Because it's not your life being terminated. Is there any doubt that that "thing" in there (choose your own term) will turn out a human being unless nature somehow takes it?
My point was that to show where the logic leads...because we have these huge flamewars fueled in large measure by poor choices of words to define the argument. Parasite v. Baby. "Woman's right to choose." All of these are limited terms. DaDa has said umpteen times that he wants to protect the status quo and keep government out of a woman's choice about her body.....but government is already in that. That's not the status quo. So we're left having arguments about things that aren't real. We're arguing absolute rights in la la land when the discussion goes there. For most discussions that's fine...but this one seems to be sliced razor-thin with definitions for each word....because we all recognize there are huge competing values here.
Your whole position rested on the lack of independence of the baby in utero. Young girls who are kidnapped and forced into prostitution are not independent either, so do they have no rights?
Hey maybe Obama will pass Foca and keep the government completely out of a woman's body. Max you are being FAR TOO LITERAL...and you know it....most abortions happen in the first trimester......so that is why Roe v. Wade is ok with me..... DD
I just don't see a lot of evidence pointing me in the direction that the majority of abandoned/unwanted children grow up into functioning, contributing members of society. Correct me if I'm wrong, because that'd be awesome if I were.
My problem with this debate is that it seems most (most, not all) people who are avid anti-abortion are also anti-gay adoption, anti-sex education in schools and generally conservative in support of government helping poor people. I think the very vast majority of people are personally anti-abortion. I'm pro-choice, but would never want my girlfriend to have an abortion if she were to get pregnant. I'm guessing DD, DM and andymoon are the same way. My goal would be to stop all abortions by providing all services that either stop the pregnancy from happening in the first place (i.e. birth control, not Viagra, paid for by all health insurance or sex education for those of age) or support after they have the baby such as allowing those of all sexual orientations to adopt or to help provide for babies born into low-income families. I think there is too much attention focused on the fallacy that abortion is just another form of birth-control for people. Having an abortion is not an easy decision to make and the psychological issues that women go through before and after are simply belittled by this argument. I also have a problem with the martyrs of the "pro-life" side who seemingly ignore all the issues surrounding unwanted pregnancies and simply put themselves on a pedastal for "saving a life" when they want to do nothing to help that life they saved once it's out of the mother's womb. I may be dabbling in generalities a little too much, but that's just my personal experience/belief when it comes to most rigid pro-life people. But I'm guessing if you polled the people throwing hissy fits about "spreading the wealth", you'd find that most of them are "pro-life" as well. MM, I hope you know none of that is directed to you.
Erring on the side of caution is a good thing when it comes to questions of life and death. The question here is not is the subject innocent or guilty; they are undoubtedly innocent. The question (demanded by you only) is are they human or not? How to answer? So no one has a right to choose okay. By default no action can be taken but to let nature take her course. I'm satisfied; how about you? Or do you have to come up with some other avenue to stick your nose back into the matter of life and death? You can take my word for it or check it out yourself. Better take my word on that than to take your word that that beautiful "thing" in her mother's womb will not be loved or loveable until she cries out with her first breath.
http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/senses.html But as early as 18 weeks, the bones of the inner ear and the nerve endings from the brain have developed enough for your baby to hear sounds such as your heartbeat and blood moving through the umbilical cord. He may even be startled by loud noises! For the rest of the pregnancy, sound serves as a baby's major information channel.
Wow that's really irrelevant giddy. You act as if these girls are inherently slaves, and have never had free will in their lives. They have free will, just because I keep you captive in my closet doesn't mean you do not have an independent will. You're kind of muddling the definition of slavery here and applying it in the wrong place, imo.
did you hear the subject? He said tell them, thus hear a voice. Also you said 3 months, the quote says 18 which is 4.5 months.
I'm not being far too literal...I seriously want to understand your position...because if it is what you say...that a woman has rights to her body that can't be checked by the government...that does not square with the status quo you seek to protect.
Am I necessarily. Talk to me about the will of a child in utero? Be specific and be certain if your intent is to do anything but preserve the life. Better to live and let live...
I think a woman should be able to choose to abort a pregnancy as long as the pregnancy has not become a viable human being..... I am ok with where the line is drawn in the sand. The problem is there is no answer that satisfies everyone, so you get an answer that satisfies most, and you move on. DD
Change the embryo's to a 90 year old man. Which do you save then? I would imagine everyone would save the baby. I guess that means we should kill old people because they aren't babies. I understand the analogy, but it is a horrible one to make. Nobody is asking to give up a life for another life. This is kill the embryo or don't kill the embryo, what is more convenient for you?
twhy, I'm not going to reply point by point, because I don't post that way, but I clicked on the link you provided a little while ago and it is a link to an article about this subject in the Netherlands. You may not know it, but my wife's mother was born there, my wife has numerous relatives there, and we have spent a lot of time in the country (I spent a few months there before I met my wife, as well). The Dutch tend to be a very liberal people. Here are some quotes from the link you gave us... http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2001/2001-0717-wm.htm The number of extra-marital births in the Netherlands rose from 3,000 to just over 50,000 between 1960 and 2000. Two-thirds of these babies are first births. While one in thirty Dutch first children were born out of wedlock in 1960, this number was one in three last year. Relatively many women who have their first baby at a young age are unmarried. Until the mid seventies fewer than 10% of children of 15-24 year-old mothers were born out of wedlock. This proportion has now risen to nearly half of children of mothers in this age group. The share of unmarried births among 25-34 year-old mothers is much lower. But for the older age group – mothers who have their first baby after 34 years of age - the proportion of extra-marital births rises again. However, there is one great difference with the past in this respect. Today, babies born to unmarried mothers are born within a relationship, usually to a couple who have made a conscious choice for a child. In the nineteen-sixties these ‘illegitimate’ births were often to young single women who had not planned to become pregnant. The attained level of education is also an important factor in extra marital birth rates. At the end of the seventies and the beginning of the eighties, extra marital births were most common among – often single - women with a low level of education. In the eighties women with higher levels of education also started having children without getting married first. These were the women who pioneered unmarried cohabitation as a new relationship form. Only later did women with lower and intermediate levels of education follow their example and live together with their partners without being married. This pushed up the number of babies born out of wedlock. twhy, they have a culture much different from that in most areas of the United States. The higher rates of babies "born out of wedlock" is not due to the "widespread use of contraception," but because of a cultural shift towards larger numbers of couples having children within their relationship, but deciding not to be married. The higher number of "births out of wedlock" in the 1960's is easily explained. Birth control was not as widely available as it was later, and education about sex was not as widely available, either, in my opinion (I visited the country in the '60's and early '70's). Cultural change, however, was going full bore, as it was here. I'll mention something else... I knew more young women in the 1960's who became pregnant and simply decided to have the child as a single parent, than those who chose to have an abortion. That was within my subculture. I even had a good friend who became pregnant deliberately, intending to be a single parent all the time, and did just that. It is very difficult to paint with a broad brush. Individuals do individual things. Which really is my point.
