English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

we all have the right to control our own body. however, our rights end when they touch on the rights of others. Since the unborn is a human being, who will protect his or her rights?

2006-06-29 06:28:56 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

abort73.com

2006-06-29 06:29:14 · update #1

TJ - wouldn't you say that an expectant mother has 2 heads? wouldn't you say she has 4 arms and 4 legs? of course not. the child she carries is a unique and amazing individual - just like U!

2006-06-29 06:36:02 · update #2

mama - So you believe that torturing and killing a child is preferable to allowing her to live with the possibility of perhaps recieving some form of abusive treatment is a good idea? Would you recommend doing the same to your spouse if there were the potential of him being assaulted or mistreated? I do not intend to be argumentative, merely thought provoking.

2006-06-29 06:42:20 · update #3

master - if pro choice is the way to go, what about your mother's choice to have you? Think.

2006-06-29 07:50:39 · update #4

17 answers

So true . . . an unborn child is a human as soon as the egg is fertilized. It's called MURDER to abort a child. And yes, we have the right to control our own body, but not the body of that child growing within.

2006-06-29 06:32:53 · answer #1 · answered by 1big teddy graham 4 · 2 0

Pro-choice just makes sense. And I agree the fetus is a part of the mother's body and therefore she has the right to choose what happens with her pregnancy. In this way, the mother is looking out for the what is best for her future and in turnn the future of the fetus. And it's not determined at what point is the fetus an actual human being.

2006-06-29 13:37:35 · answer #2 · answered by blankityblank 1 · 0 0

But the question is, when does it become a human being? I'll grant that it's alive from the beginning, it doesn't even become a "fetus" until the end of the 3rd month. Up to then it's an embryo implanted in the uterine wall, and doesn't even have an umbilical cord yet. It's still going through stages of development, from being a snakelike being to chicken-shaped, etc. Just because it has the potential to be a human someday doesn't trump the rights of its mother.

2006-06-29 13:37:23 · answer #3 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0 0

That's the real center of this question. Some would argue, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1973, that the woman's right to control her own body is paramount, and that she can abort right up until the baby is born. The pro-life argument is that the fetus is its own life, and that she has no right to decide to end that life. It's not an easy question, and there are no easy answers.

2006-06-29 13:33:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

I am a pro-lifer and I hold to this. Yes you have the right to controll your own body. And yes your rights end when they conflict with the rights of another. Ladies scream about their right of choice. I claim they have a choice. It comes when they have sex. If you don't want to get pregnent then don't have sex or if you have sex then see to it that there is no chance of getting pregnent. As for the question of who needs to protect the rights of the child? The same individuals who protect the rights of others. The government through laws, the courts, the police, doctors, social workers, etc.

2006-06-29 13:38:53 · answer #5 · answered by billybetters2 5 · 0 0

It depends if you believe that the unborn child is actually a life. You could argue that as the fetus cannot sustain it's own life outside of the womb then it is not actually a 'life' and it's the mother's responsibility and decision as to whether she lets the pregnancy go to term.

However, I don't take this view. I feel that if you're stupid enough to get yourself pregnant when you don't want to be then you should have to deal with the consequences.

2006-06-29 13:33:38 · answer #6 · answered by anouska1983 4 · 0 0

If the fetus is unable to survive outside the womb, it has no rights. So far, that puts it at 24 weeks.And then, life is not very good, usually costing thousands of dollars to keep the baby alive and in pain. Of course, not getting pregnant in the first place is a better option. But then, most people who are against abortion are also against birth control.

2006-06-29 13:37:27 · answer #7 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 0 0

That is why some people will not admit that life begins at conception. These people who are PRO ABORTION will do whatever it takes to keep woman killing another human life.

If a pregnant woman is murdered and the baby dies shouldn't the murderer be charged with 2 killings. No, not according to one pro abortion advocate. Even the dead woman believed that life began at conception, because these advocates want to protect baby killing so much, would not agree that the man should be charged with 2 murders because it would mean death to their cause.

Thanks to pro abortion advocates, unborn babies have no rights.

2006-06-29 13:41:26 · answer #8 · answered by truly 6 · 0 0

Wouldn't you say an unborn fetus is part of the mothers body? Wouldn't you say at that point that the fetus is just a fetus and not another living, separate person? Wouldn't you say that it's the mothers right to do with her body, (in this case, what is growing inside her body,) and however she wants to deal with it?

2006-06-29 13:32:28 · answer #9 · answered by Gravity 4 · 0 0

That is your opinion. Recent studies have shown that a fetus does not feel pain. Abortion should remain a choice. The mother has the rights to the fetus.

2006-06-29 13:33:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers