Ok, I'll respond. A statement like that seems to imply your belief that it doesn't exist before it is born. That's the most absurd thing ever. What makes you think childhood only starts the minute it's born? Because you would seek to deny those rights. I do. But not every killing's a mercy killing. Just because it's not born all perfect doesn't mean it's in the best interests of the child to terminate it. From the pro-choice perspective, the slightest imperfection is reason enough to abort it. A deformed finger for example. One couple in Australia aborted because it had a deformed left hand. Did you know that? It was past the age of viability.
haha that awkward moment the pro choicer isnt pro choice. Youve just coined a new group...congrats on being the first member of pro choice if I agree.
And , as usual, that would be you erroneous interpretation of it....seeing only what you want to see, not that which is there. There is no way that this statement: """FoxHastings said: ↑ Isn't it odd how Anti-Choicers don't seem to mind a child being born like that …"" No, it's a fact: FoxHastings said: ↑ That has nothing to do with what you quoted but a fetus does become a child the minute it's born."" It is a FETUS before it's born.....I don't know why you insist it isn't....you have NEVER proven a fetus is a "child". Childhood can only start when one is a child. Which, again is an odd response to: FoxHastings said: ↑ For the ten millionth time, a two year old is a BORN person with rights and a fetus is not."" WHOSE rights do "I seek to deny" ? NOT the two year olds….and the fetus has no rights TO deny... I never said it was.....YOU implied there was something wrong with mercy killings...... The "child" does not get to decide, that's life. BS! From the Pro-Choice stand, the woman decides what to do with HER body. SHE decides what to do with her fetus... So what? I hardly believe your little stories and really don't care if they're true or not since they have NOTHING to do with women's right to their own bodies.[/QUOTE]
Bowerbird said: ↑ This is about a baby that was not aborted. The mother refused abortion even though it was a diagnosed anencephalic The full story below is quite long so I will summarise. Stephanie Keene was born without the front part of the brain. Her mother insisted on full care and the baby survived for 2.5 years. That was 2.5 years of medical interventions and care at a phenomenal cost A picture of an anencephalic I deliberately chose one of the better looking pictures as there have been complaints in the past bin relation to some of the less fortunate babies http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/969 WHERE in the post you quoted is a Pro-Choicer not Pro-Choice. I didn't see it...
Does a woman choosing to abort because something is wrong with the baby really have that much to do with a woman's right to her own body?
Oh, look, another ""cherry picked wriggling out" response Yes, a woman has the right to abort for any reason...how many times must you be told that? Why are you so confused?
DUH, the reason is a separate issue from her having the right to her own body. The reason doesn't matter since it IS her body. Abortion is legal, women do NOT have to justify it or get an OK from you...
So is drinking, smoking and a host of other behaviors that are not considered to be healthy or of good morals. Based on your reasoning, it must be perfectly okay for a woman to smoke and drink during pregnancy because "it's her body".
No, that isn't based on what you perceive as my reasoning. It's not good that a woman does that during pregnancy but it isn't illegal. And it's HER body so , yes, she can do anything she wants with it. "healthy" and/or "good morals" do NOT determine rights or who has them...
There already are laws on the books in several states. It's called fetal endangerment. pregnant woman driving under the influence charged with fetal endangerment Smoking during pregnancy it's okay of she's getting an abortion, right?
So whats the point?...lets clarify... Do you just not agree with her decision or do you want to ensure in cases like this the baby is aborted?
You are not getting it. Pro-choice is only about preserving women's right to their own bodies and having the freedom to make a choice THEMSELVES. Pro-Choicers are exactly what it says. They do not advocate for or against women having abortions....
Does that include genetic experimentation on the fetus? So-called "designer-babies". Even if it carries a risk of horrendous abnormalities? (Well I suppose that doesn't matter because she can always abort, right?) (Outer Limits episode here)
Here ya go again getting your "information" and weird scenarios from TV shows ...how silly... Here's my entire post before you cherry picked (wriggle out of) it : You are not getting it. Pro-choice is only about preserving women's right to their own bodies and having the freedom to make a choice THEMSELVES. Pro-Choicers are exactly what it says. They do not advocate for or against women having abortions....
I agree it is her choice to carry to term however it is not part of her choice to force others to care for an indivual for whom there is no hope of functional recovery
How far are you willing to take this? Are you willing to see women jailed if they do not adhere to an optimal lifestyle?
It has everything to do with it. She may be fine carrying a baby she knows will die to term because she feels an overpowering need to do that much but the next woman may be so heartbroken and despairing that she cannot abide the thought of continuing one second more with a pregnancy that will not end happily
These are the kind of freaks that you DO WANT to abort. This is the only good thing about Roe V Wade USSC in the USA -- it guarantees the right to make this abortion.
