Why Do We Give An Unborn Child The Right To Life Only When The Mother Wants To?

Question

Right to life: meaning the right to live and exist.

If a woman doesn't want the baby then she is allowed to kill it. If the woman wants the baby, then that baby is afforded the right to life and anyone else who takes that life is a murderer.

I asked this in a previous question, but I don't think many people fully understand the implications of this double standard.

Both abortion(in most circumstances) and inducing an unwanted abortion (in all circumstances) is an abomination.

The simple fact is you can't have individual people deciding who has the right to life and who doesn't. Either the law needs to state that abortions(in most cases) are illegal, or inducing an unwanted abortion needs to be nothing more than assault.

Stephanie: My main problem is women being given the right to chose whether their children live or die. Your possition would suggest that a mother also should not be punished for leaving her baby in a dumpster (after all it's her right to take care of it or not right?)

Answer 1

I used to be pro-choice till i saw my daughter in a ultra sound, i realized she was a little person in there (at 3 months) and that abortion was murder.

Answer 2

Actually, the Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion didn't give pregnant women blanket authority over the unborn child (or fetus if you prefer). They said that as there was no general agreement on when life begins, they were unqualified to decide that issue. They instead determined a course of action based upon the point of viability. Up to viability, women and doctors were declared to be the best judge of what should be. However, after viability, the Supreme Court decided that the State does have an interest in the potential for life and can restrict or even proscribe abortion after that point.

I think that's as wise as can be reasonably expected. If, as a country, we can all agree on the point that life begins, then the whole abortion debate may change. But as long as there exists a difference of opinion, I trust the Supreme Court.

Answer 3

Abortions aren't an 'on demand' procedure in the UK. Abortion is undesirable and women who opt for it should have the best treatment and the best counselling available. Before all that they should have good access to free contraceptives with knowledgable advice. This is usually available but younger women are often wary of accessing these services. Sex education should be compulsory and parents should not be allowed to withdraw their children from such classes. The UK has a high abortion rate and the saddest thing is that it is not an easy choice for the women involved and they often suffer later even when it was the only logical course of action for them. We should be working out why there are so many abortions and trying to reduce the number whilst keeping the procedure safe and available for those who feel it is the best choice.

Answer 4

Exactly, and Stephanie stated the real dilemma for pro-lifers - to convince everyone else that a fetus is a human being just like the rest of us, albeit not fully developed or able to think for itself.

The main problem with the fetus-not-human argument of pro-choice and pro-abortion supporters is that therefore any human being without the ability to make its own decisions or to live independently of others is merely a burden to humanity and does not deserve to live simply because he or she has nothing to give back to society.

Going down this slippery slope, we meet the psychotic, severely neurotic, the retarded, the severely disabled, senile, demented, and most other elderly people, and of course those in a "persistent vegetative state" e.g. Terry Schiavo.

All of these types of people have to be cared for by others and have virtually nothing to give back to our society.

As human beings who are only alive because of the value given to our lives by our parent(s), isn't it the most extreme hypocrisy to advocate killing others' unborn human beings?

Answer 5

Individuals have been determining right to life for centuries, through, crusades, Inquisitions, ethnic cleansing, heck even the death penalty. Why stop now?

I am going to give you the same contrived speech I have a million times before, the child protective system cannot handle the children already in it, how do you think they are going to be able to handle more? Are you willing to take in a child, pay those extra taxes to feed clothe educate, provide shelter and heath care for all those unwanted children that will inevitably burden the system? Preventing abortion only protects the child until birth. Who is looking out for them after that?

Answer 6

a fetus isn't a baby or alive. if someone wants to extract cells from their body its up to them. their body = their choice

now if a woman wants those cells to grow in to a person who can think, feel, reason, ect than its her choice. and its wrong for someone to say she can't terminate or that she has to terminate.

I support extra penalties if a pregnant woman has a miscarriage due to a violent attack, because that person just altered the way she wished to use her body (to carry an organism who would grow into a child)

now once the fetus can think, remember, reason, ect they are human and hurting them is a crime. I think some states are too lenent on the time frame for abortions

Answer 7

Now you've got it.

It's sad, but true. Long gone are the days when personal responsbility was more important than 'keeping government out of my bedroom'.

I think abortion is wrong and for those who cry foul, consider this:

1 - There are plenty of couples who want to have children of their own, but have to adopt. Consider them as an alternative.

2 - For you 'overpopulation' theorists, if you took everyone in the USA and stood them next to one another, we'd all fit inside Texas. We have plenty of room to grow.

I disagree with you, Josh, in the notion that an "unwanted" abortion needs to have the penalty reducted to that of assault. It's an intentional act of a third party intent on doing harm. I do agree that abortions, save for incest, rape (where the assailant has been tried and convicted of the crime only) and dire medical need, should not be legal.

We've killed more than 40,000,000 unborn children since Roe v Wade. And yet, champions of 'personal freedom' cry about us killing people in Iraq and that nobody belongs on death row. And they call conservatives hypocrites.

Answer 8

I understood your last question perfectly, and I'm glad you understood the point I made about violence against women, enough to remove it this time. but the answer remains the same. Nobody has a right to my body, over me. NOBODY. If you care so much about these 'innocent unborn babies' why don't you champion the cause to enforce child support payments? Or how about researching a way to grow fetuses outside of a woman? Why does it have to come down to prohibiting women from receiving proper medical care? Women have ALWAYS taken care of their families...why the big deal NOW?

Answer 9

So what about all the abortions God does?

You believe what you want, let people live their own lives. Ever think that maybe your view is WRONG? Of course not. Everyone has to do what YOU say, right? Gimmie a break.

Answer 10

I pointed out that rights go only to the BORN, and you didn't grasp that.

It is ultimately practical to have the choice reside with the woman who is pregnant, since any ban on abortion would be unenforceable anyway. It wouldn't stop the practice, just drive it to the back alleys where it used to be (where more women died, but I guess to a moralist like you that's okay, that's what she gets!)

Would you really be content with a totally unenforceable law stating your view that "Abortion is WRONG!" I doubt it. Or would you try to prevent it at all costs, including destroying ALL freedom? It would take incarcerating all females between puberty and menopause to prevent it. Are you willing to go that far?