When a woman spreads her legs she signs an unwritten contract...

There is no obligation to not kill what you bring into this world. You can only have obligations to persons, not to things. A fetus is not a person. A woman has no obligation to it, just as I dont have an obligation to keep my tree alive if I no longer want to, even if I planted it.

I agree that it is cruel for a woman to allow her zygote to grow all the way into a fetus that might be sentient, then decide to terminate it. But sentience cannot appear sooner than after 5th month, not 30 days. Abortion should be banned after 5th month.

 

I agree that engaging in sex incurrs the risk of pregnancy. For those that do not want a baby, contraception mitigates that risk.

If contraception does not work then abortion is an option that do not want a baby.

A baby is the natural consequence of not having an abortion presuming all goes well from conception to birth.

 

No, that is the entire point of the abortion controversy. You believe the fetus is not a person and has no rights, others believe it is a person and due all rights. That is THE issue.

All else flows from the belief that the fetus is or is not a person.

The question is "where in the continuum from conception to birth does the fetus become a human?" Its clearly a human at 6 months as babies are regularly born at 6 months and later and without any extreme intervention live. Some people err on the side of caution and precedent and claim it is a human at conception.

I claim that the weight of the arguement is that at conception its a human, and the burden is on you to prove beyond a doubt that it is not.

 

Irrelevent. The consequences don't change just because a person wants to have fun or bond with their partner. If you create a human being, you can either take care of that person or murder that person. Why you had sex, and what you did to reduce the chance of getting pregnant, do not change the consequences of getting pregnant.

 

Being that no one appointed you king, you don't get to wave your hands around and grandly pronounce what the consequences are.

 

They should deal with the consequences. They chose to risk lung cancer, so they they should pay the medical bills out of their own pocket. Liberals just do not get this. The difference is that treating lung cancer does not kill any human lives.

Abortion-seeking women are just as arrogant; they think they have the right to decide whether their unborn baby deserves to live.

Just because you brought life to your baby does not mean you have the right to kill it. Besides, what women often choose to brush aside is the fact that they were not the only ones that played a role in bringing the baby into existence. What about the father? Doesn't he have some say in all of this? Is the woman just free to abort the man's baby whenever she feels like it?

 

A baby born at 6 months has a 50/50 chance of survival and requires massive medical intervention to do so.

 

Does a woman have to sign a contract to do star jumps, or should she just keep her knees together?

 

So it is okay to kill the baby just because it might not survive?
Is it okay to kill cancer patients that are diagnosed with having a 50% chance of dying within 3 months? Besides, I thought liberals believed that medical care was a "human right"? Why is it suddenly not a human right anymore when it is an unwanted baby?

Maybe eminent domain should apply to the pregnant mother in her final stages of pregnancy. Cheaper to pay some token compensation to the mother than have to provide expensive life support to her baby whose birth was prematurely-induced .

Unless she gets her tubes tied, a woman should have to sign a contract assuming liability before she can have sex. This is indeed how it used to be; the contract was called marriage. Abortionists do not really like the idea of personal responsibility.

 

Thats an old number. Survival for babies born alive at 24-27 weeks is near 70%. Before 24 weeks survival drops drastically and required intervention increases tremendously.

The "massive intervention" is extremely misleading. Premature babies are routinely put in a neonatal ICU not because they all need intensive treatment (some do), but because its the policy of many hospitals to put a premie in ICU for 30 days or until it has gained weight. A premature baby will lose weight for the first few weeks and is fed using a tube into its stomach via its nose. There are many premies that only need humidified air (lungs need time to adapt to the dry air) and feeding through the tube, no other medical action required. These babies are counted as needing "massive intervention" simply because they are unnecessarily in the neonatal ICU.

 

Anti choice propaganda. next?

 

Actually it should be the other way around

MEN should be forcibly sterilised and sperm banked for when we desire to reproduce

Far easier and safer to do it that way than the more invasive procedure to sterilise women

 

Pure unadulterated bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!!

Work a couple oif years in NICU THEN come back and tell us what it is about

 

And an alpha male has the responsibility of killing all male offspring that aren't his own...unless he want's the pride to think he's somebody's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Exactly. So why we always hear the arguments from "responsibility" and other similar non-issues fro pro-lifers? Abortion question is NOT about responsibility. Its only about when personhood begins. If fetus is a person, then even rape abortion should be prohibited, since rape fetus is not different from fetus resulting from consentual sex. If fetus is not a person (therefore its a thing), then abortion must not be prohibited, again no matter what lead to pregnancy, since circumstances of conception do not change any quality of the fetus. And if its a thing, you dont have any responsibility towards it, as you can only have obligations to a person, not to things.

