This is obviously a very big issue. I believe that it s wrong to forcefully attempt to control another persons body against their wishes. However, I can not say weither the fetus is a seperate body, in which case the woman has no right to destroy it, or if t is part of the womans body, in which case the government has no right to control her. I'm not intrested in the doctrines comming from any kind of church. I just want to hear pure, logic based, legally submissable evidence to mach opinions to help me make a discission.
2006-08-23 17:55:53 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Abortions will happen whether legal or not. At least having them legal will allow the government to ensure safe, sanitary conditions.
2006-08-23 17:58:08 · answer #1 · answered by Empy 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is legal and should stay that way. My beliefs (both religious and rational) don't allow me to abort a child of my own. I see no point to it personally. But I've seen people who did have an abortion or at least think about it. I have seen the pain they go through. I have seen both sides regret their decision. I cannot imagine a government or majority vote deciding for these women. I cannot imagine a non-entity like 'society' choosing whether or not a woman has that right. What's next? Forced abstinence? Now, I think father's should have some rights to the child too. I think it is reasonable. I don't think 'sluts' should be able to abort children that 'cramp their style'. I don't think mentally or physically unstable women or girls should be forced to carry a baby that could kill them (or be killed by them after birth when they are considered viable). I don't think a fetus has rights for the same reason Pro-Lifers have used: It didn't ask to be here. If I have a child, it is a selfish decision to have an heir. The child didn't choose me, I chose her/him. I had a choice. Again, women that choose to have sex with a guy knowing pregnancy is possible shouldn't use abortion as an escape. A woman that doesn't choose sex (or choses to value her life over the potential life of a fetus in a difficult pregnancy) should be able to also choose an abortion.
And as for adoption:
There are so many children in the system not being taken care of now! Yes people want babies, but what about the children? How can we care about babies and elderly, but not children, teens and adults? Doesn't everyone deserve a family? I would be more against abortion if we truly needed more people in the world; but the number of forgotten and mistreated children makes me think that maybe we don't need more in the system.
Destroying a life?
1. Do you eat meat (or heck, vegetables)?
2. Would you defend yourself or your family to the death?
3. Do you use anti-microbial soap?
4. Do you kill spiders and bugs in your house?
5. Do you spay or neuter your pets? Do you put them to sleep?
How vainglorious is the son of Man.
2006-08-24 01:06:30 · answer #2 · answered by Ananke402 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Because the woman has the choice to determine if she wants to be part of the process or not.
Just as the government cannot force someone to donate blood, or bone marrow, and cannot force someone to donate a kidney, the government should be able to force a woman to surrender her body for the benefit of another person.
And that assumes for sake of this argument that the embryo is another person, which is an entirely different debate and one that almost always has religion dragged into it.
The key legal issue isn't privacy. It's forced servitude. The woman's life and health and personal bodily integrity cannot be mandated by law to be in the service of another against her will.
Now, there's a much simpler solution that all of the pro-life people seem to be utterly missing. Let's start with the premise that the issue is whether the mother seeking the abortion can only make determinations regarding her own involvement. In other words, she has a say in what happens to her, but no say in what happens to the embryo.
If pro-life activists think that every embryo should be allowed to grow up, then they should have no problem with a state registry of surrogate mothers. Anytime someone doesn't want to be pregnant, the state will randomly select a surrogate from this list, sort of like jury selection. The embryo will then be transplanted from the original mother to the surrogate, who will sign adoption papers.
If there are enough pro-life women to enact laws as the majority, then by definition there must be more of them than there are pro-choice women. So, there should always be enough surrogates, especially if they can be drawn nation-wide.
That gives the original mother her personal choice to opt-out of being involved in the process, and the pro-life people are happy because no embryo or fetus will ever be killed.
Seems like a win-win for both sides. Any objections?
2006-08-24 00:58:32 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Everyone must decide this for themselves! I think it is wrong and yes, murder! Some say it's not human based on the cell count. My point is, yes it is human unless you have done things with an animal! Yes it is human as that is the process that humans go through to have a child. Terminating life is murder, Plus this is something that will sooner or later come back to haunt you. You have those who take advantage of the rules ( the nature of humans) and they look for any loop hole. I have a film on partial birth abortions. A full term baby, on it's way out, the Doc turns it to a breach birth position, and when it is there, he keeps the crown of the head in the Virgina and uses an implement to shove it in the brain of the baby to kill the poor thing. Sorry that's murder!
2006-08-24 01:15:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Life starts at conception, when the sperm feralizes the egg and it takes on a life of it's own, seperate from the mother. The fetus developes it's own blood, it's own body, and cannot be considered "part of it's host". In a very real sense, an unborn baby can be considered a sort of parasite.
In a court of law, it is considered a double murder to kill a pregnant woman. (Laci's law)
You cannot have an abortion without ending a life.
2006-08-24 01:08:42 · answer #5 · answered by AlwaysRight 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, abortion should not be legal. The fetus is a human life, and it is wrong to take a human life. People would be outraged if someone killed a baby outside the womb, but people do not seem to care about the human that is inside the womb. Everyone screams about the Woman's rights, but what about the child's rights,or the fathers rights? If she did not want to have a baby, she should not have had sex, if she was raped, she could put the baby up for adoption. People also say that it should be legal because it will happen anyway, murder will happen anyway, child molestation will happen anyway, so should we make those things legal?
2006-08-24 00:59:49 · answer #6 · answered by Ludwig Wittgenstein 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course it should be legal. Some people are intelligent enough to know when a baby is not right for them. Whether it be a financial problem or just a burden they can't handle. It should be their choice, no-one else's. I agree they should have thought of that when they were conceiving the child but that's another story. Now if the government were to say, regulate abortions, I wouldn't see a problem. I've known women who have had five abortions and that is just sick.
2006-08-24 01:03:28 · answer #7 · answered by Marlene 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is no need what so ever for abortions there are so many forms of birth control out there if a woman gets pregnant then fine give it up for adoption. family planning even gives under age girls free pills shots condoms without the parents having to know. if someone was raped then that's a different story. And that morning after pill that they have out now is just telling the girls and guys that its ok to have unprotected sex because all you got to do is take this pill and not worry about it.. You know what else gets me.. you have to have 3 kids before you can get your tubes tied.. it should be our choice rather we want them tied after one kid or even no kids. that will cut down on unwanted children.
2006-08-24 03:25:21 · answer #8 · answered by ~Mrs.C 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. As a man ... that fetus (child -- human life) child is also part of that man. The majority of abortions are done against the mans wishes. He is deprived of a child he may want.
Even with Religion aside abortion is still taking a human life.
2006-08-24 01:04:54 · answer #9 · answered by Jay 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
My body... my rights... abortion should be legal. Many people oppose it because of religious issues, but Im a big supporter of church and state. People should advocate abstance and birth control. But, abortion shouldnt be illegal.
2006-08-24 01:34:04 · answer #10 · answered by feministpeacerevolution 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