The best argument for banning all abortion even after conception isn't that it's "murder" since an embryo has no brain or awareness. But I can see one arguing that it's still dehumanizing and wanting it banned on that grounds - for the same reason that it's illegal to throw a human corpse in the garbage.
Do you know why it is illegal to throw a human corpse in the garbage .. it has nothing to do with "dehumanizing" the deceased it is about hazardous material disposal, a human body decomposes and is a breeding ground for all sorts of diseases. There are no good arguments for banning abortion.
It's illegal to have sex with a corpse even though it's not alive because it's considered defiling of a human body; so by the same token I can see one morally considering abortion a dehumanizing act even if in the early stages it technically isn't a "human life".
One can see abortion as dehumanizing as long as they don't try to legislate their erroneous beliefs. It IS dehumanizing to take way women's human rights to their own bodies. - - - Updated - - - One can see abortion as dehumanizing as long as they don't try to legislate their erroneous beliefs. It IS dehumanizing to take way women's human rights to their own bodies.
What makes you think there's a universal right to one's own body? One doesn't have a right to commit suicide do they?
Sure they do, they even have legal assisted suicides in some countries and states... Why do you think women don't have a right to their own body?
It is only dehumanizing to the extent that opponents are successful in promoting that viewpoint. - - - Updated - - - Would actually depend on who or what group you think is the granting authority.
Abortion should not just be a question of child welfare, but the welfare of the child and the mother- emotionally, physically, and mentally. Limited access or judicious access to abortion seems the best alternative, but in all cases I would say the primary concern should be that of the mother. The idea is that society is not allowed to begin moderating the intimate concerns of a woman- and, by extension, her life- based on what it thinks is proper or not. Some states give a certain amount of time for the mother to consider abortion before the state can even begin to contemplate intervening on behalf of the child and I consider this most fair.
The problem is that sick extremists are fighting to get the time shortened , some idiots think 12 weeks is "fair"! The constant barrage of anti-abortion legislation is all , and only, about dehumanizing women to the level of breeding cattle.
There is no Federal legislation specifically barring sex with a corpse .. though multiple states have there own laws concerning necrophilia; Alabama Felony (Class C) § 13A-11-13 Alaska Misdemeanor (Class A) § 11-61-130 Arizona Felony (Class 4) § 32-1364 Arkansas Felony (Class D) § 5-60-101 California Felony Health and Safety Code § 7052 Colorado Misdemeanor (Class 2) § 18-13-101 Connecticut Misdemeanor (Class A) § 53a-73a Delaware Misdemeanor (Class A) § 11-5-1332 Florida Felony (second degree) § 872.06 Georgia Felony § 16-6-7 Hawaii Misdemeanor § 711-1108 Indiana Felony (Level 6) § 35-45-11-2 Iowa Felony (Class D) § 709.18 Kentucky Felony (Class D) § 525.120 Minnesota Misdemeanor § 609.294 Mississippi Felony § 97-29-25 Nevada Felony (Class A) NRS § 201.450 New York Misdemeanor (Class A) § 130.20 North Dakota Misdemeanor (Class A) § 12.1-20-12 and § 12.1-20-02 Ohio Felony (fifth degree) § 2927.01 Oregon Felony ORS § 166.085 Pennsylvania Misdemeanor (second degree) 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5510 Rhode Island Felony § 11-20-1.2 Tennessee Felony (Class E) § 39-17-312 Texas Misdemeanor (Class A) § 9.42.08 Utah Felony (third degree) § 76-9-704 Washington Felony (Class C) RCW § 9A.44.105 Wisconsin Felony (Class G) § 940.225 (7) 24 states have no laws making necrophilia illegal.
Objectively, it could be just an intense justification for the defense of the child as they see it. While they may have respect for the woman, they might seem to view the child as uch more important since it is "innocent". A sort of child-worship since children tend to represent innocence and vulnerability to many people. However, at the same time, I think pro-abortionists do their best to dehumanize the child- wordplay aside. I understand what you will likely say about it not being a child and all, but, really, we all know that by getting and abortion we are basically interrupting the development of a human child in it's earliest stages. The fact that it isn't a human pro forma is a weak argument, morally and technically.
A "child" has been born. A fetus is not a child. It has the potential to develop into a child when it is born. Words are important when it comes to LAW which rules us all. Yes, Anti-Choicers use the word "child" to try use emotion rather than reason when trying to curtail the rights of women. They want people to think of the chubby cheeked atypical Gerber baby when they vilify women for aborting a fetus. That is very dishonest. I don't know any "pro-abortionists" so I won't answer for them. I will answer as a Pro-Choice advocate. I have seen no one say the fetus is not human. Not a one. But it is not a person until it is born. IF it ever deemed a person then it has NO more rights than any other person....it cannot use another person's body to sustain it's life anymore than YOU can. Morals have no place in determining law since not everyone's "morals" are the same.
When it's brain function begins it's biologically a person so it has a right to life. Early term abortion I am fine with being legal since it precedes consciousness, but claiming a fetus is not a "person" the millisecond before it's feet come out of the womb is absurd, sociopathic even. Right to survival can trump other rights such as convenience - this is why we inconvenience taxpayers by funding a military via their taxes even without their approval (to ensure our nation's survival). All laws are based on morality - if you're only talking about non-aggression versus aggression then that's still a type of morality, so the argument laws are not based on "morals" is absurd. But some are more correct than others.
I can see how a person would view abortion as dehumanizing. No reason to outlaw it, but I understand how some would feel that way.
Law is just the prevailing interpretation of right or wrong at any given time. It can say a child is a child when they are 9 months, today...9 weeks tomorrow. But that does bring up the good point that this whole argument is really revolving around peoples personal concept of right or wrong behavior. In the end, the law actually is a moral code and morals (peoples opinions) do play a major role. And with this argument there are pretty muddy issues on both sides of the argument to the point where either way, I feel a grievous violation has been committed to the opposing side. I really don't see a "right" answer here. Either choice reflects a harsh reality.
Aka morals, since people like Ted Bundy don't believe they have any obligation to care what's best for society, just themselves If they have the ability to make laws then yeah they do
I have no idea what Bundy has to do with this...... NO, NO single individual gets to decide our laws.....
Come over to Queensland - it is illegal here And our rate of abortion equals yours http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/info-a-resources/facts-and-figures/queensland-abortion-law
Any women deserves to do what she wants to her body, it is as I see a basic human right. There may be an income burden if a child is born to the mother there is no reason to cause this burden if there is a way to prevent it.