1. Laws against abortion kill women When women feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to have abortions, even in secret, without medical care, in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the United States, nearly one million women went "underground" each year for illegal operations. Tens of thousands were maimed or died. 2. Legal abortions protect women's health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. 3. A woman is more than a fetus. There is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion surrounding the debate of whether a fetus deserves rights equal to women’s. Our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's — a thinking, feeling, conscious human being — serves to diminish women. 4. Being a mother is just one option for women. Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom. 5. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory. Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion. 6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms. 7. Outlaw abortion, and more children will bear children. Forty percent of 14-year-old girls will become pregnant before they turn 20. Here are the critical questions: Should the penalty for lack of knowledge or even for a moment's carelessness be enforced pregnancy and childrearing? Or dangerous illegal abortion? Should we consign a teenager to a life sentence of joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency? 8. "Every child a wanted child." If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children. They are among society's most tragic cases, often uncared-for, unloved, brutalized, and abandoned. When they grow up, these children are often seriously disadvantaged. Children need love and families who want and will care for them. 9. Choice is good for families. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, and cause economic instability. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open. In short, abortion is legal for two main reasons: Because women have the right to make decisions about their own reproductive systems, and because they have the power to exercise that right regardless of government policy.
1-As Chuz Life said, it sends a bad moral message to make abortion legal so that abortion could be "safer". 2-Most women don't have abortions for health reasons. That's only a very small percentage of abortions. 3-At least the fetus isn't selfish like the woman is. 4-I don't get what youre trying to say. 5-http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life004.html 6-The child deserves rights. 7-That's an exaggeration. 40% is almost half. 40% of girls do not become pregnant before their 20th birthday. 8-What you're saying is that unwanted children should be allowed to be killed. That's very similar to what the Nazis said. 9-I don't know what to say.
So we all should abide by what you consider morally right? Yep because abortion is legal, take away that legality and you have far more health issues due to illegal abortions A fetus can't be anything let alone selfish .. though I'd like to see your proof that women getting abortions are being selfish, or is it just more opinion without facts. Why doesn't that surprise me More attempts to impose your morality Why? apologizes my figure on this is a little out, the current rate of teenage pregnancy in the USA is 1 in 3 or 33.3% (2010 figure) .. my figure was from earlier data .. Still 33.3% is still very high - http://www.familyplanningplus.org/83/how-many-teen-girls-get-pregnant-every-year/ "Goodwins Law" yet again .. BTW a fetus is not a child. Then don't say anything.
5. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory. Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion. They have never been able to deny this one logically
1-Every law imposes morality in some way, shape, or form. 2-That doesn't change the fact that most women have abortions for convenience, not health reasons. 3-Lol. Why do most women have abortions? For selfish reasons. just like casey anthony. 4-Okay, whatever. 5-You didn't actually address the arguments of that article. 6-Because you can't claim s"elf defense" (abortion) if you inflicted the injury onto yourself (the pregnancy.) Good question, btw. 7-I don't believe those bull(*)(*)(*)(*) (i apologize for using profanity, but I don't know what other words to use) statistics. 8-"Btw a fetus is not a child". Not according to your "personhood is not the defining factor in abortion" thread. 9-Whatever.
Prove it and the relevance is? As Casey Anthony killed her two year old daughter, what the (*)(*)(*)(*) has it to do with abortion No need it's a fact, one you choose to ignore what has that to do with rights, and as already shown numerous times your opinion is wrong. that is called wilful ignorance and denial, you choose what you want to believe even though the evidence tells you something different. Umm Sam .. that thread was about the HYPOTHETICAL scenario of Roe being overturned and what MIGHT be available for a woman to fight against those inane laws, no relevance to this thread at all. - - - Updated - - - They try, but fail .. logic isn't the relevant tool for pro-lifers.
So by quoting a religious site and their personal view of morality some how makes it ok to enforce that morality onto all others, including those who don't happen to follow their particular brand of religion .. in that case why can't atheists enforce their morality onto all others .. is that acceptable to you?
