I never said that income 'entitled' one to have a child. More so, what I've been saying is that having a child is a responsibility to which the parents should be held liable. Individual members of societies have a right, but not a responsibility to provide any help to those in need.
You want to personalize this? We often selfishly wish for disproportionately good things for ourselves so I think we need to be more objective about this. My thought is that if you take the fetus when it is a single cell, how does a cell with no intelligence or physical traits of humans have the same rights of a fully developed human being and have more rights to a woman's body than she does to her own? Now lets take the fetus at the time of birth. Would it be right for a woman to have an abortion right before pregnancy? It is virtually a baby and the only difference is that it is in her body and if a born baby was somehow stuck back in a woman's body but would be removed after a couple month naturally does it lose its right to life? Now no abortions happen at these two points but they do demonstrate the point that abortion is not black and white and there is a point where the fetus gains more of a right to life than a woman has to her body and the real debate is finding that point.
I think you mean delivery? Why would a woman want an abortion right before delivery? That doesn't make sense....and no women do that... NO, the only "difference " ISN'T that it's "in" her body...it's attached to her !!!!!!!! I think you'd best get a book on pregnancy and biology. A fetus just doesn't sit inside a woman, floating around unattached...what are you thinking! If a born baby was stuck back inside a woman , a BIZARRE twisted thought, then it would suffocate and die.... The point HAS been found!!!!!! It's 23 weeks , VIABILITY, and after that the fetus has PROTECTIONS NOT RIGHTS.....IF continuing the pregnancy after that threatens the women's health or life she may have an abortion...the fetus has NO rights only "protections"...
We have laws that say parents should be held liable. It’s called child neglect. Growing up poor with parents who love you is better than growing up with parents who are wealthy and abuse you
She did NOT post that. She posted : ""We have laws that say parents should be held liable. It’s called child neglect. Growing up poor with parents who love you is better than growing up with parents who are wealthy and abuse you""
Why would you advocate for an unnecessary hysterectomy, which is major surgery? Maybe we should call for the men who knock the women up to be castrated?
Not necessarily, as has been pointed out in this thread: Is this baby part of the woman's body? (particularly further in the thread where someone points out that a baby has been taken out and then placed back inside the woman) You know as well as I do that there's not just some sudden point. If there is it's only a legal distinction for the sake of practicality, and I really think there should be a more graduated approach. A woman shouldn't abort just because there is just the slightest little chance of risk to her health, that sounds like an excuse to me. Most women who WANT the baby would never even think about abortion unless the risk was very high.
No, I know better than you because I know the facts and you get your "information" about abortion from cartoons.. There IS a cut off point and that is birth.. UH DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, ya think....practical is good and a practical solution has been found... There IS a graduated approach...the fetus is given protection until it's born and gets rights... A woman should have an abortion for any damn reason she pleases....Who made YOU the Ruler of What Women should do? Answer: NO ONE. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH women do NOT NEED AN EXCUSE to have an abortion , it's a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE!!!!!!!! What "most" women think has got NOTHING to do with the rights of other women....got it??!!!
Never good thing to base an OP on a fallacy.. "what if it were you". This assumes that "you existed" at all stages of pregnancy. The question is then "what is YOU". If we go with the universally accepted definition "I think therefore I am" ... you do not exist until the later stages of pregnancy. The idea that the single human cell at conception (zygote) is "YOU" is then abject nonsense. Since there is no brain (or even a single brain cell) at this stage ... awareness of one's existence in a human sense, just does not exist. Second. The structure of a human is comprised of Trillions of cells. That structure is built during pregnancy. At the zygote stage ... not one single cell in that structure exists. It is rather difficult for me to accept that "I existed" when not one single cell in the human body that was me existed. No mind + no body = no human.
In addition to the point you were responding to (not that you responded to the point but...) there are many children who are born into very disfunctional environments. The point that Fox was making is that while the "anti aborts" claim to care so much about "Human Life" ... many of these hypocrites do not give a hoot about "human life" once out of the womb. The right is the party of cutting food stamps for goodness sake.
If it was me? well I wouldn’t remember. I wouldn’t know what was happening to me at the time because I lack consciousness and I wouldn’t know about it after because I would have been killed before gaining consciousness. Just like if I passed out at a party and someone raped me. If he killed me afterwards or ensured there was no way I would find out about it, then I would have absolutely no awareness of the rape. Does this mean I think it should be legal to violate someone’s human rights just because they weren’t aware and could never be aware of it? Hell. No.
Hypothetically, do you believe it would be ethically OK to have non-consensual sex with a fetus inside the womb, provided you obtained the consent of the woman? (I could dive into details making this hypothetical a little less abstract but then I would probably be chastized by the moderators for that)
Just how far into the imaginary bag of hypothetical impossibility do you need to go in order to support your weird rights removal position?
Ya know, you could just admit you are wrong and that you have no facts on abortion... then you wouldn't need bizarre perverted sexual scenarios which look like they came from a twisted mind.