Why not? Whats wrong with fixing the undesirable outcomes of risk taking, if we have the means to do so? Would you also want to outlaw helping traffic accident victims? They took the risk, they should not be allowed to fix the unwanted outcome of their risk just because they dont like the outcome of their risk taking!
Just one question. As the father is expected to take responsibility for his child, does he get a say ?
No so, it is MURDER if anyone OTHER than the pregnant woman kills her fetus. SCOTUS just left the killing up to the woman based on her right to privacy. A legal right to do something does not absolve one's conscience IF one has basic moral principles. The aim of the pro-abort crowd is to lower those moral principles so that women will choose to abort. Soon, abortion will be mandated by the State for women's 'own good' and they will already be primed to swallow.
Nope...but my advice to men is that if you are going to have PROCREATIONAL sex, you had better make and have a legal commitment which will at least show the woman is willing to bear your child but, is no guarantee she won't abort against your will. Be aware that if she does abort, it will always be your fault in her mind.
Actually, no, foetal homicide laws do vary, and often it is not murder or homicide to kill a foetus. I do indeed think that law should be consistent in this, meaning if someone kills a foetus before an abortion limit, it is not murder. I dont like the double standard either.
Lets make your analogy actually fit the situation at hand. Are you allowed to intentionally run over and kill someone who is standing in the road and will not move, disallowing you to go where you want to go?
No. That doesn't fit my analogy, by the way. If you are injured in a car accident, should you not receive medical help because travelling in a car is risky?
Not a person, no. And..? You still haven't answered my question . According to you, women know there is a risk they will become pregnant if they have sex, so tough for them...so, does that philosophy hold true for people who are injured in a car accident, even though they know that travelling in a car is risky?
You are always moving the goalposts between two distinct arguments. You can either argue on the basis that fetus should be considered a person, or argue on the basis of responsibility (that sex should have consequences). Of course, I disagree with both those propositions (that fetus is a person, and that sex (or any other thing) should have unwanted consequences even when we are able to get rid of them), so it does not matter which goalpost you use, both are not effective.
Your analogy fails to be relevant because you are not killing another human being to benefit yourself in the case of a car accident. Having an abortion is, in your car accident scenario, like jumping out of your car and killing the other driver to avoid having to go to court and endure the hassles.
Allowing someone other than the woman to kill her fetus (American spelling) goes against SCOTUS' decision. In any case, I was not talking law I was talking conscience.
You are not killing another human being (person) to be benefit yourself in the case of abortion. No it isn't, as no person is killed.
If you cause the car accident, can I force you to donate a kidney to me to save my life? You need to take responsibility for your actions, remember.
no no...it's just that to the Leftist Proabortionist, poor women don't CARE about their children the way that middle class people do. Poor women are lesser life forms, kinda like dogs, sure they may whine when you drown their offspring but they forget them soon enough.. poor women don't love their babies...they only view children as burdens, according to the proabortionists. because life IS all about money, and if you are poor, nothing can bring joy to your life, certainly not a beautiful baby born of your body..and besides, if you ARE poor, you don't DESERVE to be happy and have the joy of giving birth..
no, your analogy is stupid, abortion is not equal to an accident...nor is getting pregnant. and YOU getting medical attention to LIVE is not equal to KILLING someone ELSE. woman gets an abortion: baby dies woman has a car accident: SHE dies.. see the difference there?
Which is the business of the person concerned. I don't know of any pro-abort crowd. Can you give me a link?
So the original intent of PP is still being carried out....genocide of the 'lower' classes. Typical of racist liberals. Apparently there are a lot of 'poor' women here on the Forum.
It can be. Abortion doesn't kill anyone else. Indeed,it can sometimes save the life of the pregnant woman. Both statements are misleading.
Basic morality is what binds a society together. A few individuals practicing anti-social behavior are tolerated as long as they are not committing crimes but when morality is legislated (as with Roe) it strips other individuals of their moral rights. Try the Democrat party.
No, it doesn't. Roe V Wade did not force anyone to act against their consciences. I can assure that the Democrats do not want to force women to have abortions against their will. You are worrying unnecessarily.
Apparently you are choosing to ignore that most people do not wish to outlaw abortion and instead prefer to impose your dogma driven morality on everyone. Utter BS. No one has their rights stripped by abortion but you wish to strip women of their self determination.
Nonsense, people can be bound together in a society while adhering to different moral standards. Giving people choices strips other people of their rights? LOL! Anyway, Roe is not legislation, Roe requires nothing of the people, it sets limits on government.
