You are incorrect. I simply posting a thought. Passing laws forcing them to adopt would be telling them what to do, and I am against that.
No, a fetus is a fetus and a baby is a baby. There's a reason there are two different words for each of them. A fetus is no more a baby than it is a teenager ... A beating heart does not mean it's a person...and only persons have rights. When did I say it is okay for a woman to die? . And where is that happening in abortion? There is only ONE person involved. If there were two persons ( the fetus seen as a person) than the fetus could not infringe on another's ( the woman's )rights... There is no baby but the fetus, if you want to use the "aggression" factor , is the aggressor since it causes the woman it's in harm. And your irrelevent crap about "" because the mother was irresponsible and din't use any contraception"" shows CLEARLY once again that Anti-Choicers only want to punish women for having sex...... She can CHOOSE birth control but YOU haven't shown the law that obligates her to. Yes, she can CHOOSE abortion, that's responsible if she doesn't want the kid. WHY would you want irresponsible people to have kids??? NO logic there and certainly NO concern for the baby. . ..and only ignorant people wallow in consequences rather than find a solution. No child involved and no murder involved in abortion. Women may have an abortion for any reason and convenience is the top reason. YOU are free to live your life as inconveniently as you want but other people don't have to ( they're smarter).
that is simply untrue. there are many reasons for laws being enacted (individually and collectively). Laws overall are put in place to ensure the public safety, protection of constitutional rights and freedoms, protect those that can't protect themselves, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Like so many people, you’re trying to find an all-encompassing easy answer to a problem that doesn’t have one. “Just use contraceptives” isn’t an answer; Contraceptives fail, women are raped, circumstances change, medical complications happen. One key conclusion from your posts seems to suggest that a woman should be forced to give birth even if doing so would kill her! “It’s a woman’s choice” isn’t an answer either so it’s not as if you’re in a worse position that you were previously. You still seem to be several steps away from recognising that seeking the perfect answer is a path to inevitable failure and seeking the least worst outcome in all of the varied individual situations where abortion comes up is the best we can do.
"It IS a woman's choice" IS the answer.... the only answer..... You : """ seeking the least worst outcome in all of the varied individual situations where abortion comes up is the best".... THE WOMAN WHO IS PREGNANT... "" can do"". Your "we" doesn't have anything to do with women's decisions about their lives and bodies...
You misunderstand me. I don’t disagree that the pregnant woman should have the final word in any decision (as long as they’re of sound mind etc.), just as any other patient would. That doesn’t mean we can dismiss the entire issue by simply making that single statement. There are still a whole load of things to consider regarding professional advice, medical services, general social provision, legal consequences and the like. My point is that there isn’t any single line “answer to abortion”, however much we’d all like there to be.
I do not misunderstand you , you are confused. You can't say """pregnant woman should have the final word in any decision""" and then you do a complete flipflop and say, """"There are still a whole load of things to consider regarding professional advice, medical services, general social provision, legal consequences and the like."""" OK, fine , you discuss it but NO ONE should try imposing any of that on women! ALL those things are up to the WOMAN to decide...YOU want someone else to impose these things on pregnant women when it is their decision ONLY.
You certainly have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to use the power of government to enforce that belief.
That is an opinion not based on any accepted scientific or medical principles. And the real reason emerges. You believe pregnancy is punishment, punishment from "God," for what you believe is "irresponsible" behavior. If you're a "libertarian" then you'd be sure to protect the First, Fifth, and 10th. Your beliefs fall contrary to that.
You seem determined to make this a conflict rather than a discussion. I've not challenged your statement about the woman making their decision yet you seem to treat any other discussion on the wider subject as an attack by an enemy. I'd expect you to support discussion about things like ensuring clinical staff provide women clear and unbiased advice and information, that government ensures suitable medical facilities and wider social support are available for their choices (whatever they are) and that suitable legal provision is in place to support and encourage these things. If all you're interested in is establishing your single statement though, congratulations; objective achieved.
Those things shouldn't HAVE to be ensured specifically for women, everyone should have them for any medical procedure, and should always be optional... ....why single out women and only on abortion?
Because some people oppose abortion and so specifically single it out to try to prevent these things being available in that context (and sometimes as a knock on effect, in other contexts too). This is the difference between high-minded principle and practical reality.
Yes, there are very ignorant, evil, nasty people who insist that abortion is not a woman's right and is not a simple medical procedure and they want to forcefully control women at any cost. Those things shouldn't HAVE to be ensured specifically for women, everyone should have them for any medical procedure, and should always be optional... ....why single out women and only on abortion? Because they want to control women and punish women... I am well aware that those people are trying to turn women into broodstock and am aware of the fight against them.
Your argument is logical fallacy - the "assumed premise" that a child exists in the early stages of pregnancy. To save the trouble of going through the various arguments on both sides - the fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree". For example: Of the 5 main scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological, only one puts the beginning at conception (and this position while popular with the public, has fallen out of favor among scientists) Then there are a host of Philosophical and bioethica arguments ... again "Experts Disagree" The defacto claim "zygote is a human/child" is then false. The correct position is "We don't know". When it comes to law we have to balance the rights of the woman against the rights of the zygote. As a libertarian the rights of the woman are highly valued and weigh heavily on one side on the scales of Justice. On the other side we have the rights of the zygote. How do we value "we don't know" ? While one can hold the personal belief "zygote is a human"... making law requires a higher bar. There is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others through physical violence (law). We must then default to the rights of the woman.
