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

a woman hence hs the right to protect herself against the harm caused by the foetus

2007-05-19 22:56:56 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

To put the record straight.........

I do believe that if you dont accept that jesus died an paid for your sins, then you would give God no choice but to send you to guantanamo bay to pay for them your selves...in this case hell...............that aside

I wasnt too sure where i stood on abortion, but now i think i know,if we the Goverment can make adoption less difficult and at the same time put the welfare of children first by placing them within a traitional setting then i think abortion should be illegal and outlawed...because there are several couples who would give an arm and a leg to adopt those babies.....this is my opinion........
The reason why I say traitional setting is because I want the child to grow up and have the right to chose ,rather than making the choices by reason of the adopting couple

2007-05-20 03:42:00 · update #1

23 answers

It is true that abortion isn't infanticide. That's a stand alone statement.

It doesn't need a "but" ;_)

In the US, abortion is legal and requires no defense.

2007-05-19 23:00:36 · answer #1 · answered by pepper 7 · 7 4

How can pregnancy be described as an invasion by the foetus! A baby does not force it's way into a womans womb, it is invited, however unwittingl. Having said that, I believe it is the womans right to choose whether to go through with the pregnancy, or abort. The question is when! At some stage it does become infanticide, and a lot of abortions are in fact infanticide. Women should have the right to terminate, but like everything else, that right is frequently abused.

2007-05-19 23:14:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

The only harm a fetus would cause a woman is if it started to grow in the Fallopian tubes Or if the female is a child under 13. Then an abortion would be needed to save the woman's/girl's life. However there have been cases of 11 year olds giving birth by C-section. Other then that there is no other harm to be done by the child. An abortion would kill a child and I would consider that doing harm to the fetus. It's not the fetus's fault the mother and father were careless and gave it life.
With so many couples who are childless and would give an unwanted infant a loving home I would consider the alternative and give the child a chance to live and the couple a chance to make their dreams of having a child come true.

2007-05-19 23:07:19 · answer #3 · answered by greylady 6 · 3 1

I don't know if its infanticide because I don't know when a foetus ceases to be a group of cells and gains awareness.

The only time abortion would count as self defence would be when there would be irreperable physical or mental damage to the mother if the pregnancy continued.

Even then I wouldnt want to judge which decision was the right one, because the lesser of two evils is always a matter of opinion.

I don't know why you need to rationalise an awful, bloody, damaging event that affects a (normal) woman for the rest of her life, but I hope you get it sorted.

2007-05-19 23:18:21 · answer #4 · answered by madbaggage 3 · 0 1

This is a very interesting, feminist argument that hasn't really been seriously considered since the height of feminism in the 1970s. I think that there may be some justification in this argument, as undoubtedly, having a child could be seen as an invasion of one's life and one's self, if it is unwelcome. Children do take over and change a woman's life, so in this sense I suppose it could be seen as an act of self-defence to abort the baby, although this is a very one-sided and slightly unnatural perspective to take on the matter.

2007-05-19 23:38:21 · answer #5 · answered by sallybowles 4 · 0 1

That is a different take on take. It has been a long time since I've heard that argument. But it is a valid point especially since child birth is still the leading cause of death of women in their childbearing age.

I believe most abortions are not necessary and there are many homes that would be willing to adopt. However, I am strongly against the government telling me what I can and can't do with my body. My body is mine not the governments or the fetus. Nor is it the governments or anyone else's concern weather I go to hell or not (if that is what you believe)

2007-05-20 01:33:08 · answer #6 · answered by angelhersh 3 · 0 2

you have an abortion you are terminating the life of a human being, call it what you want that's what it is. to call it self defence of the foetus lives up to your avatar and is strange. maybe if the retarded women involved could take proper precautions before they spread their legs maybe some poor innocents could avoid the trauma, either way as they say your foetus is waiting for you in the afterlife and guess what , it's not heaven.

2007-05-20 01:01:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

One of my contacts starred this, and without delving through the other answers here's what comes to my mind as I read this passage... This reminds me of the current state of affairs in Yemen. Fighting by the sword by enemies, in Yemen, female infants are bashed against the rocks because women are considered of no value, and only enough are kept alive to breed sons, and pregnant women ripped open is the process of birth by Cesarean. god is not "encouraging" this, just reporting the facts of what humans are doing unto themselves. By the way, this happens in today's society, right now, not a thousand years ago, either.

2016-05-21 23:20:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I find your defence of abortion difficult to comprehend. I believe a woman's body is her own - and the life of the foetus she carries is its own..

I find it sad that so many women readily abort whilst others are desperate to conceive or have the 'need' to adopt.


It appears the down thumb demon has been busy today! Surely we can have our own opinions?

2007-05-19 23:21:32 · answer #9 · answered by I'm Sparticus 4 · 0 1

Not that I've ever heard. I think the argument is that until the fetus is in late term it would have no chance of survival outside of the womb so it is considered acceptable for the woman to terminate until then. This has been going on since the dawn of man and it will wether legal or not. Legalizing it simply allows better control and a minimum standard of health to those who go through with it.

2007-05-19 23:07:51 · answer #10 · answered by Hans B 5 · 1 2

I cannot agree that a foetus is invading the womans body as expect through rape it was a agreement between the woman and her partner and to invade is to take a place over without permission.

2007-05-19 23:08:44 · answer #11 · answered by chersgaz 4 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers