Murder is the unlawful violation of the Right to Life of a Person and lacking "personhood" murder cannot be committed. 'Anti-abortionists" have to start paying attention to the laws and the US Constitution if they want to propose laws which must comply with the US Constitution.
Of course no one will convince you otherwise. If someone did you'd have to face guilt over this fetus being killed because it was inconvenient. But I'm sure you are right. I'm sure it was better to eliminate the potential person than to give it a chance to grow up in a loving family.
Why is there the assumption of "a loving family" when that isn't necessarily true. Sadly many children grow up in a living hell environment that is anything but loving. It's always nice to live in Fantasyland but reality is not a magical place where everything is wonderful.
How about allowing the woman, based upon her Constitutionally protected Rights, decide whether she wants to be pregnant or not which prevents the problem from even arising in many cases. An embryo or zygote, which is when the vast majority of abortions occur, isn't even a "potential person" based upon a general consensus so the issue doesn't even come up.
That is sort of the point - there would not be a "loving family" If we "saved" every pregnancy we would rapidly run out of people willing to adopt - heck we do not have enough NOW or there would be no starving children in the world!!
"Loving family?" What loving family? If the woman doesn't want to give birth to a child, that child has very little chance to find a "loving family," even if he/she makes it to term! Do you realize how many kids are "waiting" to be adopted? Do you realize that adoptive parents overwhelmingly ONLY WANT "perfect" children, full term, with no disability, preferably handsome, and with parents (at least a mother) who has had "some" college?" Do you realize that, even today, only a 23 to 24 week fetus has a CHANCE to survive a premature birth? And that that fetus has an overwhelming chance to be disabled (I know. . .I worked with people with developmental disabilities!) Do you realize that the overwhelming number of abortions happened in the first 12 weeks. . .when the fetus has NOTHING (except the "potential") of a self-supporting human infant? And. . .do you realize that, if we didn't make so much progress in medicine over the last 25 years, many of those fetus would have ended in a miscarriage anyway? Do you realize that the world population is at a critical point. . .that we have FAR TOO MANY (not to few!) children in this world? EVERY CHILD should be WANTED! That is the ONLY way the child will have a "chance to grow up in a loving family!"
1.) It wouldnt have been a loving family. If she had the child, she wouldnt have put it up for adoption. 2.) we were never going to be a family, so it also wouldnt have been in a loving family. The fact of the matter is this. It was never going to be in a loving family. .
Actually this was based upon laws that were declared unconsitutional. In the case of a woman's Rights to an abortion this is also based upon the US Constitution. That Right was being infringed upon and those laws were declared unconstitutional just like the laws that delegated Blacks to the back of the bus. The Constitutional arguments are well presented by the US Supreme Court in both decisions which justified the striking down laws that infringed upon the protected Constitutional Rights of the Individual.
The fetus has a nervous system. The unborn baby has feelings before he is born. A fetus is not just a zygote or blastocyst. And in the later stages at least, the fetus develops into an unborn baby. It already clearly resembles a baby before the end of the first trimester.
Your poll is a loaded question and anyone seeking an honest discussion on this topic should not vote. There is no need to say either has greater right. The mothers' life is no more nor no less important then the life of the fetus. Both have the equal right to life, why do you think the mother has a greater right than the fetus?. Calling the fetus a parasite is a derrogative term whether you mean it or not. Tell me is a 1 year old child also a parasite?. Should parents be allowed to kill children in their house because the house actually belongs to the parents and not the children?. Or is it that parents have a responsibility to raise the children in the house until they are old enough to look after themselves?. Should mother be allowed to kill the child in the womb?. Or should the mother have the responsibilty of letting that child dwell within her until it is old enough to come into this world?.
So until a baby's birth is recorded by the vital records department, that baby isn't a person. Have I got that about right?
Strawman argument You say that they have "equal rights" does that mean that if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy the foetus has a right to kill her?
Depends on your state law as to when a birth certificate would be able to be issued. Many places in Western countries there is provision for birth certificate to be issued even if the baby is "born dead" if it is beyond a certain stage - and that varies from state to state country to country but it is usually around 20-22 weeks - prior to that no birth certificate is ever issued.
We always need to return to the topic of discussion and currently the fetus is not a "person" under the US Constitution and the Constitution only provides for the protection of the Rights of a Person. As the current issue stands only the woman has protected Rights as the woman is a person while the fetus is not based upon the law. I hadn't voted in the poll and will do that now based upon the above. Now, if there is a Constitutional amendment ratified that provides "personhood" to the fetus my vote would change somewhat but I would still be of the opinion that an inalienable Right cannot violate the Rights of others so there would have to be a poll option that established that the Rights of the Woman and the Rights of the Fetus are the same as the laws cannot discriminate against either (14th Amendment).
This assertion is of course contemptibly inane, since if fetuses could be imbued with personhood by way of a constitutional amendment, any demographic group could be deprived of personhood by the same process.
You keep saying strawman argument, how is it?. People who support anbortion claim the child is in the womb of the mother. The mother owns the womb theefore she has the right to terminate the pregnancy or not. So can the exact seem analogy not apply to the house. The parents own the house it belongs to them so the children have no right to life within the house. A fetus is not killing anyone, due to the nature of a pregnancy a womans' life maybe in danger but there is no deliberate act on the part of the fetus to kill the mother. Where as during an abortion there is an actual deliberate act to kill a human life. Another person, and yes I will say person, because the constitution does not get to decide on who and who is not a person anymore than it gets to decide on whether gravity should work or not. If the constitution states that there is no such thing as gravity it does not make it so. It is not a matter for the constitution, it is just simply how things actually are.
It's quite true, parents can terminate their parental responsibilities. The deliberate act is to terminate the pregnancy, the death of the zef is incidental. You can say "person" all you choose, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, the legal system can define "person" and will, and according to the legal system, the zef is not a person.
