Can you dispute the fact that, up to a certain point, it simply cannot survive outside the mother's body?
From that point of view, what exists in any law anywhere that allows you to force a woman to incubate a fetus in her body for nine months?
2007-05-11
08:35:27
·
21 answers
·
asked by
Bush Invented the Google
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
bigsey: Support your statement with legal facts, please.
2007-05-11
08:38:30 ·
update #1
united_states_of: Again... I asked for a legal basis for the claim that you have the right to force a woman to use her body to incubate a fetus, not for your position on whether that fetus is a living, breathing human being or not. Stop being emotional and be logical and answer the question.
2007-05-11
08:44:34 ·
update #2
Brian: Your legal citation, please?
2007-05-11
08:44:56 ·
update #3
stay-fan: Once it's been born, there's no one who calls it a fetus. Any idiot knows that once it's been born, it's a child. That's why there's a different clinical term for each stage of its development.
2007-05-11
08:45:46 ·
update #4
redwing: women who have had miscarriages would beg to differ; those abortions are VERY natural. They are called "spontaneous abortions," in fact.
2007-05-11
08:46:33 ·
update #5
You can't and it's up to the woman involved. Before women started giving birth to babies in hospitals, this wasn't even an issue.
2007-05-11 08:38:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by merrybodner 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
its not forcing her to "incubate" if she had sex willingly.
If you are old enough to have sex, you are old enough to know where babies come from.
As for your "spontaneous abortion" theory. Within the last few years there have been numerous discoveries as to the reason of the miscarriage. 85% of those miscarriages are non existent pregnancies to begin with. Meaning there was NO BABY. The other 15 % are caused from either an external force (accident etc...) or from a health problem.
So by your theory.....only 15% of all women having abortions even have a fetus to kill. So they are IN FACT killing a living being.
But since some children do not even live after birth, maybe we should make it legal to kill them as well, huh??
I mean if they can't make it on their own they are fair game right???
2007-05-12 21:19:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chrissy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I find it interesting that the only nay sayers are men in this particular question.
I also agree with the poster who said they condenm, a woman for having sex and getting pregnant and wanting to terminate that pregnancy. But if she is forced to have that child (out of guilt or whatever) she receives little or no help if she needs it to raise that child. Hypocritical indeed.
I'd also like to add, where is the father in all the finger pointing? I don't see anyone condemning the man for lying down with that woman who got pregnant. She didn't get that way on her own you know. I might add, women sometimes are forced to make the decision to have an abortion becuase the sperm donor is no where to be found and would not be able to provide for a baby or a pregnancy.
As far as going on about life beginning at conception, that's you're personal belief. It is not what everyone else believes and for you to force that on other people is wrong.
If you dont' believe in abortion don't have one.
2007-05-11 16:27:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Spirish_1 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. I can't dispute the fact that a fetus can not servive outside the womb, and no there isn't any law to force a woman to incubate a fetus however women can have abortions so what's the point?
2007-05-11 15:54:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Obviously a fetus qualifies under no legal or medical definition as a living human, even though you can get enhanced charges for killing someone pregnant it some states!
One of my issues they want to force people to have children, but out of the other side of their mouths they criticize their choice if they have to go on assistance and do little, if anything , to support them after they give birth. They are like Pontious Pilot, they wash their hands and convict a mother and child to a life of misery for the most part!
You have a far better chance of dying during birth than you do under a termination of a pregnancy. They don't use coat hangers anymore!
2007-05-11 15:43:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
No you can't dispute that. I also agree it is wrong to force a woman to be an incubator. Since, presumably, no one forced said woman to get pregnant your point is moot. She choose to have sex and got pregnant. I'm sorry for the inconvenience but to kill an innocent because of her poor decision is inhuman and selfish.
A baby cannot survive without being taken care of and that is clearly protected under the law. I see no real difference except you can see the unborn child.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that a doctor ripping a poor baby apart limb by limb was a natural process. My mistake.
Actually before the Supreme Court over-ruled the will of the people in many states there were laws forcing a woman to be an incubator, as you call it.
2007-05-11 15:40:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Brian 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
I can't dispute your argument that a fetus can not survive outside it's mother's body, but I have a problem with labelling an unwanted pregnancy as "forcing" a woman to carry it. This point-of-view is totally devoid of respect for the sanctity of innocent human life. If you can't understand that, you are lost.
2007-05-11 16:48:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Have you ever seen a sonogram at the first stage of pregnancy? The first thing you see is a heartbeat. That means life. Life begins at the moment of conception. The two parents that created that life are responsible for that life. The life was initiated because 2 people were irresponsisble. Now, like in a lot of other situations, they want the quick easy fix. In this case an abortion. They do not want to pay the consequences of their actions. They are willing to extinquish the very life they created! why don't they take their own lives instead? Oh yeah, I forgot. They want to live!!! Baby never had ability to say it wanted to live too! (Also, any "mother" would not consider herself an incubator! Hope YOU never have kids!!!)
2007-05-11 15:50:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by TexasDolly 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
The unborn baby, or fetus, which means "little one" develops brain waves at the 8th week of development. By the 20th week the name for the unborn baby is changed to "premature infant" according to Andres E. Hellegers of the Georgetown university School of Medicine. That should show that we are talking of a human being, not a thing that can be pput to death for any reason.
2007-05-11 15:44:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Rob T 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
From that point of view, it's the same law that forces you to feed, clothe, and attend to post-birth-fetuses until they can do it for themselves (say, age 5).
And the "incubation" was self-selected in the overwhelming majority of cases. The law would simply be making a mother carry through on her commitment (much like a heart surgeon has to finish the operation, once yuor chest is opened).
2007-05-11 15:41:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Oh, geez, the abortion issue, lol! Although most of my views fall into the "liberal" category, I have to say that this is an issue that will probably never be resolved. I think that BOTH sides of the argument have very good points, and most of the details are very subjective.
2007-05-13 00:58:40
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