IMHO, the fetus becomes a person when there is a possibility for it having a mind. Current scientific consensus is that the mind is a result of neural activity in the cerebral cortex. No brain activity in the cerebral cortex = no mind = no person (basically a logical reversal of brain death).

Brain waves in the cerebral appear in the 20-22 weeks of fetal development. Thats when the fetus becomes a person. Actual legal limit should be a little sooner, just to be sure - 3-4 months is enough time to decide (assuming abortions are funded by the state, which they should be IMHO, because they are time critical).

 

They do have the right. It's their body. How would you feel if someone told you what you can and cannot do with your own heart? Being overweight can harm your heart, so all unhealthy food should be illegal. Your liver? Alcohol hurts your liver, therefore, you should not be allowed to consume alcohol. Just because you attach a different unique emotional significance to a fetus than the next person shouldn't give you the idea that you have a right to determine how another person handles their own personal body when no harm is coming to anyone in doing so. If someone had to die in order for a woman to have an abortion, I'd buy your story.

The mother being the sole decider in whether she gets an abortion is simply because the woman is the ONLY one who bears the direct physical, mental, and emotional burdens of that pregnancy. She's the only one who can. The father, even if he is involved and doing everything humanly possible that a good father could do for his pregnant partner, is only indirectly involved. He experiences things 2nd hand, through the woman who is experiencing it first hand. The rest of the pregnancy, and then the life of the child if it's born, can be shared equally(minus breast-feeding, but breast-feeding is not mandatory, even if it is the healthier way). The pregnancy is the only part where things are innately unbalanced, where the woman is the sole person in the entire world who is experiencing the first-hand effects of that pregnancy. It's in her body, it's connected to her body, it's completely dependent on her body. It's hers. Why should a man who has absolutely no direct involvement in that pregnancy have the right to tell that woman what she can or cannot do. I do not mean to undermine a man's role when he is present and taking care of the pregnant woman here, but he is still not experiencing the direct effect of that pregnancy, he is experiencing it through the woman. His experiences are directly dependent on her experiences.

 

A couple? I've worked and volunteerd in a neonat ICU for the past 25 years, ever since one of my children was born at 26 weeks. You should know what you are talking about before you fire off some ignorant knee jerk reaction post.

 

Volunteering doing WHAT??? Making cups of tea for visitors is NOT the same as having actual medical experience

((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))) And this is why I always take claims of expertise on the internet with a grain of salt because, sadly often the claimed expertise is a a huge variance to what should be base knowledge.

 

The baby is the mother's body?

The baby bears the ultimate burden if an abortion is carried out.
The woman made the decission (to have sex), knowingly took the risk, and now should have to face the burden she brought upon herself.

 

It's not a baby till it's born.

 

"A negro is not a person till he has been granted his freedom"

We've all heard these type of arguments before. They do not hold any water.

Abortionists have been trying to change to definition of the word "baby" to try to justify late term abortions on healthy sentient human lives.

 

In a way, yes. It's just as connected as the rest of her bodily organs, just as dependent on all the organs functioning somewhat correctly as any other organ is. The fact that it will become an independent human person in the future does not change it's current status when it's a fetus. Something cannot BE something before it IS something.

But, what I meant by what I said was, it's her body and her decision, because the fetus is a part of her body.

Why? Because you say so? Because that's how you feel things should be? This is why I tend to get involved in abortion discussions. The hubris, the sheer blatant arrogance, of those who want to dictate to a woman how she can handle her own body based on their own subjective ideas of how things ought to be, blows my mind, every time. That's her body man. You need to keep your nose out of it.

 

You make a valid point and everyone ignores it.
If a woman is allowed to choose, after the fact, then so should the man be allowed to choose whether or not to be responsible for the financial well being of the fetus after pregnancy but before birth saying hell no I won't pay for it. If you keep it you pay for it, I don't want it. It's only fair.

 

Why? The man has less responsibility than the woman does already. After the child is born, responsibility is shared equally. Both parents are financially and legally responsible for that child, unless one or both have lost or relinquished those rights. The man, however, does not have to carry the child in his body. It's innately unequal. Saying that a man should be able to opt out of responsibility for a child just increases that inequality.

 

Drivel. If you are going to get involved in a risky activity, get castrated.