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

First of, don't get me wrong, I dislike abortion, but I will not stand between a woman and her rights.

A lot of people say that the Unborn Child has rights too, but in our law system I am yet to find out what rights those are. A lot of people say life begins at conception, yet I have yet to see proof of this.

Now if an Unborn has rights, it's a human, and his individual life was created at conception. Then would Pro-Lifers be in support of making having these Unborn put down as dependants by their parents? If not, then why? After all, Life begins at conception, it is an individual human, and it has rights.

2006-11-13 02:14:30 · 17 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

17 answers

Please clarify your question, it's a little vague.

Here's food for thought on this subject, though:

Most states in the U.S. have laws recognizing "fetal homocide" as a crime. If both mother and baby die, there are two murder counts (for ex. Lacy & Connor Peterson); if the fetus dies, no matter how early the pregnancy was, there is 1 murder charge.

Yet, a woman can go to a doctor and have an abortion that does the VERY THING we would otherwise call murder. The ONLY difference is that the first woman wanted her baby, while the second did not.

Since when does a mother have the right to make the decision that murder is ok, so long as it agrees with her desires? Many were calling for the death penalty for Andrea Yates for making this same decision.

2006-11-13 02:33:50 · answer #1 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 2 0

I have no problem with the unborn child being dependent upon the parents, as this is actually the case.
As for your legal issue, why is it that when a pregnant woman is killed, the killer has committed two murders? Under the current legal system, a woman murdered the day of conception is considered a double homicide. This is not the only law that dictates what a person can and can't do to unborn children. So perhaps you should study the legal system before you make assumptions as to what it states about unborn children.
Perhaps you also don't want to stand between a woman and her right to kill herself or how about killing her born children. What is so different about the right to put a metal spear in the head of an unborn child, but we won't do it to the mother, even if she wants it, or we won't allow her to do it after the child is born. Does something magical happen when the baby pops out of the womb that makes it human, whereas before it was just a bunch of cells?

2006-11-13 10:24:10 · answer #2 · answered by AT 5 · 1 0

Of course they are dependents. They are more dependent at that time than at any other throughout their lives.

You want proof that life starts at conception? How about this: No human being can have two seperate and distinct DNA codes. Yet the unborn child develops its own code shortly after conception. Sperm contains only partial coding. Eggs also contain only a part of the puzzle. But once they are put together, a unique individual has been made, which only needs food, shelter, and time, just like the rest of us.

Killing an unborn child to preserve a woman's 'choice' after she has obviously MADE her choice completely ignores the rights of the child. Strange in a society that claims to want so much "for the children".

2006-11-13 10:22:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You will not find rights for an unborn child in our legislative documents: they aren't legally recognized by our country as "persons". Black people and women had a similiar problem in this country less than a century ago, and they were both capable of walking, talking, working, paying taxes, and going to jail.

The problem is the legal conception of "personhood". In our country, if a being is not legally RECOGNIZED as a "person", then they have no rights. That doesn't change the fact of that person's personhood, it's just a legal definition.

In response to your other question, the answer is NO. Pro lifers would NOT be in support of having parents kill their dependent children. Which part of "pro life" doesn't translate? Many pro lifers are also "anti death penalty", for the same reason.

2006-11-13 10:27:47 · answer #4 · answered by MamaBear 6 · 0 0

In my opinion it is not the Abortion that is the problem here, It is the woman out there that can not keep their dam pants on, It is very obvious that they do not take precautions for them selves. Now I can understand if it is for medical reasons like life and death, but not all Abortions are, and those that are done just because the woman dose not want the baby then she should be charged and the ability to have a child taken away from her. It is the medical cost that these woman create that is the issue here not the Abortion in my opinion.

2006-11-13 10:48:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm curious to see the answers to this one as well (as i am pro choice i can't answer that but i do wonder...also what if a woman didn't know she was pregnant during tax filing if life starts at conception can you go back and refile when you find out...and what about miscarriage since 1/4 of all babies are naturally miscarried.... do these children still count or would they be taken off as a dependent?... because after all they did live so removing them would make them not human?

2006-11-13 10:20:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The rights of the unborn are right to life. It's not the baby's fault the mother got pregnant.

Life does begine at conception, and science proves it. Sperm meets egg and the cell splits and starts creating a living creature, thus life begins when sperm and egg meet.

Gee, if we start killing off babies, why not the elderly, and then the sick, and then anyone we don't want to take care of? We'd all die out. IT has to stop somewhere.

2006-11-13 10:24:10 · answer #7 · answered by sister steph 6 · 1 0

Proof that life begins at conception and that every abortion kills an innocent human being:

Medical Testimony on When Life Begins:
http://abort73.com/HTML/I-A-1-medical.html

Photos of Abortions, Including 1st Trimester Abortions:
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html

A Four-Minute, Must-See Video on Abortion:
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html

Information on All Aspects of Abortion:
http://Abort73.com

Photos and Facts About Prenatal Development:
http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-2-prenatal.html
http://www.studentsforlife.uct.ac.za/foetal%20dev%20photos.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm
http://www.lifeissues.org/ultrasound/11weeks.htm

Pain Perception in the Unborn:
http://www.advocatesfortheinnocent.com/fetalpain.html

No one should have the "right" to kill another innocent human being.

2006-11-13 13:49:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What if we used the same criteria for life that is used in determining the criteria for brain death or death? By 25 days the fetus has brain waves and a heart beat that can be tested.

Our laws say the woman has a choice.

2006-11-13 10:20:22 · answer #9 · answered by whozethere 5 · 1 0

I'm not getting in an age-old discussion on abortion. But I will say that once you feel a baby kick your hand from inside your wife's belly, you will know when life begins.

2006-11-13 10:22:57 · answer #10 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers