You claim you would never have an abortion yourself, and yet you support another's right to choose.
People who adopt this stance have no soul. They have no care for the life of a child that's not there's.
What about the baby's right to choose? Has anyone considered that?
If she's not ready for a child, then she can give it up for adoption. Don't take the easy way out at the expense of another's.
A women does have a right to choose...before she gets pregnant. It's the 21st century! We have effective contraceptives.
I I kinda worded this question badly.
Most pro choice people claim they personally are prolife for themselves, but they don't want to push their morals on somebody else.
That's a justification they use so they can sleep at night. But the blood of 45 million babies is on their hands when they vote for so-called "choice." Let me guess ... you're a guy, right. Precisely who are you addressing? The question was addressed in the second person. I believe you should be asking,
How can you call yourself prochoice....
Prolifers do not support abortion.....prochoicers believe that a woman should have the right to get an abortion if she wants one. I couldn't agree with you more. I would never support that, and anyone whom does is a hypocrite. That child didn't ask to be conceeved. It was the dumbness and the neglence of the two doing the nasty. No one considers the baby's rights, it's always what they want or feel( mother). Would that baby say KILL ME??? I hardly think so. Before you go pointing your finger, you should know what you are talking about. Pro Lifers protect life. Duh! I'm not sure who this question is supposed to be directed at. But for me...I am prolife. I don't believe in abortion. Though I can understand IF a persons life is threatened. Sometimes this is the case. Though 99.9% of the time it's just because someone was to stupid to use birth control. You sound a bit preachy BUT I agree with you. Women have the right to choose a sexual act or not,THAT is when the choice is made, NOT after a life is created, then it is murder *sigh*
Abortion should be safe, it should be legal and it should be rare.
What about a rape vicitm? Or an incest victim? Or a woman whose life is threatened by carrying a child to term? Are their rights suddenly null and void because they were impregnated against their will (in cases of rape and incest) or didn't realize that pregnancy would be risky (in cases where the life of the mother is engangered)?
This is a value-weighing decision, and the default should be to protect the rights of the person who exists in the here and now (the mother). I do not believe we have any more right to kill our children in the 9 months we carry them than anytime after we give birth to them. If women want to exercise control over conception, then they need to cross their legs. You miss the point of the argument.
People don't universally agree that an embryo is a person, prior to viability. Many religions say that it is, and many scientists say that they are not sure.
From a perspective of functional biophysics, there is nothing to distinguish an embryo in the first few weeks from any other abnormal cellular growth, or an embryo in the first month or two from any other parasite. The only difference is the genetics that allows an embryo, if it continues to grow, to turn into a human.
According to many people's beliefs, it is not a baby until it has a soul, and for many people that occurs in the 4-6 month timeframe. Prior to that, according to them, terminating the pregnancy is not killing a person.
Whether I agree with that belief or not, I am not going to impose my spiritual beliefs on someone else. So, I must support their right to believe that what they are doing is NOT killing a person if they have an abortion (pre-viability).
You claim that I am soulless (I take you mean, without conscience) because I support someone else's right to determine for themselves what constitutes life (pre-viability). You apparently believe that an embryo is a human being from the moment of conception. That's your choice. And whether I agree with your beliefs or not, I will defend your right to have them against those who disagree.
++++
ADDED: OK. Here's the difference you seem unwilling to acknowledge. A living human, after birth, is clearly a human. Can survive on its own, eat, sleep, etc. So your analogy to Hitler is misplaced, because the government here is not saying that black, or asian, or white, or jewish, or female babies must be carried to term or must be aborted. Equal protection from the Constitution does not allow differences based on race, religion, culture, gender, or other similar characteristics. So, strike one for your analogy.
A fetus, after point of viability, can survive on its own with some help from a machine. That makes it roughly equivalent, in medical terms, to a critically ill person. We make every medical effort to help the fetus, until it can survive on its own. And nobody here is arguing that doctors or parents should be allowed to randomly kill babies or fetuses post-viability. Strike two for your analogy.
So we're down to the real issue. An embryo, PRE-viability, CANNOT survive on its own. That makes it fundamentally different from either a living person or a fetus post-viability. The embryo is, in literal medical terms, parasitic to the mother. Without taking resources from the mother's body, the embryo dies. Now, there are two ways to look at that situation in light of the debate.
First, some argue that the embryo is a person, because it can eventually become one, and that killing it is murder. OK. But medical science doesn't agree, and not all religions agree. An embryo pre-viability is just a lump of developing tissue that cannot survive separately on its own. So, if your argument is based on it being a separate person, because it has its own soul, that is a religious distinction and not a medical one. Therefore, enacting laws that say the embryo is a person is imposing one set of religious/spiritual beliefs on someone else. That I vehemently oppose, and that's the basis for half of my position. Nobody should be imposing their religious or moral beliefs on someone else.
Other approach. The embryo is not yet a person, but can become one with support from the mother. Since the embryo is completely dependent on the mother for its continued life, the mother has a moral obligation (ooppss, getting into religion now, so let's say a social obligation) to provide for it. Remember that at the point we're talking about, pre-viability, the embryo is still completely dependent on the mother for life support.
If the mother wants to provide this life support, from her own body, wonderful. I'm all for that. If the mother doesn't want to, then the government preventing abortion is equivalent to the government choosing the life of the baby over the choice of the mother. Basically, saying that the government can force the mother to provide bodily resources for another person, and more importantly, doing so in a situation where the mother may not agree that the embryo is a separate person yet.
Here's the problem. Where does that government authority to interfere and impose majority rule end? Can the government force people to give blood? Or give bone marrow? Or donate organs? Or provide other bodily resources to people? Based on what criteria?
Look at South Dakota's abortion ban. They want to be illegal to have an abortion even if carrying the child to term causes serious and permanent harm to the mother. That's clearly putting the health of the child over that of the mother. And it's no different than the government forcing a person to donate an internal organ, causing permanent harm to the donor, against the donor's choice.
Also, South Dakota doesn't allow abortions for rape or incenst. Even if we go with your statistics of 2% (which I think is not the correct number, but leave that aside), that's still almost a million victims of rape and incest being forced to bear children against their will, if that went nationwide. Do the rights of those million women mean so little to you?
And if we allow the government to get into the business of enforcing pregnancy against someone's choice, because people do not have any reproductive privacy rights, where does that end? Can the government force someone to become a surrogate mother because some embryo needs a life support system? Or force someone to become pregnant because we need more people? Or force people to get sterilized because the government doesn't think they'd be good parents? Or force abortions because we have too many people?
China is able to force abortions and sterilizations because they have no reproductive rights to privacy there. Once we lose that right, we lose the ability to choose EITHER WAY. The government can force abortions just as easily as it can prohibit them.
The point of the right to choose is that the government, meaning the majority rule, should never be the one making that decision for other people. That's the point you seem to be missing. A woman should be allowed to control her own body, if she does not want a parasite feeding and growing inside of her for nine months she should be allowed to get rid of it, a fetus is not a baby until it draws its first breath on its own which is at birth. |
