If the abortion was within the legal time frame, then it's not a crime. If it's not, then yes, some punishment would be legitimate, but it should be thoughtful to both the situation and the people affected.
If it is not in the legal time frame it should be murder just like it is if another person kills a late term fetus. Murder is murder no matter who does it
WTF! How would that be done.....??? Hilarious, unrealistic, and downright silly scenario....as usual. This highlights the desperation of the Anti-Choicers, a situation based on them having no facts to back up their arguments
NO, no ""medical technology"" has made gestation shorter. It is STILL 9 months.....where do you get this crap??? It will be a baby when it's "born"....just like all other fetuses....
Sounds like something the Kennedy family might have tried to do. Pay the doctor to delay the baby as long as possible until the family could get another doctor to the scene to "take care of things". Did you ever read the tragic story of Rosemary Kennedy? The nurse told the mother to keep her legs crossed to keep the baby from coming out till the doctor got there. The baby suffered asphyxiation, stuck for 2 hours in the birth canal, as a result.
Abortion IS a remedy, no imagination needed. And Pro-Choicers believe in women's right to their own bodies, a right YOU enjoy but don't seem to want it for women.....as if they must be punished for getting pregnant..,. There shouldn't be a "punishment" for conceiving...
Unlike you the tabloids aren't my "go to" for information... WTF! How would that be done.....??? Hilarious, unrealistic, and downright silly scenario....as usual. This highlights the desperation of the Anti-Choicers, a situation based on them having no facts to back up their arguments
There are consequences though. Pro-choicers just believe those consequences should fall onto the fetus though.
"Medical technology" cannot make gestation go faster....it's still 9 months and not likely to change. Most fetuses are viable at 23-24 weeks no matter where they're grown. Because a fetus is in an incubator doesn't mean it magically has rights....it still shouldn't have rights until birth.
No, wrong as usual. Pro-Choicers think the woman who is pregnant should decide what to do with her own body....just like YOU decide what to do with your own body......do you want that right taken away from you? There ARE consequences to conceiving and that's why the woman gets to decide what they are....it's her body, not yours and certainly not the government's... And OF COURSE if the woman decides to abort the consequences fall on the fetus....duh. And here's the rest of my post that you CONVENIENTLY left off: Abortion IS a remedy, no imagination needed. And Pro-Choicers believe in women's right to their own bodies, a right YOU enjoy but don't seem to want it for women.....as if they must be punished for getting pregnant..,.
And there's no way she can decide what to do with her body without simultaneously deciding what to do with someone else's body. Therein lies the dilemma.
First, I want to agree with your post here. The incubator fetus shouldn't have legal rights until birth. Otherwise, all sorts of unpleasant charges could be levied toward those caretakers responsible for fetal development. We don't need more lives ruined over fetal issues.
Until that fetus is viable, there is no dilemma. It's a part of the mother's body, taking her sustenance, draining her energy, limiting her life activity. It's her decision and hers alone until that fetus develops the capability of self-sustenance. No dilemma from the legal point of view.
Couldn't you say it goes both ways? Why can't you say they are both temporarily part of the same body?
No, as you've been told many many times there is no "someone else". There is only one person in a pregnancy.
A fetus is viable, able to live outside the woman , without artificial means at 23-24 weeks. If a baby is born at 9 months it is a person....even if it needs medical assistance.
Many times there are babies born at 8 months who cannot breathe on their own. Are they persons? They usually still need an incubator and supplemental oxygen. Still a person?
All human souls come from the same source. That source is neither male or female. Those attributes are taken up in the physical while we're visiting, and is not a permanent aspect of who we really are. So, prejudice toward male or female being superior or inferior is misguided and makes no sense. From a spiritual perspective, we are truly equal, for we are all non-gendered.
It's always interesting to hear an Abortion proponent admit the existence of a soul. Especially when they try to weave that in to their support for Abortion.
It would be.....but when you create a ridiculous strawman you lose credibility. It doesn’t happen so let’s deal with the real issue
