I only support abortion to women who have been victims of rape, molestation or if the baby or mother is at risk. I don't support women, who have abortions just because they don't want a kid. It's called BIRTH CONTROL. In most cases it's free.
2007-04-30 07:32:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Liberal City 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
An excellent question. Abortion being okay doesn't have to do with a woman "having rights over her own body" because we all know it's not her own body, it's the body and life of her child. It's a very twisted system that thinks it's okay for partial birth abortion(when a woman is giving birth, just before the head of the baby comes out, the doctor inserts a syringe into the baby's head and sucks out the brain killing it instantly. seriously I am NOT making this up) but yet will imprison a woman (or a doctor for that matter) for killing a baby minutes after it is born. Look, there are NO justifications for this. They ARE babies in the mother, human beings, not blobs of tissue, as people know,(as you mentioned about the mother ending her own pregnancy, and double counts of homicide proves this), yet on the other hand they don't acknowledge it when the baby is "unwanted" or came at the "wrong time". Did you know that a baby is fully formed(all its organs are formed, though maybe not completely), before the mother even shows in any bulging in her belly? Amazing isn't it? I am pro choice, I believe the baby should have a choice. :) If the baby wants to "abort" let him do so himself!!!!
2016-05-17 10:10:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by else 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is a very good question! I often wonder that myself.
If I choose to end my life, then I am going to do just that. I also feel that a person has the right to decide when their lives will end, and die with dignity instead of having their misery prolonged.
I also see the issue with helping someone end their lives - how do you know it wasn't murder? I also think that the Terry Shivo case should do something to tell about the dilema. There were conflicting reports on her decisions. What if a person feels one way, and then years later, changes their mind? Unless it is in writing, then there is nothing but a fight.
The best way to do things is with a living will. I have one, my husband has one, and both of our families have numerous members that have them. We have also discussed our decisions and choices, and know what the other wishes. This is something not very pleasant to talk about, but a need to share before a tragic, unforseen event happens.
If I were asking someone to help me with my decision to end my life, I would have my doctor write a letter explaining my condition, the long term effects, and the suffering that will happen/is happening. I would then write a letter myself, explaining my feelings, why I had decided to do what I was doing, and that it was of my own free will. I would also have a "Do Not Recessitate" order (DNR) in place so that there was no dispute that I had wanted to live or die. Along with all of this, I would have my living will right there. All of this in a packet to be found with me would be sure to explain my position on my life, as my choice to end it.
2007-04-30 07:41:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Oregon is the only state (right now) that allows assisted suicide.
There's a state run program that started in 1997. Since its inception, there have been *zero* mistakes or complaints with the system.
A person has to go through a series of psychological evaluations over a period of over 6 months. They also have to be terminally ill.
These people are allowed to die with dignity, surrounded by friends and family. And their suffering can be ended.
We routinely euthanize animals in an effort to be "humane". Why then can't we apply this to HUMANS??
California is actively seeking to start their own euthanasia program. One more reason to love Cali!
2007-04-30 07:33:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Josh 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
Assisted Suicide is legal in Oregon.
My sister died in Oregon.
We, as a society, do not yet understand that permitting a person to terminate them-self is a dignified way to exit this existence.
When all the Baby Boomers get to 80 or 90 years of age, we will most likely see a significant change in our way of thinking. No parent wants to become a burden to their children. Suicide needs to be legalized. Dr. Kevorkian was a man ahead of his time.
And I am Pro Abortion.
2007-04-30 14:23:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think people should have the right to either.
and it can be boiled down to economic power in both cases.
If a woman gets an abortion, she is paying one small amount (in the US, usually about $400) one time as well as paying for a few weeks worth of antibiotics. If she were to give birth though, she would have to pay the medical bills for labor and delivery, for the vaccinations and doctors visits for her child, not to mention more in the way of groceries, clothing school supplies etcetc. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise a child, and the more children born, the more people have to spend money.
With wanting to die with dignity, if a person does that, then their only has to pay for the funeral. If they keep them alive, massive medical bills, medication after medication and treat ment after treatment must be paid for.
this is one thoery as to why both are considered to be unacceptable by certain politicians who also (surprise, surprise) happen to have alot invested in the medical field.
funny how that works out.
2007-04-30 07:58:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by bluestareyed 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think most pro choice people agree that suicide and euthanasia should also be legal. And BTW, there is no right for a women to 'kill a life inside her body'. There is a constitutional protection against the government coming into the doctor's office and telling people how to treat and care for themselves.
2007-04-30 07:36:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by hichefheidi 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think that abortion is okay because the child isn't technically alive but is forming. If a plant was forming who would care they probably would mow it down anyway. The way I see it, child should not be considered alive until the signs appear; such as, kicking in the stomach and many of those types of things. As for the right to kill yourself, it should not be allowed because many things could happen after the time they decide that they want to kill themselves. Have you ever heard of those stories where someone wanted to kill themselves and days after they were healed or cured and thank the doctors for not letting them do it.
2007-04-30 07:47:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Brian Byrd 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Why doesn't someone have a right to kill themselves?
I realize that there are laws in some states outlawing suicide... but how does one punish someone for breaking this law, exactly?
Your argument is without merit. You absolutely have the right to kill yourself if that's what you want.
2007-04-30 07:49:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
You hear about "death with dignity" all the time, but many places do not allow it. One school of thought is that the person is not in a "proper" frame of mind to make an informed decision
Dr. Kevorkian did assisted suicide and look where he is.
2007-04-30 07:32:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Experto Credo 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Seems like a lot of people oppose abortion and suicide until they are in a situation where they might consider it.
Maybe you don't always know what is best for everyone else.
2007-04-30 07:40:19
·
answer #11
·
answered by Derek D 2
·
2⤊
0⤋