Nor honesty. How many times have we caught one of them denying something we "falsely charge they believe"....and then supporting that very same thing? Or how many times have some of the more "moderate" ones said "Abortion is murder"...but then "But I don't want it made illegal". Neither logical nor honest.
The only reason I quoted that religious site was because I don't know how to put my own arguments into words, so I quoted somebody else's arguments.
and those arguments are based on religious morality, I thought you said you didn't want abortion made illegal on religious grounds?
A quote from the article you presented; The site is a Christian based one is it not, what sort of morality do you think they mean, a secular one or a religious one?
So out of a whole article you pick a single sentence and them claim I am nitpicking and you still haven't answered the question .. under what moral code does this Christian site base it's opinion on .. a secular one or a religious one? and no one has ever said they are . .however that does not escape the fact that anti-abortion laws will only effect the poor.
Does it not, so in effect then the laws you want to impose are laws aimed at only the poorest of society, the rich can pretty much carry on as if nothing has changed .. Yet again you highlight the discriminative nature of anti-abortion laws.
Discrimination, by definition, only applies if rights are restricted. Unlike you, I don't believe that abortion is a woman's right. Also, you just contradicted yourself. If abortion prohibition stops poor women from having abortion, then this contradicts your earlier assertion that banning abortion doesn't reduce abortion rates.
Go read a dictionary Racial discrimination is restricting rights is it, nothing to do with skin colour then. Really don't gave a crap what your personal opinion is, explain why abortion is not a womans right? It stops women getting legal abortions, but there again as already stated most pro-lifers don't give a rats arse if a woman (and her fetus) die in an illegal abortion.
1-I said that discrimination, by definition, restricts rights. I don't see why you are bringing up redundant stuff which I already said. 2-I really don't give a crap what your retarded opinion is either. My opinion is this. A woman can't claim self defense rights against a fetus (you argue that women should have the right to abortions because pregnancy damages their body), because if somebody starts a situation, then they can't claim self defense against another person. 3-It still does reduce abortion rates. Prohibiting something does reduce the rates of it. For example, drugs being illegal stigmatizes drug use to an extent, therefore, despite drug use still happening, by making drugs illegal, there is less drug use.
and I asked you does racial discrimination restrict rights .. if you call a black person a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), does it restrict their rights? You claim my opinion is "retarded" yet which of us has supplied evidence to support their opinion .. hint, it isn't you Yet again you are wrong, the courts have already declared pregnancy as a serious injury in some cases unrelated to the reasons causing the injury. If I go into a S&M place and consent to being tied up and whipped, but then withdraw my consent can the person continue to whip me? Can I use deadly force if I have exhausted all other means of stopping the injuries occurring? the answer you are looking for is yes I can under items 2 & 3 of the justification for use of deadly force, which are - 2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks) 3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnapping, rape, or slavery. Here is your chance, provide your evidence to support that pregnancy does not cause serious injuries to a woman . .good luck with that. Prove both of the above opinions. All the evidence supports the fact that the criminalization of abortion has no effect on the number of abortions performed, case to the point is Brazil, and you must be very naive if you think drug laws have any effect on drug usage.
1-This has nothing to do with abortion, but I will still answer your question. It's very horrible and mean and wrong to call somebody a racial slur. However, I don't see what that has anything to do with rights. 2-If you went to an S&M place, you could just leave the place if you withdrew consent to getting whipped. There's no need to use deadly force in that sort of situation. 3-Prove that drug laws don't reduce drug usage.
You stated that discrimination by definition restricts rights, so does calling a black person a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) restrict any of their rights? and as already stated in my previous comment "Can I use deadly force if I have exhausted all other means of stopping the injuries occurring?" to put into easy terms, if they are stopping me leaving and still continuing to cause injury, can I use deadly force? that is not how it works, you are the one that made the assertion that drug laws stop drug usage, it is up to you to prove that your assertion is correct .. can you, or are you just going to keep evading.
