Ahh, but that's an oversimplification. Because it negates any rights of the mother. Bringing a child to term is no small inconvenience. And, as noted, even with artificial medical aid (ventilators, etc.), a fetus is not considered viable, according to both the Roe ruling, and still in most states, until between 24- 28 weeks. But let me ask you, do you feel that people should be forced to stay on artificial life support, if that's all that's keeping them alive (if that's all it comes down to--- is it a life)? Or do you now find yourself making qualifications? Because if, "a life," is only something that can carry on its vital functions (breathing, maintaining proper body temperature, etc) on its own, that would push the point of viability, i.e., a baby that could go home w/ its mother a couple of days after birth (or just be birthed at home, with a midwife), somewhat later, still, than the child whose home would need be the intensive care unit for its first few months. So, it's not so simple, nor is that all there is to it, for even if I might not consider a child a viable life if it can't breathe on its own, that doesn't mean that I think abortions in the 32nd week, or later, are appropriate, under most circumstances, because of the potential of viable life. Yet, if one goes down that road, as feminists have pointed out, a sperm has the potential, under the proper circumstances-- finding an egg, w/in a womb-- of becoming life, so is masturbation, mass murder? To be clear, I don't take that view. The only point of this post is to show you that, within that, "simple," designation of, "a life," you have built-in all sorts of other choices: no, a sperm's not a life because it's incomplete, but an incompletely-formed fetus is a life, even if it requires life-support equipment to keep it, "a life," but an older person-- not even necessarily an old person, maybe just someone with a terminal disease, or other condition of unremitting suffering-- might be thought, by some (probably including me), should have the right to choose to forego using life-support equipment. You have heard of people, in hospitals, with, "do not resuscitate," orders, have you not? And if you answer that one by saying that there are different standards, in your mind, for the elderly & the newborn-- which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with-- well then you have added another layer of complexity, beyond, "is it a life?"
Neither is raising a child. Does that mean a woman should be allowed to have her born child killed? That's a legal argument. Try a moral one. If killing gay people for being gay was a law, would you accept that law, or might you have a bit of a moral argument against it? Why does a baby need to be "viable" in order for them to not be aborted? Let me guess - Roe? Again, legal argument. No, because it hasn't found an egg. I haven't actually, but are those orders obeyed?
NO, raising a child and having a fetus grow inside your for 9 months are NOT even close to being the same. If one has to make up improbable scenarios , one has no argument. Wrong again....a fetus is considered viable when it is formed enough to be capable of living on it's own...that is SCIENCE. THEN it has PROTECTIONS, no rights , protections....and unneeded protections at that... Sorry ,but DNR has been around for many , many years ( where have you been? )and yes, if the ones in charge are ethical, those orders are obeyed.
Women should always decide for themselves whether or not to give birth or not. However, in the case of married couples, the husband ought to have the right to divorce his wife with no strings attached (ie. alimony) if he is opposed to the abortion of his child.
I plan on giving my answer to the question, in FULL, when time permits. My previous response to you was not, as I'd said, meant to show MY point of view. It was merely intended to demonstrate that arguments could be made that proved your comment-- that the determination of, "is it a life," is both a simple question & one that is a straightforward, black & white one, without gradation-- is not the ONLY valid perspective. I ask that you have the patience to wait for me to put forth my own feelings, before you launch in w/ your critique. With that understanding, I will, once more, answer these questions in the hypothetical, that is, not in order to make my case, which I've yet to lay out, but only to show that all humanity need not accept your particular view, which seems to regard every other perspective as nonsense. By THAT argument, that it was INCOMPLETE, my point had been that one could, likewise, make the case that an only partly-gestated fetus, lacking substantial parts of the brain, for example, is not a human (like the sperm) because it hasn't completed its requisite processes. If your attitude is, but it will, the obvious answer is that you cannot know that. How can you say, with CERTAINTY, that the woman might not have a miscarriage? So, then, if a man & woman have had intercourse, it should be illegal for the woman to "clean up" any of the semen from her vagina, because of the possibility that one of those sperm might find an egg? In both cases, your view is based on an assumption of probability of what WILL OCCUR, not a hard fact of what HAS OCCURRED. And what is, "wrong," with legal arguments, en masse? If you were to kill an intruder who'd broken into your home, do you think you would be judged, in court, by a legal or a moral measure? Well, you would contend, the law is as it is, precisely because that has what has been decided, through a rigorous law-making process, as being what is right, what is moral. I rest my case. Yes, they are. And they are standard fare, though I would not be surprised if there were some VARIANCE from state to state. In other words: EVERYONE might not see it in the same, black and white, terms.
