I say to Pro-Life. Why? Because, as one of my friends stated,"Pro Choice? That's a lie! Babies do not chose to die!" That may have been said before, but the first time I heard it was from her. If it is illegal to kill eagle eggs, don't you think it should be illegal to kill humans? I mean, from the time the baby is just a few cells to the time where the mother is deciding whether or not to keep it, the baby is a HUMAN. So basically, when you do abortion, you are murdering a child.
Apparently the pro-choice movement wants you to withhold all emotions and actions that make you human until AFTER the baby is born. At that moment, human rights, love, etc., can come into play. Until that moment, stop your emotions and humanity, remain silent. And those pro-choicers that don't believe that is the moment, have a problem defining a moment at which a human being should try to protect another human being, their only certainty being that conception is definitely NOT that point. Well, when is it?
NO! That is NOT the pro-choice argument. The pro-choice argument is not pro-abort, it is pro-CHOICE. The woman should be able to CHOOSE how to proceed without interference from government bureaucrats. The irony about the left and pro-choice is that the right is usually the side against statists and for individual freedom. Funny how that only works if it supports white christian male beliefs.
My views on this subject are complicated. First off, I believe it is above all else, a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Nobody else, not even the father, has a say in the matter in my eyes. Secondly, I am pro-choice on this basis. until it is scientifically proven that a fetus can survive on its own independent of the mother's body, the fetus is a part of the mother's body. My belief is that until that takes place, it is the mother's choice what to do with her body. I consider the point to be around the 24th week, though with future developments it may be possible to have external gestation, in which case, I believe the entire concept of abortion will become somewhat moot. Lastly, I believe that once a fetus is beyond that point of viability, the fetus should be carried to term except for cases wherein continued pregnancy or delivery would cause severe harm to the mother's physical health. If the mother does not want the child, there is always adoption.
And you don't see how putting everything on the woman to make a choice, indeed makes everyone else pause their humanity until the moment the baby is born. Any consideration for the fetus prior to that moment, is scoffed at by pro-choicers. But immediately following the birth, we are supposed to turn on our emotions and principles like a faucet, and suddenly have compassion for the infant. I have compassion prior to that moment. You aren't going to change that with word games.
The fetus is biologically still part of the mother. Intervening for sake of the fetus infringes on the rights of the mother. That also ignores the fact that most abortions are performed within the first trimester, which is hardly even a fetus. That is even more of an infringement on the woman's rights.
You still haven't given me a specific time during a pregnancy, at which I can turn on my emotions and principles, and love, empathize, and protect the baby. I need to know this time period. I've heard it's not conception. But I know it is also not the instant before birth, I have compassion before this point. So when is it? When am I wrong for having any emotion associated with the baby whatsoever? And after that moment, I am right. The pro-choice logic is flawed. In so many ways.
Let me ask you this simple question, are you a woman or a man? The reason I ask this is because IF you are a man, you will never get pregnant, and you will never have to make this "choice". If you are a man, it's really none of your business unless it between you and your wife, as a shared choice, but otherwise, it really has NOTHING to do with you as a man. Now, If you think you should have the right to make those choices for other people who are not even of your gender, not in your family, and not even in your life, then why shouldn't women get to make choices about men's sexual health and birth control. How would you like it if women decided all men should get a vasectomy? Would that be a fair trade? You see how this becomes an intrusion into other lives, other families who you know nothing about. Freedom of choice means that if you don't want an abortion, you don't have to get it. "Pro Life", just means women would not even have the right to make decisions about or even save their own lives. I can point out lots of flaws in the Pro-Life argument also, but it generally falls on deaf ears.
I think what you're looking for is when the fetus becomes viable. That is difficult to pinpoint because each circumstance is different. I would honestly put a cutoff on abortions should be when all of the vital organs are developed enough so that the fetus could viably survive with current medical technology, currently, that is somewhere between 21 and 24 weeks depending on the fetus from what I have found.
So what your are saying is that I, as a man, should develop no feelings of empathy, protection, or love for the fetus whatsoever UNTIL the woman makes a choice to abort or deliver? And you don't see how that entire attitude might lead to more deadbeat dads? Also, apparently many don't see how your argument means that men cannot be held responsible for child support. Imagine a one night stand that impregnates a woman. From the man's point of view, he simply has to wait for the woman's decision, that's all he can do. If she says, abort, then man goes about his life. If she says, deliver, 18 years of financial obligation is forcibly imposed on the man. Don't see a problem with that logic?
So I should adjust my principles and emotions to the medical technology of the day? In 1800, it was wrong for anyone to empathize, love, or protect an unborn child at 28 weeks, but now, since medical technology has made those fetuses viable, we need to shift our principles and emotions, and turn them on at 21-24 weeks? It doesn't work like that. And the logic makes no sense.
