Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

We all agree it's illegal to force a parent to donate an organ to their dying child.
We don't all agree it's illegal to force a pregnant woman to donate their body for 9 months to keep a embryo/fetus alive.
Why are some trying to elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

 

Great question. When the pro lifers who staunchly oppose abortion become actively involved in causes that assist women and children (already born), I'll take their concerns a little more seriously. How often do we hear accusations and complaints about 'welfare queens' having more kids so they can leech more off the system - but none stop to consider the lives of the children of those women.

 

In the case of the unborn, if she wasn't raped, the mother is responsible* for the predicament the unborn is in. If you see the unborn as an equal person, as pro-life people do, then that is a problem.

If you grab a child and hold the child over the side of a cliff, is it ok to just let go at that point and watch them fall to their death, or do you have a responsibility for their safety until they are safely put down again?

* - Yes, the father is also responsible, but this is between the mother and child.

 

Interesting question!

 

If you think they aren’t you’re fooling yourself. You’re certainly not fooling those of us involved with a wide variety of ways to help single mothers and low-income families.

 

Indeed.

I wish people would stop presuming that just because somebody takes one view they must therefore take another view on an unrelated issue. We don't all fit into neat little boxes.

 

so you only take people seriously that contradict themselves.

 

Nope! Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy

And I LOVE just LOVE how the woman is blamed but the man hardly even factors into the equation. Since overwhelmingly the reasons for abortion are economic then I suggest that DNA testing becomes mandatory and there is a DNA database kept so that every male impregnating but not supporting the woman is made to support her and the child financially. If he is shown to have been a “baby daddy” and unable to support the offspring he is sterilised

 

Really

I stnd ready to be astounded by the proof of this since those that oppose abortion are almost exclusively known for also opposing child welfare, paid parental leave, free LARCs etc

 

1) The first problem is that the claim that the Zygote is an equal person .. or even a person at all - is based on moronic arguments .. most often no argument at all.
2) Agree that the woman (as there is no mother) is responsible .. at least in part .. for an accidental pregnancy. If a child is not desired ... the responsible thing to do is abort as soon as possible.

See 1) Assumed premise fallacy.

 

yes it is consent to pregnancy
thats what happens when you have sex, duh!

 

doesnt matter what you want to call it, its not recognized as something that exists by the state until there is a birth certificate.

 

Why are you telling "ME" this ?

 

This is the equivalent to saying that because a person is responsible for their bone being broken by choosing to go skiing, that they cannot correct the condition by having the bone set. I have yet to find anyone who actually claims that the woman is not responsible for being in a situation where she has the risk of getting pregnant, your rape exception noted. I have seen those who claim that others claim the woman is not responsible for that situation.

 

And you would most likely be among the silent majority. Thing is those who are the most vocal, especially among lawmakers, are also the ones who do tend to deny and attempt to remove help for single mothers and low-income families.

 

There is plenty of that on both sides of any given argument. For example, and off topic, many assume that those who support a welfare program, must support the failing system that is currently being held in place.

 

Consent to sex is indeed consent to the risk of pregnancy and by extension consent to the pregnancy itself. HOWEVER, that by no means implies a consent to remain pregnant, anymore than by consenting to go skiing, one consents to maintain any broken bones that might occur as a result of that activity.

In the case of pregnancy, within the context of abortion only, it is only the woman's decision to have sex with a willing male partner that puts her at the risk of pregnancy. A born offspring and the responsibilities there are a separate context for later down the timeline.

Now if you want to make the argument that the male is also responsible for the woman pre-natal, I would say that is a separate thread outside of the abortion forum.

 

He(?) might be springboarding off your post as opposed to countering it.

 

Wound not be a surprise .. ending up in la la land on post 1

 

Well, why should we have elevated the status of property (slaves) over humans (slave owners)??

 

Mate

I am hitting back at all those who just want to “slut shame” women

 

What?


A. Slaves were humans.

B. Who tried to elevate them over their owners ? How were they "elevated" in status?

 

No, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy...it is risking pregnancy but not consenting to pregnancy.

A woman could have sex a thousand times while "consenting" to get pregnant or consenting to the risk of pregnancy and NEVER get pregnant.
One "consent" has nothing to do with the other "consent".

And it doesn't matter anyway since "consent" may be withdrawn at any time..

 

Because the unborn have nearly no rights at all.
They have fewer rights than animals. This has to be changed!

 

Because if they do not they will be killing a viable human. They still have time for abortion early on. They also have contraceptives and condoms. They can choose not to have a child. Rape victims should get abortion procedures right away anyway.