women who get abortions over and over again

That's one reason it actually is a woman's choice - the "party" in question isn't capable of comprehending or saying anything. More importantly, however, the developing child is dependent on the woman for survival in a way that no born adult or child would be.

You are choosing to define a human life as starting not upon birth, but upon conception, and so to declare that death in the womb is equal to death outside of it. There is a conflict of interests at play, then, between a developed adult and an unthinking, unfeeling egg, zygote or embryo within her. You leave no room for correction of unintended pregnancies and treat the death of something so underdeveloped as the death of a human being. You have decided that once pregnant, a woman is basically sentenced to carry the child to term, nature willing.

Does your personal law over women and fetuses even leave room for aborting children spawned by rape or incest?

 

And it is perfectly justified as the woman in question has a right to protect her mind and body from the risks that pregnancy/childbirth/c-section carry!

Yes it most definitely is her choice.

Because when you are using someone else's body and putting their physiological and psychological health at risk for the purpose of your own survival you do not get a choice in whether you not you continue to use their body without their ongoing consent.

Everyone has a right to life but nobody has a right to be born.

Everyone has a right to live their life once they have stopped using someone else's body for their survival. So once you have been born you are given legal rights and citizenship and you are protected under the law. This makes more sense than trying to give people rights and protection at conception because it would cause a great deal of conflict of rights between two people (if you were to give the fetus personhood), the woman and the fetus.

The only way to uphold the rights of the fetus to live and be a protected citizen is by taking away women's reproductive rights. That is a fact.

You would have to investigate every miscarriage for possible foul play on her part because there are so many methods to induce a miscarriage on oneself in this day and age (plus RU-486 is easily accessed online). You would have to decide whether or not she should be free to continue taking life-saving medication at the expense of the fetuses right to not be born disfigured/mentally handicapped or miscarried, you would have to take measures to assure pregnant women are not trying to leave the country to abort legally elsewhere, you would have to try and find out who is pregnant and who is not so that you may assure each and every fetus is carried to term without foul play of any kind. In order to give citizenship and protection to a fetus you will have to invade a woman's extremely personal and private parts of her body regularly against her will.

This is the slippery slope of giving embryos and fetuses the right to life and protecting them as if they are legal citizens. Instead of leaving the very medical choices of pregnancy and childbirth to women and their private physicians you would be taking this very personal medical reproductive choice and turning it over to the state and the government. You would have to make women second class citizens to assure each and every fetus is born and born healthy at that (everything a woman puts in her body directly affects the fetus - drugs, alcohol, certain foods, radiation therapy for cancer treatment etc.).

*sigh* Thinking of all of this, it seems a shame that we don't just lay eggs. That would solve all of this nonsense now wouldn't it? lol

 

I know what you said may seem obvious, but actually it is not quite entirely true. In the case of late-term abortions, I think the argument can be made that this is not necessarily the case. With a late-term fetus, the woman has already had plenty of time to make her reproductive decissions. The baby is already there, the woman has already reproduced and created a new human being. The issue is no longer about reproductive rights. It is about providing sustenance to her unborn baby. (I never hear pro-choicers complaining about fathers being forced to pay child support, btw.)

If the woman does not want to reproduce, she shouldn't engage in sexual intercourse (at least not of the vaginal variety anyway... ).

Just an excuse. An abortion is much more likely to cause severe emotial distress than not being able to get an abortion. The risks of pregnancy is quite low, and certainly has to be considered in light of the risks associated with the only other alternative, abortion. A woman is more likely to commit suicide over the grief and pent-up psychological trauma of an abortion than she is to die from a pregnancy.

The woman is more than welcome to keep her fetus in the womb for as long as she wants.

 

Why do you pretend you care so much about women and their abortions when YOU are the poster who wanted to shove sandpaper up a woman's vagina????

Did you forget? I didn't.

 

By making it illegal to obtain an abortion in the third trimester, or any trimester, you are stripping a woman of her reproductive rights.

How many women do you know of where it is 100% legal to obtain abortions in every trimester, even the third, that they will just go and have one on a complete whim in the third trimester? Are you forgetting third trimester abortions account for 1% of all abortions? Why do lifers focus so much on them when 88% of those precious fetuses you love so much are being aborted in the first?

