. I believe that anyone has the right to do whatever they what as long as they do not infringe on another persons rights. With that being said, I do not believe that abortion falls under that basic libertarian principle, and here's my reasoning. The question that has to be answered as to whether abortion should be allowed or not is whether or not the baby inside the womb is a living breathing human being and based on the answer or conclusion to that question, we can then form an argument as to whether or not abortion should be allowed. I think there is no question in my mind that from the moment of conception, a fetus or a baby is a living human being. I can already here people in the comments screaming, "a fetus is not a living human being!!!". I find this argument to be absurd and I hear it all the time. If a fetus inside the womb wasn't a real living human being then why does it grow, why does it use the umbilical cord to gain nutrients from the mother, why is it that the baby kicks around inside the womb. To me the argument that babies inside the womb are not living things is absurd, and anyone who makes this argument is only ignoring the facts just to justify their own political agenda. The other argument certain people will bring out is, "But it's my body, I have the right to choose what to do with it", and to that I answer yes you do, but a baby inside your womb is not part of your body. We aren't forcefully taking out your lungs or kidneys are we. Because, if that was the case I would agree with you, but the baby is it's own entity. Another argument I always hear is "you just hate women, and you want to treat them like cattle." I have never hated women and I have the utmost respect for them, but with that being said, that doesn't give any person the right to murder babies just because you weren't careful and got pregnant or got someone else pregnant. Just because it is inconvenient for you to go through with the birthing process, that doesn't excuse you from the responsibility of being careful nor does it give you the right to murder babies. With all being said however, there is one case where I think abortion should be legal. I believe, a couple of years ago there was a couple from India, going to Ireland for vacation. the wife was pregnant. Anyway, her water broke on vacation and they rushed to the hospital, but there was complications with the birth and the wife died and the baby died. If abortion had been legal in Ireland, the wife would have at least lived. In cases such as this, I think it's totally understandable and reasonable for an abortion to be allowed. In conclusion, I am against most cases of abortion except for the one case I just mention previously.
Just "late term abortions" here. If the baby is capable of living outside the uterus, baby is entitled to human rights. A pregnancy is 40 weeks. Reliable viability happens in the low 20's weeks. To prevent any oopsy thumb in the brain moves by a surgeon, it would be the surgeon's responsibility to evaluate the viability of late term aborted babies. Yes to exceptions such as severe deformities. Yes to promoting adoption. Even before term of pregnant women who would otherwise seek an abortion. Where are those old fashioned Church run Maternity Hospitals? Moi, M.D. ret. r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Babies are living beings. They have all the rights other humans have. Unfortunately no where among those rights is the right to force another person to give up their body for the baby's use against that person's will.
A woman's body is her own domain. A government has no right to force a woman to have a baby she does not want any more than telling a woman she CANNOT have another baby - as Red China did for years.
It gives any pregnant woman who doesn't want a baby to use her body to have that baby removed, even if it means it's death.
With all due respect, in most cases, excluding rape or other cases of sexual abuse, if a man and a women have legal and willing sex with each other, they are also willingly taking the chance that the woman might possibly become pregnant. Just because those two people were not careful, does not mean that they have the right to kill a baby just because the pregnancy is inconvenient for them. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then she should wait to have sex when she ready to have kids. Because logically, if you avoid one cause, in this case having sex, then you avoid the ultimate possible effect which is that you get pregnant.
Well, biologically speaking it has human genetic structure, but it doesn't have any other qualities which make humans what they are, such as the ability to engage in an array of emotions or have 'higher thinking'. Only after a certain time in the womb though, an embryo cannot kick around in the womb. Technically the foetus is an extension of the mother, as the foetus is connected to the mother and its life is dependent on its mother's existence and continued pregnancy. What about rape babies? And how is that a suitable trade-off? The condom breaks so you must forcibly raise your offspring for the rest of your life even though it's technologically possible to stop the development of the foetus before its too late. Not forgetting of course that in many situations where abortion is wanted the child would be raised with a very poor quality of life, so instead of condemning someone to not have been born, you're condemning them to a poor life.
Okay, I forgot to mention that I am in favor of abortion in cases where a woman is raped or sexually abused, because she in no way chose to have sex. With that being said though, just because there is a possibility that a baby that will be born will live a horrible life, that doesn't mean he/she doesn't have the right to live their lives in the first place. Last time I checked the constitution states, "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If you kill a baby then all three of these points in the constitution become mute, any living human being and that includes babies have the right to their Lives, their Liberty, and the pursuit of their own happiness.
