Ya because you were the ones that knocked her up in the first place lol.
And the problem here is that the father would be able to do that. The mother can't do that, because it's in her body, and if the father left during her bearing it, she is the only one left that can take care of it so obviously she can't leave it. Everyone can have a change of heart but the mother is not able to do that when the father does.
So why are we forced to deal with the responsibility if we don't want to, but when women want a way out they can just slay the child?
This is similar to the idea of life support. It's perfectly legal for the next of kin to decide that a person should be taken off of life support, even if they are in a coma that they can possibly wake from for example, not just someone who isn't ever going to recover. It's a matter of the rights of the child vs. the rights of the mother. If there was an affordable way to remove the child from the mother and bring it to term without infringing on the rights of the mother to her own body, then I'm sure people would advocate for that. But there isn't.
Somehow I was hoping you would bring that fun little quote up somewhere after I saw it on irc so I could explain the difference between the two. When a man supports abortion, he is pro-choice. When a woman supports abortion, she is pro-choice. Pro-choice is not a gender-specific term. A deadbeat is a person who has chosen not to financially support a child. Deadbeat mothers exist as well. If a mother abandons their child and refuses to care for them financially, they are a deadbeat mom. Specifically, it's the failure to pay court-ordered child support. It's a legal term, not whatever you try to twist it into. That sounds cute when you just spit it out with no regard to what it actually means, but if you try to give it any deeper thought it immediately falls apart.
Let's turn that around. In a pro-life world, even if the woman does not want the child, she is forced by the government to bring it to term, change her life, lose control of her body, and possibly risk serious injury. The stakes are much higher for women than they are for men.
Question: What if the child has an identical twin, and therefore is not genetically unique? Then it's okay to murder it, right? So that premise is out the window there because not all humans are genetically unique. But if you just use 'living tissue' and 'human DNA' as the two premises that make a human, my skin is a human for a few seconds if I separate it from my body, before it dies. Because it's a human, I just committed murder. Same goes for every living thing in my body; it will continue to live for a time before it dies of lack of oxygen/food, therefore living tissue, with human DNA in it, therefore each is an individual human.
I think you need to rethink your definition.
If women are going to lie about it to get abortions, what about the incredibly high risk of women getting backdoor abortions, illegal, unsafe ones because they don't want their child and there's no legal alternative? While that still happens today due to monetary issues I'm sure, driving desperate women to self-harm so they don't have to give up their own body for 9 months would certainly be a negative backlash of outlawing abortion.
In addition, while you can throw out those statistics, they can easily be interpreted in different ways which makes them not very reliable towards your argument. What about all the women who don't want to report a rape due to shame, self-hatred, being told they would have revenge exacted on them by the rapist, or any one of the other reasons that people choose not to report rape? Those could easily be applied to your statistics, therefore making them unrelated. Since you can't offer any proof that your interpretation of the statistics is correct over mine, which is also entirely valid, they're useless to you.
If you want to compare life support to abortion then you'd have to be killing the mother, not the child. No I wouldn't support anything like artificial wombs, because that just cheapens motherhood, which is something I hold to very high value.
You just missed the point. It's about how society perceives men and women who are pro-choice, and how they are perceived differently due to the double standard.
Right now murder is illegal. Is the government somehow forcing people not to murder one another, much to their great discomfort?
Answer: Don't be silly Toujours, I was speaking of the principle in regard to the mother. By stating that the child inside is genetically unique, I am stating that it is not part of the mother's body, and thus not her choice to do what she wishes with it, including murder it. The definition is perfectly sound. Your skin cells are not a life unto themselves, unlike the fetus inside. They are merely part of the human being. Contained in the fetus is an entire human life, just like your body.
Abortions were not made any safer because they were legalised. They were made safer (and still aren't all that safe) because of medical advancements. "Backdoor" abortions were literally just that - women entered actual medical clinics through the backdoor and had the child killed by a trained professional. Not everything has to occur as you say though, and it's just as likely that women will not drive themselves to self harm, as you so dramatically put it. In Poland, under Communist rule in the '80s, there were consistently over 100,000 abortions registered each year as compared to about 600,000 births. With the establishment of some self-government in 1990, with both the Church and doctors discouraging abortion, the numbers fell to 59,400.
Let's list the 1990 figures and then look ahead to 1994, the second year after abortion was forbidden except for danger to the life or health of the mother, rape and fetal handicap.
1990 | 1994
Total abortions 59,417 | 782
Women's deaths connected with pregnancy 90 | 57
Miscarriages 59,454 | 49,970
Cases of infanticide 31 | 17
Births 546,000 | 482,000
During this time the number of registered abortions declined to 176th of what it had been, and there was not a single death due to illegal abortion. All of these figures are exactly opposite of what International Planned Parenthood people in Poland predicted when the restrictive law was passed.
I'm going to have to invoke Occam's razor here. My interpretation of the statistics makes the fewest assumptions and thereby oftens the simplest explanation. You would have to offer proof for your extra assumptions to make mine interpretation invalid.
And the government kills actual human beings every day of the week. Ever been to Texas? But of course, it's ok because they're criminals.
You realize a fertilized egg (a Zygote, not a Blastocyst, don't play with the definitions to suit your assumptions) doesn't breathe, on account of A, being a clump of mitotic cells and B, not having lungs yet. Or not having a heart. Or a Brain, Or ears, Or a mouth. Or Hair, or a conscious, or eyes, or a nose, or arms, legs, toes, fingers, elbows, knees, eyelashes, etc. Or the fact it's 1/100th or an inch long. Barely visible to the naked eye. It isn't even attached to the Uterine wall yet. So no.
9th, 13th & 14th Amendments. If you would have read the document you'd know that. Provided that enumerated and implied rights are correctly understood.
While one could argue that the execution of guilty criminals is better than killing innocent children, I do not support either. Make a thread on capital punishment if you wish. That said, the freedom for individual states to decide is better than the government making an overarching decision on it, as the states represent the people much better than the federal government will (not to mention it was a court that made the decision anyway).
Fair enough, I was incorrect by saying that it breathes, my apologies. However, according to the biological definition of life it is still a living creature.
Reading them now and there is no such mention that you have the right to kill your own child :P
Where is the right to privacy mentioned in the constitution? It isn't there at all, nor is it derivable from values embodied within the constitution. Not to mention the right as described in Roe v. Wade is so ridiculously broad that it could encompass any number of things, like child abuse. Because really, if you can kill your child, why can't you kill it? Do you not have the right to privacy?
The decision made in Roe v. Wade attempted to link the privacy spheres of marriage, birth control and contraception to abortion, when abortion is not a private matter at all and thus no such link exists. In the case of use of contraceptives, such "right to privacy" was granted because it takes place in the sacred marital confines of the bedroom. Despite the link between abortion and contraceptives, the former, does not take place in the bedroom, and involve personnel other than spouses.
There is so much more that is wrong with the Roe v. Wade decision, but to summarise it all neatly, it is unconstitutional, as the court exceeded its constitutional authority, and on top of that, should be disregarded for a number of reasons, including misrepresentation of the history of abortion and the attitudes of society towards it.
In any case, what is the law does not equal what is moral.
