It is OK for a woman to abort her unborn child because it is her body/life correct? Then if a woman has a baby goes home with it from the hospital then hires somebody to kill the baby (by burning or dismemberment) is that ok? After all, it is still the womans choice and her life. Should she go to prison? What should happen to the person who kills the baby?
2007-03-06 10:07:59 · 19 answers · asked by dumbblond 3 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
RAMDOM6x7 made a good point. I would go save the baby first why I wonderd? I would value all six of their lives worth saving. I thought about it and realized that it was because I would be haunted by the sound of the eight month olds screams for the rest of my life. So is that what makes abortions ok to you people? As long as you can't hear or see it happening, or as long as you can't match the baby to a name or a face you don't have to feel bad about it? So it's not so much as the baby doesn't have a right to be here as long as the mother doesn't want it then it is that YOU don't have to feel bad. Thanks random I understand it clearly now.
2007-03-07 05:58:46 · update #1
And for everybody that says "oh it's the law so that makes it ok" It's also the law for you to pay taxes. Do you feel it is ok for the government to rob you from 33% of you pay check then tax you for most everything you buy?
2007-03-07 06:08:08 · update #2
This goes back to those hypocritical laws. Like if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged for killing TWO people when an aborted child isnt even considered a person...yea, pretty ridiculous if you ask me . The damn lawyers just cant make up their minds.
2007-03-06 10:12:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Up to a certain point in the pregnancy, it IS the woman's body and choice. I feel that if the fetus can't live on its own outside of the womb, then the woman still has the right to terminate the pregnancy. There are only certain cases that would change my mind, and that is if the woman's health is suddenly at risk if she were to carry the child to a point that it will be viable, or it is discovered the child will have some kind of problem that would be detrimental to its health/quality of life(genetic defect/disease, the mother uses drugs like meth, or some other factor). After the child reaches the point of not needing a womb to survive, and is out of the womb, and the mother doesn't want the baby, she has plenty of options that doesn't involve criminal activity to "get rid of" said child.
Yes, she should go to prison/be executed and so should the person that she got to kill the child.
What makes you think that the people that do support a woman's right to choose an abortion don't feel bad about the need for abortion? The women that get them done feel awful about having to make that decision, I have yet to meet a woman that was over-joyed about it. Whether or not you would ever have one, and how against them you are, I don't care. Just as long as you don't try to take a woman's right to the choice away, rant and b*tch about it all you want, I don't care.
2007-03-06 21:01:39 · answer #2 · answered by littlevivi 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
First off, very few people are "abortion supporters". Most people, pro-choice or not, would be very happy with few or no abortions. It's not like it's a fun weekend thing to do with your girlfriends.
Second, what the hell? There is a huge difference between a bundle of cells that has the potential to become human life and a living, breathing, out of the womb child. You don't think so? Then in a burning fertility clinic, do you save the petri dish of five fertilized cells, or the 8 month old baby?
2007-03-06 23:23:33 · answer #3 · answered by random6x7 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Hiring someone to kill someone else is illegal. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have an abortion. Not being able to afford a baby, pregnancy due to rape or incest, if having the child puts the mom in danger, etc. If the woman doesn't want the child, the child will not grow up in a happy home and will probably end up a sociopath if not loved. The crime rate of teens went down 58% 14-19 years after the implementation of Roe v. Wade.
2007-03-06 21:03:02 · answer #4 · answered by heathermagoo13 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
You arent making sense or making any point. A fetus is not a developed human, and its not viable without its host. The moment that fetus breaths oxygen through its own lungs, outside the womb, it becomes separate from the host and thus viable on its own. That fetus does not have any right to be inside the womb, the person who calls the shots is the host. What happens inside of a womans body, is not the business of anyone else, because what goes on in her body is subject to the rules of another realm. You cant tell someone who is careless enough to swim through a murky pond, that they cant remove the leeches who begin to suck their blood. Perhaps you are like the ancient Pharisees who wanted to put unnecessary burdens on the people by accusing them of murder for smashing bugs and other such nonsense.
2007-03-08 04:21:59 · answer #5 · answered by Bonzai Betty 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
As soon as the child breathes on its own, its no longer a physical part of the woman, and therefore, no longer covered under her rights, but its own. As long as the child is still inside her, its like any other appendage, it can be removed at her request and under the supervisor of a physician.
Those who argue against abortion are overempathic towards the concept of life. People are starving to death while they wave their little placards and burn down abortion clinics. You really want to help humanity? Go keep people who are alive, alive, and let the new lives coming into this world be watched over by parent and physician.
2007-03-06 18:17:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
I wish my both grandmothers to have aborted my father and my mother.But that's my personal problem.Though I wish them no harm.
About abortion, it is true, that most of medical procedures involve cutting the embryo into pieces. It could experience pain, if the brain was developed, sounds terrible if you think this way. But it does not compare with the pain of becoming an unwanted child,later. Cause it is done just like in a deep sleep.While when you are alive you are fully aware.
It's the same as if you would have a novel and on it was just written the summary, and destroy it, while if you have the entire novel, Shakespeare's for instance,the only copy and you destroy it, it's different. I say Shakespeare because he wrote masterpieces the same way god gives life to human souls, as materpieces.Each soul is divine nature and should have rights.
It is not correct to kill a baby after it is born, only Chinese do this, they kill their daughters in water just because they want sons.
The mothers however may suffer from postpartum depression, which is medical fact, and if they kill their own baby due to sudden change of emotions the punishment is reduced.Still they go to prison, cause we are not in Middle Ages anymore.
2007-03-06 18:10:58 · answer #7 · answered by ParaskeveTuriya 4 · 4⤊ 5⤋
She should probably have made the decision before she went all the way through with the pregnancy. . . And even if that she could always put it up for adoption, before she goes and has it killed.
2007-03-06 18:14:40 · answer #8 · answered by MAYA S 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This has been a problem of law for thousands of years. the early frankish law allowed for killing a newborn as long as it had not been fed, but after feeding it was considered murder.
2007-03-06 18:45:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think even though it is her body she should think harder about what she is doing to an innocent little teeny tiny soul. If abortion is a thought my only question would be, Why would u have sex if u dont want the baby?
2007-03-06 18:21:19 · answer #10 · answered by salsa_weeee 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