So you are fully admitting you'd rather condemn a person to a horrible life than no life (where no misery would entail)? Rights are a privilege given to people by the state, they can be given and taken away at will.
Actually, rights are not a privilege given to people by the state. The founding fathers of the U.S.A, as well as myself, believed that rights and liberty were not privileges given to us by the state, but rather natural and essential. When a government starts taking away any persons rights, that's when I take up arms. If any government treats people, yes that includes unborn babies, as less than people, that's when I say bring it on. Also, how do you know someone who is born will ultimately live a horrible life, that is up to the person when they are born to decide through their actions. Anyone can make their life anyway they want as long as they don't infringe on the lives of others. Also anyone has the right to live in the first place, and the way I see it abortion is a tyrannical system that infringes upon the rights of human beings that have yet to leave the womb.
I am pro life but used to be choice.my mind was changed from reading and listening to pro life side, I feel bad for women that become pro life and had abortions earlier in their life. I can't imagine what it would be living with the fact of sentencing your own child to be killed. I respect the women that talk about the regret,and share their experience to help others. Having an abortion doesn't make you not a mother. It makes you a mother of a dead child
They can believe what they like, belief does not equate to facts Rights are not found in nature, rights the way you are describing them, are not true through concept and they are not true through empirical evidence, the only way for them to exist otherwise is through absolute moral knowledge, which no human possesses. Existence precedes essence You're literally taking away the 'right' to liberty through preventing abortions For that to be true you would have to quantify what makes a human a human, and by extension what makes being treated as less than a human is like. Statistics. Statistically, those who grew up in poorer families are more likely to perform worse in education and are less likely to have stable employment and more likely to be engaged in teen pregnancy. https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/2123.pdf http://www.urban.org/sites/default/...6/2000369-Child-Poverty-and-Adult-Success.pdf
Your attempt on the one hand to frame the discussion first as "infringe on another persons rights" then unilaterally declaring that a fetus is a "living thing" and therefore entitled to the same rights as a person is fallacious. A fetus is a living thing. So is a cow, a chicken, and a turnip. Are cows, chickens, and turnips entitled to the same rights as persons? The answer, of course, is "NO WAY!" Cows, chickens, and turnips are not people and so it is with a fetus. A fetus is not a person anymore than a caterpillar is a butterfly or an acorn an oak tree or for that matter, an egg is a chicken.
And now we get to your real argument. Pregnancy is the punishment for having sex. One of the foundations of monotheist religions. Pregnancy is not "god's will." It is a biological function like farting and pooping and a fetus is not a person.
Please provide your reasoning for why a fetus isn't a person. Also I'm not religious. Also nice use of the straw man falicy. You literally took what I said and spun it around to fit your own political narrative.
The ability to murder babies is not a right. Just like how me murdering you in a hypothetical scenario is not a right.
Excuse me, but you make the claim that a fetus is a person. It is up to you to prove that claim. Still: The fetus cannot communicate outside the host. The fetus cannot exist outside the host. The fetus cannot get nourishment outside the host. The fetus cannot adapt to conditions outside the host. The fetus is, essentially, a parasite. Completely dependent upon the host to the point of death if disconnected from the host and invariably poses health risks to the host up to and including death..
I believe the proper response is, "ahem..." "To me the argument that babies inside the womb are not living things is absurd, and anyone who makes this argument is only ignoring the facts just to justify their own political agenda." To which you respond DOH!
>completely ignoring my posts on "rights" >false equivalence Also, I'm not a 20 cell foetus with no consciousness, I'm more human in the sense I actually have more humanistic qualities than a clump of cells.
How CONVENIENT for you that you will never, ever be pregnant, eh? Having sex does not constitute an agreement to gestate and deliver should a pregnancy result from the copulation. Just like smoking doesn't mean the person can't have any resulting tumours removed from his/her body. You don't get to tell women whether they can or can't have sex. I will have sex when, where and with whom I choose. If I conceive, I will do what *I* want, not what YOU want me to do.
Incorrect. This is not in the US Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document. The wording is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nothing in there about the unborn.
Okay, my bad. I mixed up the documents the words were from. But just because the declaration of independence didn't technically say, for the unborn. That doesn't mean they can't included in their. It didn't specify who or what has the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, just because it's not a legal document doesn't mean that it is not essential in the founding of our government and our country.
You can have sex anytime and as much as you want, when did I ever say that you can't have sex. But, It is not illogical to say that if you do consent to sex, you are also consenting to the possibility to getting pregnant. That is your choice, and just because the consequences to your choices are inconvenient for you, that doesn't give you the right to murder babies.
