Should abortion rights be extended to little babies. I mean, they don't really do anything..... right?
Think About it. (That's a hypothetical example people).
2006-09-14 12:41:46 · 8 answers · asked by Wocka wocka 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Little babies can't get pregnant, so they don't need abortion rights.
2006-09-14 12:43:27 · answer #1 · answered by T Time 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Any independent living human has the same rights as any other independent living human. So, a baby -- being born, and thus living independently, has legal rights.
So, having independent legal rights, the child can theoretically consent or refuse to consent to any medical procedure performed on its own body. However, minors have less individual rights than adults. And minors generally do not have the legal capacity to consent to medical procedures, of any type.
So, the parents of the minor will be the ones to consent (or not) to any medical procedure performed. Any medical procedure, unless a court orders otherwise.
2006-09-14 19:44:33 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, if not really doing anything were the criteria for allowing abortions, then, I guess you could be onto something, but something tells me that's not it.
Additionally, you obviously don't have a baby, because they do quite a lot. They cry. They soil themselves. They barely sleep. Wait...maybe we should be able to kill them!
2006-09-14 21:57:10 · answer #3 · answered by deadwoodfan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
right.. they shouldnt even have abortions because its there fault for making the baby in the 1st place
2006-09-14 19:49:28 · answer #4 · answered by AP 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
T Time is correct
2006-09-14 19:45:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because it lives independently of its mother.
2006-09-14 19:50:06 · answer #6 · answered by malcy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Makes no sense whatever.
2006-09-14 19:45:51 · answer #7 · answered by GRANNY12GR1 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't you have anything better to do?
2006-09-14 19:44:28 · answer #8 · answered by Tina R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