Exactly- unfortunately not every pregnancy results in a perfect “Gerber Baby” and some women DO choose to carry for as long as possible so they can hold and grieve for a lost little one (maternity units have things like “Moses baskets” for the tiny foetuses).. Some want to terminate the minute they get the news and some will have test after test hoping against hope that the diagnosis was not true Every person should be supported in the journey they choose
Because I never said it having no skull is her fault. The creation of the fetus is her fault, if you insist on using the word "fault", which surprises me.
Her actions resulted in the fetus being where the fetus is, and now she wants to kill it. That much is simple fact. How we view it from there is debatable. Should a fetus be considered a person? Should abortion be considered the killing of a person? At what stage of development does that change? Is it self awareness? Ability to feel pain? A soul (for the religious people)? Does survival chance matter? Does the life the child will be born into matter, including the income and ability of the parent or state to support the child? And if it is our moral equal, what then is the woman's responsibility, since she put it there and she now wants to kill it? Should she be able to call it self defence? Does bodily autonomy win out even though she is co-responsible for creating the situation (absent rape)? Lots of good questions to discuss.
We should also remember that murder is culpable homicide. There are many cases where people are killed and it isn't murder. This could be one, even if the unborn is accepted as being a person.
Not every person. It depends on the circumstances, the stage of development, the viability, the reasons for wanting the abortion, etc etc. I think if the pro-choice side expressed a little more compassion for the unborn, they could win over a lot more people in the middle. Same for the pro-life people if they showed more compassion to pregnant women.
No it is not - let us look at definitions Kill or killing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/palliative care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia Even the Catholic Church is onboard with palliative care - in fact they often are very very good about supporting patients through it. But define things as YOU like - it won’t change what is
Did they? Consent to sex does not Imply consent to pregnancy Now I tire of this game of semantics as I consider it trolling I suggest you read my sig
Pregnancy is the natural result of it. The unborn is completely innocent and did not contribute to the risk of pregnancy. The pregnant woman did, through her concsious and deliberate actions, absent rape. You started this "game", and I've tried to end it. Whaler said something, the meaning of which was obvious. You and others decided to bicker over semantics. You are the ones trolling here if anyone is.
Nearly 50% of them who don't use contraception at all, in fact. 95% if you include those that use it "sometimes".
So one hospital has dumb medical staff and lawyers that couldn't read a law or make a call to find out. So lawmakers called them and told them they're stupid and to do the abortion. After the $30k she got in GoFundme money though we'll probably see more of it.
Sure. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2386600/ Of the unplanned pregnancies, about 52% occur in women who were not using contraception, the institute reported, while 43% occur in women who used contraception inconsistently or incorrectly and 5% were in women whose contraceptive method was used correctly but failed.
Yes, it could be considered self defense. IF the fetus is considered a human being, a legal person, then it should have no more rights than anyone other person. To say the woman must take the harm the fetus is doing to her is denying HER right to self defense. With rights come RESTRICTIONS...persons canNOT use another's body to sustain their life. No one can force another to give them a kidney or heart or take their blood. But Anti-Choicers want fetuses to have super rights, more rights than the woman they're in , more rights than anyone else. "morals" should never enter into the equation since "morals" vary from person to person. A fetus is a legal person at birth...no need to complicate it. YOU: """Should a fetus be considered a person? Should abortion be considered the killing of a person? At what stage of development does that change? Is it self awareness? Ability to feel pain? A soul (for the religious people)? Does survival chance matter? Does the life the child will be born into matter, including the income and ability of the parent or state to support the child?"" All questions the PREGNANT ONE should be able to decide.....not the government , not religious wackos and not misogynists.....
The old "punish women for having consensual sex by forcing them to gestate" ....gee, no misogyny there , folks !
I am undecided on this, because it is the doing of the woman and not the unborn that created the situation that now has prompted the woman to want to kill the unborn. I also question how consistent you are with this highest importance of bodily autonomy, and if you apply same level of importance to it regarding the draft, vaccine mandates, and the legalization of prostitution.
Yes, ok. But is it suicide or just unfortunate circumstance? Assuming pavement below and that they jump off a skyscraper. And in the case of sex and pregnancy, she may not have intended pregnancy but she took the risk and she caused it, and she put the fetus in peril by doing that and then also then allowing it to develop into a fetus. She is responsible whether or not you want to say she "consented" to it. The fetus certainly didn't consent.
?? Read again what you quoted. I said she caused the situation and the unborn didn't. I then explicitly left open the question of what if anything to do about it. You have projected this bit about punishment. Why?
She doesn't want to kill it. It's already dead. It cannot survive without a skull. You keep pretending she wants to murder it. You keep indicating it's her fault it's there. It's absolutely disgusting to use this incredibly tragic situation and treat it like it's murder. I'm stunned, honestly. What an awful position.
Why do you insist on constantly misrepresenting what I write? In this particular case, without a skull, I agree with the abortion being ok. Absent that, I'm not so sure. And no, it isn't already dead. He/she/it is alive, and his/her/its suffering matters. Which is why a mercy killing in this case is advisable. No, I don't "keep pretending she wants to murder it". Murder means culplable homicide. Meaning she should be charged criminally for the killing. I haven't said that. She isn't repsonbile for him/her/it developing without a skull. She is responsible for the the unborn being there, yes. All pregnant women absent rape are. Do you think otherwise? You didn't answer that last time I asked. Why not? Should we not recognize that women have agency and personal responsibility for their actions?
Those opposed to abortion promote birth control. YOU, on the other hand, try to confuse that direction. The only possible conclusion is that you are opposed to birth control. True?