Because this particular topic is irrelevant to abortion. I do believe father's should be free to sign away their legal rights to children they do not want much in the same way a woman may sign away her legal rights to her child through the adoption process. It is only fair.

Or she can have an abortion.

Low or not the risks are still there and it should be a choice whether or not the woman wishes to face them.

And she is more than welcome to remove it whenever she likes as well, particularly in places like Canada!

 

Either way the fetus has no say at all. Why should you be the one to "speak for the voices that cannot"? Parents are usually the ones to speak for their own offspring until they can speak for themselves.

 

When the baby already exists inside her womb, it no longer has anything to do with reproductive rights. The woman has already reproduced.

 

I don't approve of beating down the helpless do you? In many situations a good Samaritan, a stranger with a heart to help is necessary. It is right if not the duty of the by stander to help those in need and who cannot help themselves.

 

Hardly. It still involves incubation, a part of reproduction. Why do you think they call all of gestation up until she pushes it out of her vagina the Reproductive Cycle?

 

The helpless what? Developing cells? No, it is not right to interfere in the personal life decisions of women. Women have a right to their own reproductive decisions and their own beliefs about when life begins.

 

By that logic, isn't breast feeding part of reproduction also?

Is it right for the woman to interfere with the personal life of her fetus? Interfere in a way that is permanent and irrevocable, taking away any choice the fetus will ever have in the future?

Suppose the mother does not believe life begins after birth. After all, the brain of a newborn baby is not completely developed yet.
Is it still not okay to interfere with the woman's decision? Should she be allowed to take her unwanted baby to the vetinary clinic and have it put down?

 

Is it part of the Reproductive Cycle? As far as I understand it though, breast feeding is also a choice.

 

The helpless person. Do young not believe you have cells which are currently being created right now for the cells that die in your body? So what are you?

 

As it should be, but not abortion homicide.

 

Is it merely just another "choice" to not provide the baby with any milk?
So if the mother is negligent, and the baby slowly dies of dehydration and malnourishment, that is okay?

 

What is this gibberish?

 

Are you no longer talking about the option to choose to breastfeed or not? Because as I do recall it most certainly is an option, especially if the baby will not latch. You cannot force a woman to breastfeed any more than you can force her to give birth.

 

I don't believe a one-celled entity is a person, and even if you do, you can't force a woman to gestate and give birth in order to enforce YOUR beliefs.

 

BS, read the unborn victims of violence act. It is a federal law that recognizes that a child in utero has rights. Since when should women be allowed to commit homicide at will?

- - - Updated - - -

We can force a woman to refrain from committing an abortion homicide or face consequences!

- - - Updated - - -

Move along, it is intended for literate people.

 

The federal law is only applicable to federally owned land. So a "child in utero" elsewhere still doesn't have "rights"? Women have been allowed to commit "homicide" at will since you erroneously began describing abortion as "homicide." If you think changing the name will change anything else, give it a try.

First, you would have know that she is pregnant. How are you going to do that? Then, you would have to prove that she induced the abortion which is impossible to show with medical abortions.

 

But withholding milk (whether breast milk or infant formula) from a baby is homocidal negligence.
For the same reason, prematurely kicking the baby out of the womb is negligence. Just as the mother has an obligation to provide milk to her baby, she should also be required to provide incubation. No one is forcing her to actually do anything; it is a completely passive process. It's more about what the woman is not allowed to do, that is, having the child aborted.

 

Big difference anyone can provide milk for a baby, only the mother can provide accommodation for a fetus. A mother has absolutely no obligation to provide anything for a baby, it is her choice to do so, just as it is her choice whether to carry the pregnancy to term or not. A mother at any time can leave her baby in care knowing that it will be provided for, can she do the same with a 9 week old fetus .. no .. didn't think so.

 

Oh we aren't talking about one celled entities in abortion in the first place, but if you believe differently perhaps you should look at the dna, the human dna.

Actually enforcing the right to life is perfectly possible. Just as we do when we stop serial killer.