Actually I would say the opposite, she has responsibility for the well being of the unborn child because boilogy makes it so.
DtC didn’t you bow out, and even were complemented in doing so?
Catch up on the thread. You’re the second person to ask me this.
And no, a woman has no obligation to carry a pregnancy that she doesn’t want to carry. Her body, her choice. There is no “baby.”
Switching sides of my brain and becoming pro-choice for a moment, what mandate does biology have over this? Is there a biological law that a pregnant animal must carry through the pregnancy?
switches back to pro-life
But yes, she is responsible for the unborn child (taking off the “because biology makes it so”). I agree with this in the case of the mother abusing drugs and other dangers to the fetus, and if someone kills the fetus but not the mother, that it is a crime. Some of the lines get really blurry around that area.
Whoops. I made a statement that can be challenged here - of course, “the fetus is not a living thing” would be the counter-argument, which leads us to the debate, what is life?
I personally feel that the mother and fetus are in a symbiotic relationship with each other, and that yes, the fetus is a separate entity from the mother (though maybe not fully “alive”)
And I’ve yet to see a definition of what is “life”
Iskatel, you rock for considering both sides of the opinions. Very open minded of you. That’s what I’m hoping to learn out of all this, the best information from each position.
Your questions are also extremely good. I’m going to have to give them some thought to, but my gut reaction is that the circumstances should definitely be made to the adoption agency and future parents. The child once s/he is of adult age? I dunno.
::: goes off to ponder beside Iskatel :::
None of those conditions I listed would affect the life of the mother. True, they might not all happen, but conditions like gestational diabetes and toxoplasmia (sp?) are more common than you’d think, and could have potentially disabling, if not necessarily deadly, consequences. The hormonal changes, at least, are definite and to some extent permanent. A woman goes through irreversible changes as a result of pregnancy–some physical, some mental, and not all of them good.
And I’d have to say, without doubt, that if I knew I was a product of rape, I would rather have been aborted than live to face that fact. I think I would interpret my own birth as an act of cruelty; I could never forgive myself for the pain my birth put my mother through, and it would be even worse if she’d kept me. Hell, for years I thought that about myself, and I’m not a rapist’s child, just an unwanted child. Not everyone desires life over non-life.
Sorry I slipped up, there is a moral law, not a biological law not to kill your offspring. The point is that women are at a biological disadvantage for this issue since they are the only ones who can become pregnant.
Wait a sec. is this thread for people who wish unborn babies to be legally killed, perhaps I should bow out.
Three things: First, I’m really glad that there are a couple of other people on, or at least, who seem to be on my side. I was scared that I would get pilled up on by people who don’t share my point of view; Second, I’m really glad this debate is civil. Usually topics like this get emotional and things get really ugly really fast, on both sides; And third…
For those who don’t believe that the unborn child isn’t an actual baby, why? Because the SCOTUS says it isn’t?
I hear some people say that it doesn’t count as a person until it has brain activity. Well, according to
As well as a bunch of other things that already happened and are happening such as the forming of the backbone spinal column and nervous system.
If these things don’t make it a baby, why not?
Exactly the question I posed to Diogenes, and one that has him tap dancing more than Gregory Hines.
blush thanks much. I hope everyone can gain something answering these kinds of questions, and at least consider the other side.
pro-choice again, I’m like a freaking Transformer
Even as a person on the fence (I typically say, I could not make such a choice on a personal level, but I also can not deny it to all women, but since I’m not a woman, it is a moot point - I just understand their POV), I still have to ask the question - is an unborn fetus capable of being killed? Meaning, is there life there in the first place? Or is it something akin to any other kind of growth - a cancer, or a wart? Do we have to respect the rights of the tape worm you pick up? (obviously an absurd and scientifically inaccurate question, but the point is to think a bit about it) All are growths from the body tissues - the difference is that one (depending on the time of growth) has the potential to become a human being.
If you haven’t bowed out yet, what is a human being, and when does it become alive?
I’m sorry, but I’ve seen to many women with lots of kids to think of pregancy as a bad or dangerous or harmful thing. I have a cousin with 5, and coworker with 4. Women get pregnant all the time and have been for thousands of years.
I’m not saying that the things you mentioned don’t happen, I’m just saying that, in general, most women are just fine after a pregnancy.
I’m sorry you felt that way. Nobody should feel that way, but just as you felt that way, and you weren’t the victom of a rape, the opposite can also be true.
that’s a good one.
I will answer direct questions, but will bow out of the OP.
I have already defined that human life begins somewhere between conception and the start of brainwave activity (Including the limits, meaning that life may begin at conception, or for that mater the start of brain wave activity, or anywhere inbetween), and I have stated I don’t exactly know where it begins.
The womb is a nessesary enviroment for he survival of the fetus, and like laws that alow me to tresspass on your private property for emergency survival situations, a fetus has that moral right to the womb it has implanted itself into.
I hate this POV, it is such a cop out, by the same reasoning you should not decide on a murder case unless you have murdered someone.
I’m sorry, but I have to turn this argument against you. The body of the woman is her own property - the fetus is a “growth” on/in it. It can be validly argued that the fetus is trespassing on the womb of the woman, and it is her choice to allow it to or not.
Your argument is similar to saying that if someone sets up a tent on your lawn because they’re homeless, they have the right because they’ve implanted themselves into it.
Granted. But the difference is that I have the capability to murder, and murder legislation can directly affect my choices and operations. I can’t, however hard I try (and I do try) get pregnant.
No I’m saying if it is needed for their very survival then legally you MUST provide it (or they can take it).
A frog has all those things too. That doesn’t make it a person.
No it isn’t. It’s more like saying you think homosexuality is a sin but you don’t think you have the right to tell others what to do. It’s about not imposing a purely religious opinion on others.
By this you are saying it is not in your reality, but before you said
So which is it, and either side you take you will have to reconsider something you said earlier.
Please pick a side and stick w/ it, you are starting to sound like a recent democratic canidate.