I think what you need to do is realize that you have no say over what someone else does with their body. Until a fetus exits the birth canal it is technically, still a part of the mother's body for she to do whatever she likes with her own body. A fetus is not an individual until it is born. If a fetus was an individual distinct from the mother, we would celebrate the day in which the embryo implanted in the uterine wall as the day in which to calculate a person's age. I believe that since fetuses are generally considered viable if born within the third trimester, that should be the cutoff point for abortion since the fetus can exist as a living organism independent of the mother's body. If it is your child within your own body, you can develop an attachment whenever you like.
Got it, no attachments till birth. Explains the family problem in my neighborhood quite well. I disagree that I shouldn't have concerns for unborn children. I have concerns for children. If someone is abusing them, I have a natural instinct to protect them. My question was, when should I "turn on" this instinct? Because I'm trying to tell you, those principles don't just appear out of nowhere as the baby is popping out.
It's a balancing act. I am probably one of the most empathic people on this site, but I know that others have rights and you cannot tell me that a fetus should have the power to dictate what an actual living, breathing, human should do and have the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother. Saying a fetus has rights leads to successive questions, does an embryo before implantation have rights? Does a zygote? Does an egg? Do sperm? I draw my line at when a fetus could be born and survive independently of the mother even with machine support.
Both the mother and father's rights are superseded by the fetus's, at the moment pregnancy is known. Any other view, if taken by society as a whole, or any attempt to skirt those responsibilities by taking a pill, or scraping the fetus out of the womb, will lead to the destruction of the family unit. This is because the very nature of those acts are in fact based on avoiding responsibility. So the acts, if embraced by society as a whole, or even a large portion of it, diminish the responsibility of humans to care for their children. That is what is happening right now, in our inner cities and trailer parks.
????? When someone says x is murder, that's one point when its not appropriate to be saying "fine, don't try to force your beliefs on anyone else." Protection of life is the most fun dental purpose of government.
A few points. 1. Yes, a fetus' rights should not override the mother's when their same rights are at odds. For example, if its between your right to live and my right to privacy, which supercedes? Right to life, period. We're talking about privacy vs life rights here. If two doctors will say there is a significant risk to the mother, than abortion should be legal in that case. 2. The viability standard is bogus. Around 4months into pregnancy an unborn child can be removed and live with medical support over a few months. And if you want to rule that out because its support, take a newborn baby and just leave it to itself without anyone helping it - it will die. The viability principle is bogus. 3. As far as when we consider it life, I think I have the most logical method. When do we call someone dead? Quite generally when their header stops, and their brain ceases to function. Usually just with the heart. Now tell me, if you can tell that someone is dead because they have no pulse, how do you tell if they're alive?
Oh yes, we should not let a human cell die. Sperm eggs and ova eggs should be protected. They should be gathered in latex condoms and refrigerated so they don't die.
No, I'm saying that your logic is flawed. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, long before it is even viable to "step in morally" for sake of the fetus. In doing so, you are invasively VIOLATING the rights of the mother. VI-O-LATE-ING - - - Updated - - - This is your problem right here. The mother's rights are NOT superseded by an unborn fetus.
I am a woman, and so I don't believe in murdering a helpless baby. It doesn't choose to die, and while it is attached to the mother physically, mentally it is not. Your mother still cares for you, right? So you are still attached physically. What if I were to say your mother had a right to kill you because you where still attached and that you had no say in the matter.
You do like to paint with a broad brush and make statements that are emotion filled and driven but are not based on the facts or reality. The fact is most pro-choice backers do not support late term abortions but do support a womans right to make her own choice before the fetus has developed into a baby. One cannot make choices or even have emotions until they have developed a brain, the cells may be human but to be a person one must have a functioning brain. So abortions of fetuses is not murder of a person since there is no person. Locgic is your friend, especially when discussing emotion filled topics.
Let's see if you can pass your own test. Test #1: condemn proponents of late-term abortions. Test #2: name the moment that a fetus becomes a baby. I anxious await exercise of logic in your answer.
I have stated many times that I am against late term abortions and have rarely seen anyone say they believe women should be able to have the right to chose to abort a baby all the way up to birth simply because they descided they did not want to have a baby. When the fetus develops a brain, a point that can vary slightly from one fetus to another but believe it is up to the AMA to define the criteria an judge when a specific baby has reached that point. It is also the same point most states allow abortions on demand to be performed.
Hmm, so you have this attachment thing. So you must feel an attachment to your human ova eggs. You must do everything to ensure those eggs remain alive, so you must copulate every chance you get to give the ova a sperm egg so the ova can survive and have that attachment you are speaking of. You wouldn't dream of aborting that egg with a contraception would you, no not when that poor ova egg would die. You wouldn't deny the ova it's rights to life, correct? I guess god knew what he was talking about huh? Go multiply & don't spill your seed on the ground.
