So while you're correct, it's everyone's right to have a child (even though sadly most of the times these youngsters may or may not care what they eat/drink during pregnancy and may even smoke), but i think that should only go as far as when they change their mind and want to abort. It should be a crime for the most part...but it's not, it's very liberal in that respect.
So I'm confused about one part in your post...you're saying that if someone is deemed not ready (young), shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion? In all cases?
Also you're saying that we should allow in all cases if it was a rapist/pedophilia case?
Pedophiles and rapists should NOT be allowed children, fullstop. They should have their reproductive systems ripped out. They are the only exceptions.
There is no correlation between the legality of abortion and the rate of abortion. What decreases abortion is proper education and the availability of contraceptives.
Therefore, abortion should be legal to at least prevent women from doing the procedure themselves or going to the black market.
Good point and I had heard of that before, just forgot about it...well, what's stopping that from happening?
Well, some conservatives don't even want contraceptives to be around. They just want people to use abstinence. They also want Planned Parenthood gone. They want this both from a religious-based view and a financial view, since tax dollars go towards planned parenthood and contraceptives. And the argument is that they don't want to 'pay for people to have sex'.
Also, the quality of each country's education system comes into play as well.
Thanks for all the info. My wife is currently pregnant with twins. We're still debating what we're gonna do afterwards, but if we choose not to have anymore, then at least I'm informed. I'm really hesitant to do this, but at the same time, I've heard it's a lot safer and easier than a woman getting her tubes tied. And I'm the kind of guy who says, "If it's for my wife, and it means less pain/hardship for her, I'll gladly do it. But this is the one thing that really has me nervous :lol:
It's the same as not treating someone for cancer and instead trying to get rid of things that may cause cancer. The issue is that we're too far into it where it's going to be difficult to go back so instead we should focus on treating people rather than denying them because they did something.
As for your latter comment, I agree with you entirely. As mentioned before, I'm extremely against abortion. You are, in effect, killing a human being. That is, for all intents and purpose, murder and should, in my opinion, be punishable. Killing an unborn baby is no different to getting in a car and mowing down a child in the street. Why should the latter result in a jail sentence but not the former? As I mentioned, however, only in certain cases -- if the child was in danger, for instance -- should abortion even be considered but even then, all you'd need is social services keep watch and then remove the child when it's born.
The claim that an abortion is the same as killing an actual child is totally ridiculous, regardless of your stance on the subject. The two aren't remotely comparable in that regard.
I'm curious however about one thing, you did answer part of the question I was going to ask you when you said "fetus" but what is your opinion on how far it is ok to kill an unborn child?
not to mention, none of us should have the right to decide about an unborn child - again this is after given that the mother's life wouldn't be in danger. When you were at a certain stage in your development in the womb, would you also think that you weren't as much worth as you are now? You'd be ok if you were killed before you could feel pain/terror or the rest of your criteria?
Well, outlawing abortion doesn't decrease abortion. Again, proper education and the availability of contraception decreases abortion.
Watch this video:
Well that wasn’t your opinion, was it? Unless your opinion is the same as the scientists.Quote:
My opinion? I think if someone is going to get an abortion then it should be done as quickly as possible. Obviously as you approach the birth period and development becomes more advanced the notion of killing it does become sketchier overall. As for the cut-off line for abortions? That's a big ray area, and even doctors, scientists and biologists can't really agree. A fair argument is that it should at least be done before cognition and brain activity become common, which is around 24 weeks. This is also around when a fetus has a 50% survival chance outside of the womb (though not without potential growth issues afterwards). This is 5.5 months into the pregnancy, which should be plenty of time for people to make their decisions on whether to keep it or not.
So you think it’s ok to kill a unborn child around 5.5 months? Terrifying.
Except it’s not her body, is it? It’s also a child’s.Quote:
Personally I don't feel I have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I prioritize the rights of the living above the potential rights of a fetus.
You’re also going to have to come up with a better term than “living” as both the mother and the fetus are living…so that wouldn’t work. I think you mean to say the rights of anyone outside the womb or over 5.5 months in the womb, above the potential rights of a fetus.
So because you weren’t capable of thinking about it, means that you’re not entitled to have full rights to be potentially alive?Quote:
This is such a sympathy argument. How does this even function as a debate piece anyways? If I was a fetus, I wouldn't be capable of thinking about this. If I had been aborted then I simply wouldn't be here to consider the idea at all. You're trying to view this from multiple moments in time to fit your argument, but that's simply not how reality works. And yes, myself as a fetus is definitely 'worth' less than who and what I am now. That's just obvious.
How would this be any different from a person who can't think for themselves because they're mentally challenged? It's possible that a person may not be able to pass any of the criteria you've laid out.
It all just seems too much dependent on what your opinion is and not thinking about other perspectives or real world situations. That’s not fitting the argument to me, that’s looking at a situation from different shoes.
So you’re telling me that if you wanted a child, and your wife suddenly says at 5.5 months that she doesn’t want it. You’d be perfectly fine with it?