No, it’s worse. A form of slavery.
And you want to force it to continue. That is at least as bad as rape. You, like the rapist are asserting that you own a woman’s body and she does not; you are declaring that her body is to be used for your purpose and not hers regardless of how much she suffers.
So not being allowed to kill a fetus is slavery?
No, I mean the rape is horrible and evil but if the victim’s pregnant I believe it has to be carried to term for a life has been created.
Reducing a woman to the status of a brood mare is slavery.
In other words you want to treat women as animals. You regard their life and health and happiness as unimportant compared to forcing them to sustain a lump of flesh. Forcing a woman to bear a child is AT LEAST as horrible and evil as rape.
No it ain’t.
See, I can assert too!
Except a life hasn’t been created. It’s a growth. It’s not a life until, minimum it can live on its own, and it’s not a person until, minimum it has a personality.
Note: There is indeed a difference between life and a life. Your finger has life. But it is not a life.
Look, I think all this boils down to the question of whether the fetus is life or not. If you think it’s life abortion is evil if it isn’t then abortion is fine.
Not wether it is life - a tumor is life, but that doesn’t make it bad to burn it out. What matters is whether it is a life - and a person. (I eat hamburgers - I can handle taking a life if it’s not a person too.)
Don’t try to move the goalposts here.
It will be life. That is what I’m saying. Barring a nowadays relatively trivial possiblity of miscarriage the fetus will be born a person. I find it hard to understand how the law considers killing a baby two seconds after it’s born murder but if it was aborted three months before it’s perfectly legal.
No, what matters is that it’s a person or not and there’s no way that a few cells qualifies. Life in itself is just meat that isn’t dead yet.
Actually most conceptions end in miscarriage. And it doesn’t matter that it’s life; so is cancer.
Because it has had quite some time to develop, to become more than it was; that’s why.
No, it does NOT boil down to this one question. The key question is balancing the rights of the mother, who is a living person, and the embryo or fetus, which is likely to become a person. Even if you believe a fetus is a life, you can be in favor of a woman having the option to decide whether or not she will have a child. I believe a lot of pro-choice Catholics look at it that way.
You’re also - not usually - treating abortion as if it is a punishment to the fetus. This is a slanted and inaccurate way to frame the issue.
If the mother’s life is in danger I support abortion but no way else. It’s the choice of the fetus dying at the sake of the convenience of the mother.
So, then. Would it be OK if I steal some of your internal organs if I need them, as long as you aren’t immediately killed? It’s much the same thing.
Quite frankly on the issue of organs I support organ harvesting prisoners once they have been screened for diseases. It’s the least prisoners can do to give back to society.
Sorry to commit the cardinal sin of jumping in on page 4 without fully reading 1,2 and 3… but to reiterate a point or two I’m sure SOMEONE made above:
This one’s easy. Just assume that, by Creator, they meant Mother.
This still forces them to go through the discomfort, expense and health risks of a full pregnancy and delivery, followed by an often emotionally wrenching separation from the baby after birth. What is the advantage to the woman for going through that?
There is no baby, and forcing rape victims to carry pregnancies resulting from those rapes aggravates and extends their trauma to a and extent that it can’t be ethcally defended, especially for very young victims.
But we aren’t talking about prisoners. We are talking about women - whose only “crime” is to be a sexually active female who doesn’t want this particular pregnancy at this point in time. Are you really saying that women and felons have similar rights?
If it’s aborted, it won’t be a life. Therefore, your argument falls apart.
P1 We don’t destroy historic buildings.
P2 If you wait long enough, and it’s not destroyed by miscarriage, then any building will eventually become a historic building.
P3 Therefore, we can’t destroy *any *buildings.
That is the argument I see you making here.
A fetus can have a heartbeat and brainwaves and other biological processes that are necessary for life, but it’s not experiencing life the way we do, and at that stage in its development, it has never done had that experience. So I think it’s wrong to portray abortion as a punishment: something with no independent life and no interaction with the world is ‘losing’ a state of existence it has never had and is not aware of. That’s quite different from killing an adult human being.
If it’s your wish, you can have your family keep you alive when you are comatose, braindead, unconscious and breathing through a respirator. However this is about as much independent life as a fetus has, and most of us wouldn’t confuse it with our daily interactions with the world. You can toss out loaded comparisons to slavery and call it “convenience” and so forth, but that doesn’t shed any light on the subject.
Not if it’s terminated.
Even if an abortion is only “convenience,” I have to say I don’t see that as a problem. I don’t think there is anything tragic or wrong about abortion. It’s not preferable to contraception and so forth for medical reasons but I don’t have a moral problem with it. If a woman feels she needs to get one but doesn’t want to, that’s a sad thing, but I’m sorry for her, not for an embryo or fetus. The idea of compelling someone to have a child is repugnant, in my opinion. It’s disrespectful to women and to children, and also nosy and sexually repressive.