So, cattle have the right not to be slaughtered for hamburger? Are you aware that there are reasons that veterinarians may need to terminate a pregnancy in a hedgehog? In fact, the vet may need to end the life of the hedgehog under certain medical evaluations. You need to get back to learning about women's healthcare and the damage done by the laws on women's healthcare that are being written in some states. This is a serious topic.
So a person have the right not to be shot in self-defense when he or she is trying to murder someone? You are making excuses now, the point that a fetus cannot seen as a person is no reason to claim he cannot be protected by the law.
A fetus is part of a woman's body. Her healthcare is protected by her right to her own person. You don't get to tell women how much risk to life and health they must endure. And, that IS what is happening in states that write these laws against women - AND their doctors.= This has nothing to do with the concern we have about those who kill cats for fun (recognized as a sign of serious mental issues). It has nothing to do with eating cows, hedgehogs, rats used for medical testing, etc., etc.
At this stadium its a living being capable of suffering e.g. If she doesnt wanna take risks, she will have about two months when there is no fetus in her body but a cell cluster, which is no living being capable of suffering. You simply dont get it, your argument is invalid. I tried to illustrate it for you with a comparison, but these whole discussions seem too abstract for you.
It is part of the woman's body. Your assessment of a fetus at 8 weeks is VERY wrong. Serious healthcare issues may show up throughout pregnancy - for the woman and for the fetus. So far, you have not admitted that women can have serous health issues that may or may not have to do with pregnancy, but where continuing the pregnancy precludes care of the woman's life and health. Also, a fetus may have serious health issues that cans not be resolved.
And 99% of abortions have nothing actually to do with health issues. (Even up to 19 weeks gestation, it's very likely the majority of those abortions were not done due to health issues. Not until you start getting to 20 or 22 weeks are the majority done for legitimate health reasons, but even then I suspect many are still being done for non-health reasons) Imagine if I just shot someone dead on the street and told a bystander who was watching "Move along, it's none of your business." Should that bystander just ignore it because there might be a 1 percent chance I could have had legitimate reason to kill that person for a justifiable reason?
According to the arguments of most of the pro-choice group it should not be illegal after all, I mean its none of the bystanders business.
It's the woman's body. It's the woman who must decide how much pain and risk to life must exist (or how to measure that). Plus, there is judgement involved in whether extreme measures are justified in trying to save a severely deprecated fetus. Let's remember that there are millions of Americans who don't get far less expensive medical attention due to lack of insurance and ability to pay. Your direction involves large sums of money in risky rescue efforts, even when unlikely to succeed. Also, these laws cause those in need of OB/GYN support to face dwindling numbers of such doctors, as the penalties such doctors face become career ending, as well as threading the conflict between what's best medically and what is legal. We already see states like TN suffering from this problem. Demanding that congresses write western medicine into bills on abortion is a FOOL's errand. And, not everybody believes in western medicine. A minority believe what you believe. Why are you the one who gets to impose your views on others? Nobody is imposing abortion on you - what is being imposed on you is YOUR free choice to follow YOUR beliefs.
If you don’t acknowledge there is a child involved, you are denying actual reality. Even the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a Federal Law , calls them children in utero at any stage of development!
Cite please. The state congresses have made it crystal clear that they can't figure out how to determine if a woman's LIFE depends on an abortion.
Not everybody cries over the loss of mindless tissue that early on resembles a tadpole but starts to look like a baby well before it has a mind. If you insist on calling it a child, then a "child" at that stage of development has the same moral relevance as an inanimate object. But to me it makes no sense to refer to it as a child until he/she has a mind.
No, it is not "violence against a child". If we avoid fantasies and "maybes" and such future hopes and dreams and just talk about the present facts, what is the difference between a fetus in the 20th week, and an appendix?
Speaking of dishonesty and disingenuity, I'm sure you remember the argument from the right that was screamed from the housetops during the development of Obamacare. Now the right shows it's rank hypocrisy after then screaming "you want to put the government in the exam room between the patient and her doctor!!!"
Whatever happened to the concern of the political right for people's rights "that don't cost anything" like the right to "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? When the doctor says "your pregnancy will fail as the fetus is not viable, and if you don't have an abortion you risk death and you risk the certainty of being unable to ever bear a child", and the government says the abortion is illegal, that means the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are all violated by government and by the far right who called for such a government. How about being free in your person and affects to make your own decisions about your "person"? I'm fairly shocked that you require such an explanation as this!
The counter argument is that it is HER BODY. What she eats, what she drinks, how much healthcare she gets, etc., etc. are all her choice. If she has a serious disease such as cancer, she can get treatment or she can refuse treatment. There isn't any confusion or failure of logic here. It's her body. It is not YOUR body - you get to choose for your body.
I can't think of any reason why it would be okay to physically abuse a child. I can think of reasons why abortion would be warranted.
NOT VALID! At what point? At what point in gestation is a fetus (which according to law and medical science is at NO TIME a human being) capable of suffering? Do you even know?
Trump says abortion should be up to the states. The SCOTUS says states can ban abortion or limit it as they choose. INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS: 1. Abortion is HIGHLY controversial. 2. Abortion can mean life or death for a woman in certain cases. 3. Abortion can mean the difference between a woman's ability or inability to become pregnant again. 4. Points 2 and 3 in particular mean the abortion question is VERY important. Those are facts. Are there other facts? OF COURSE! But they have no bearing on my point. My point: Since abortion is both that important AND highly controversial, how can it be left up to the states???!!!!! To say it is up to the states is to say "ah! It's not important.". It is, and it therefore should be made legal (Roe v. Wade?) by federal law which the states can be "customize" by adjusting the number of days and under what conditions it is allowed between the 15th week to end term BY POPULAR VOTE, or even better, by a vote of only women of the state. And it would even be better than that if it were required that any state's customization be backed up by the best medical science of the nation. What are your objections?