Yes but it gets more complicated if the life of the mother is threatened by a pregnancy. There are some who believe that a mother should be allowed to die if a pregnancy threatens her life. They want abortion pill llegal in all circumstances.
Alimony shouldn't be a thing to begin with. The fact that feminists still support alimony is a joke. they preach gender equality and then support a notion that a man should have to support his wife after they divorce. The entire premise of alimony is that women are too stupid and weak to support themselves.
LOL, you are off topic but I'll add......alimony can apply to either ex-wife OR ex-husband ...equality at work
I agree 100%. We don't have alimony in Sweden - not to say that feminists don't have all the rights in the world while men have none ... but no alimony anyway.
You're right - raising a child for 18 years is MUCH harder than 9 months of pregnancy! I was simply saying that moral arguments are superior to legal arguments. If abortion was made illegal, you would obviously have a moral argument against it! Somehow I doubt that you would say that you agree with it because it is the law! Yes, I didn't say that Roe ruled on what viability is, I'm saying that Roe ruled that viability is the point at which abortion can be denied. And arguing that Roe justifies abortion before viability, is a LEGAL argument which is to say a DUMB argument! What the hell do you mean by "unneeded protections?"
As a class. In total. Absolutely. The way you dismissed my bringing up viability, as an argument, simply by classifying it as, "legal," suggested that you felt any assertion, with this type of basis, was insubstantial, without merit-- or else why did you not bother to address it?-- or at least inferior to a, "moral," argument. I went on to point out that the rationale behind laws, is that they make illegal, behavior that is seen as WRONG, in the eyes of the society as a whole. While they are not perfect (which can be said of any human system), the laws of a democratic nation much better represent the MORAL sentiments of the population, to whom they apply, than any specific MORAL code-- unless you can find a country in which EVERYONE is a member, by choice, of only one religion-- because those determinations of, "morality," are not representative of the beliefs of citizens who do not belong to the religion from which the code comes. To be clear, I am not saying that you, or anyone, must accept the law's judgements on morality. Anyone may abide by their own moral code, provided it does not involve illegal activity, IN THEIR OWN LIVES. But (since I am reasonably sure this will not be an issue for me) this thread seems to be asking what should the LAW be? And, personally, I find it wrong to force others to abide by beliefs they do not hold, in cases when the behavior directly affects no one outside of those involved with it, i.e., when it is not clearly in the, over-riding, public interest. Naturally, preventing physical harm, or death, from coming to people, is in the public interest-- which is why there are laws against these things! What we are talking about, here, since it is meant to apply to people, regardless of their spiritual views, is a DETERMINATION of LEGALITY. So it is ironic that you would be dismissive of legal arguments. Here is your comment, to remind you. "Why does a baby need to be 'viable' in order for them to not be aborted? Let me guess - Roe? Again, legal argument." Once more, if something is accepted as moral by the majority of citizens-- w/ different religious beliefs, as well-- one would expect it to be manifest w/in the legal code of those people.
How do you do, crank? The answer to your question, sir or madam, is a violent or otherwise controlling husband or boyfriend, a father, step-father, brother, uncle, cousin, family friend, family pastor, etc. Each year, tens of thousands of young women and girls as young as 10 give birth to children as a result of rape. Most of these victims are economically disadvantaged and reside in rural areas far removed from help, including abortion services.
I imagine you got my meaning (in my first response) but, in a briefer reply, I'll add the translations: taken, "as a group, in bulk, all together, as a whole."
Yes, of course legal arguments are inferior to moral arguments! If killing gay people for being gay was a law, would you accept that law, or might you have a bit of a moral argument against it?
