So again..."who says?" Who says the unborn have a right to life?
There's the answer to your question in post #16.You own what is contained in your body.
There's the answer to your question in post #16.
When the process of aborting becomes equally as cumbersome, painful, and or dangerous as simply giving birth and giving the child up for adoption.My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.
So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.
When the process of aborting becomes equally as cumbersome, painful, and or dangerous as simply giving birth and giving the child up for adoption.
No person is allowed to cause you pain against your will. No person is allowed to force you to suffer labor for them, suffered bodily deformation, and potentially risk death even if they need it for their survival. A woman always has a right to have whatever is growing inside of her removed just as you have a right to demand a Jehovah's witness get off your porch.
But the more important question that needs to be answered is, when does the Government have the right to know you are pregnant in the first place?
I do believe the Woman has the sovereign right to make such a decision, though I expect most every choice to have an abortion would occur prior to that point in time.No, it doesn't answer the question. Expelling the baby means the mother exercised her right to her own body, it has nothing to do with the rights of the baby. Furthermore, I highly doubt you even believe what you are saying, unless you believe the mother should be allowed to have an abortion at the time of delivery.
Because when the child is viable its rights no longer conflict with the rights of the mother.What difference does that make? Why does the baby have rights now but it didn't when it was inside the mother's body?
I do believe the Woman has the sovereign right to make such a decision, though I expect most every choice to have an abortion would occur prior to that point in time.
Many people do. They believe the unborn have rights, therefore killing the unborn is murder.
Presumably you disagree. Ok, then when does the baby get its rights?
Because when the child is viable its rights no longer conflict with the rights of the mother.
You cannot bestow human rights on something that has no identity, and being born is the beginning of one's identity.My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.
So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.
Just because it is difficult doesn't mean the point doesn't exist. The point of viability is a good place to start. At a very minimum, we know that before that point there is no way the fetus can survive at all.How the hell do you determine that?
Liberals do. It is the right which is very inconsistant on this point.I completely agree.
If only you would hold on to that principle for other issues.
Of course, it does. Printing U.S. Money is the sole domain of the U.S. government. They have every right to know how much of it is in circulation, who has it, and how much was transferred to you this year.the government has no right to know your income.
But not by the mother. Hence it is a voluntary transaction that the mother can relieve herself of without destroying the child.The newborn baby still needs to be taken care of, hence the conflict still exists either with the mother or with someone else.
Because when the child is viable its rights no longer conflict with the rights of the mother.
Just because it is difficult doesn't mean the point doesn't exist. The point of viability is a good place to start.
At a very minimum, we know that before that point there is no way the fetus can survive at all.
Liberals do.
Of course, it does. Printing U.S. Money is the sole domain of the U.S. government. They have every right to know how much of it is in circulation, who has it, and how much was transferred to you this year.
But not by the mother. Hence it is a voluntary transaction that the mother can relieve herself of without destroying the child.
The newborn baby still needs to be taken care of, hence the conflict still exists either with the mother or with someone else.
If no one else cares for the baby, it dies.
No, she must notify the state she no longer wishes to care for the baby. If the state believes the child's life has value then the state is welcome to take charge of raising it.So the mother can desert her one month old baby in the woods, and there's nothing morally wrong with that?
That could be a possibility in rare instances.Really? How about 10 minutes after the baby is born. Is that still ok with you?
My understanding is that the question comes down to when the fetus/baby/human has rights. We know that a fertilized egg does not have rights. We also know that a 5 year old child does have rights. So somewhere between the fertilized egg and the 5 years later this being became endowed with human rights.
So let's hear you opinion regarding when it becomes not ok to kill the fetus/baby/human and why. The why is very important. If you don't have a good reason, then you're just guessing.
That could be a possibility in rare instances.
As there is no reason here to think that the right to make a decision that belongs to the pregnant woman has changed then the answer would be the often repeated phrase of it is a woman's right to decide. And the moment the pregnant woman decides she wants to have a child is the moment that child ( and we can now call it a child ) has the right to be born.
So just to be clear, you have no problem with a mother abandoning her baby and letting it die, correct?
There could be instances where it would take more than an hour. Why are you so intent on placing a limit on the Woman to make her choice?Alright, so an hour after it's born. Still ok?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?