If the correct position is "we don't know" then the logical course of action following that should be "let's not potentially kill a human being out of ignorance". A libertarian is someone who believes everyone has the right not to be harmed, not to be stolen from and not to be oppressed. Killing a potential human being is not a woman's "right", it is the violation of someone else's right. "There is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others through physical violence" The only legitimate form law is a law that prevents physical violence onto others, like when you murder a fetus because there is a 50% chance it isn't a human being yet... "We must then default to the rights of the woman." I'm sorry but abortion is definitely NOT a right, even if abortion isn't murder. If I as a man become a father unwillingly society tells me I should've just left my genitals in my pants and the state forces me to give away a significant portion to the mother of my child against my will. These are the consequences of a man's bad decision, I as a man don't have the right to just get rid of the kid before it is born. How would this be any different for a woman? A woman is exactly as much responsible as the man, yet she gets to choose whether or not she wants to keep the baby (and even abort it against the father's will), if someone tells her that she should've kept her legs closed he/she is a "slutshamer" and if she does decide to keep the baby she will get free money from the father and 12 out of 14 days of custody(if the man is lucky). So why the hell would it be a RIGHT for her to abort a potential child against the consent of the father? Nobody has the right to get out of the consequences of their own poor decision making. Don't want children? Use a condom.
1. If not a beating heart, what would you say is the defining characteristic of life? 2. There is no law that forces a woman to use contraceptives, I am not advocating for one either. HOWEVER, actions have consequences! You have every right to have unprotected sex, but you can't bitch and moan if you end up with an unwanted pregnancy. If you don't want to get pregnant then that is YOUR responsibility, not the government's. 3. The Fetus doesn't infringe upon the woman's rights, the woman give the fetus permission to stay in her womb by having sex irresponsibly. I'm all for a woman's right to have sex with whoever she wants, but I am also a strong believer of the concept that actions have consequences. 4. Really? Your solution to irresponsible parenting is KILLING the child? What about adoption? I don't come from a particularly perfect nucleair family myself, and let me tell you that I still prefer this outcome over being murdered. 5. Your line of reasoning is so immature and irrational that is almost hilarious. I do not want to "punish" women for having sex, if any adult wants to have sex with another consenting adult then they have the right to do so. However just because something is a right doesn't mean it makes you immune to the consequences of your actions. If I yell "get out of my country you damn sand monkeys" at some innocent refugee family and the people in my town will no longer want to associate with me and maybe even call me names and ban me from their business, my right to freedom of speech hasn't been violated. Just because I have the RIGHT to perform an action doesn't mean that action doesn't have consequences. So yes, women can have sex with whoever they want. But if they get stuck with an STD or an unwanted pregnancy then their rights have not been violated. 6. Killing the child you irresponsibly conceived is not a solution, it is an immoral way of getting out of the consequences your actions. If you're pregnant you got two choices: Either grow the hell up and raise the kid, or put the kid up for adoption. You wanted a solution, there it is. 7. What is your argument that a fetus isn't a child? 8. "YOU are free to live your life as inconveniently as you want but other people don't have to ( they're smarter)." I am sorry but this is absolutely incorrect. You are free to live your life however you want to, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS DOING SO. This is not a very hard concept to grasp. The reason I am against abortion is because it violates the rights of the child. And no, other people aren't "smarter", they are just psychopaths who are willing to sacrifice the life of a child because it is convenient to them.
And they have every right to do so, however if they do they have to live with the consequences. You can eat as much hamburgers as you want too, but you can't bitch and moan about the fact that you now weigh 400 pounds. That your own damn fault.
To everyone, I think there is some confusion here. This is my line of reasoning Premises: 1. In an abortion a fetus is killed 2. A fetus is a person 3. Killing a person is murder Conclusion: Abortion is murder. If you want to change my mind you have to convince me my premises are wrong, not just draw a different conclusion from a different set of premises. So please don't waste my time merely stating "you're wrong cuz a fetus isn't a person", explain to me WHY you think that. Because I used to think that but now I have realised that there is not defining characteristic to a person that a fetus doesn't also have. HOW is a fetus not a person? What are your arguments?
Murder is wrong no matter what. A child doesn't deserve to be murdered because his/her mother got raped or because a condom failed. I am not denying that these things are very bad and that we as a society should put more effort into preventing them, however I do not see how murder is an answer. The reason I posted my line of reasoning here is not because I want to convince anyone, but because I want people to challenge my new line of thought. So please, if you have any arguments for why abortion should be allowed please voice them.
A "Potential Human" is not a Human. Rights apply to "Humans" until such time as we as a society dictate otherwise. A "Potential Human" is not a Person nor a member of the group "others" in the context of "a human". A sperm is a "Potential Human". should we given them rights too ? Then we have the "we do not know its not a human" argument. This fails miserably in the context of law. What you are suggesting is that we make law on the basis of "we don't know otherwise" This is one of the most horrible precedent for law I can think of. Should we kill Jews (as many suggest) because - we do not know they are not sub-human ? Should we imprison people for crimes they are suspected of because "we do not know that they didn't do it" ? Tell you what - You propose making a law that forces a woman to pass a rather large object through a small orifice in her body. A rather painful procedure that will have lasting effects on a woman's body (and life for at least the next 9 months). Your rational for this law is "We don't know otherwise". Using this logic - I suggest a law that has Big Bob the Sodomizer come visit on a weekly basis to those who think this is good justification for law. The rational is "We do not know that it will not do these people some good". In fact, I would argue that it would do a great deal of good in that these people would quickly realize what a terrible justification for law "we do not know otherwise" is.
