Originally posted by chiron613
Yes, of course lawmakers get to decide who's a person. A human fetus is *always* human, and it is alive. Claims that a fetus isn't really "alive" until birth are specious. By any meaningful standard, a fertilizd ovum is alive.

It's not independent life. It is completely and totally dependent upon the host mother to sustain its life.

The mother should have the right to remove the parasite within her, if she so chooses.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by chiron613
Yes, of course lawmakers get to decide who's a person. A human fetus is *always* human, and it is alive. Claims that a fetus isn't really "alive" until birth are specious. By any meaningful standard, a fertilizd ovum is alive.

It's not independent life. It is completely and totally dependent upon the host mother to sustain its life.

The mother should have the right to remove the parasite within her, if she so chooses.

That parasite is a human being. You could use the same argument for infanticide, as an infant is reliant on its parents to feed it, and provide shelter, or euthanasia for the elderly. A mother doesn't have the right to kill her children or elderly parents, so why does she have the right to kill her unborn child?

Originally posted by OhZone
Why is this issue so one sided?
All anyone ever considers is the potential child.

How about giving some consideration to the woman who has this unwanted pregnancy.

Why exactly should she be FORCED to stay pregnant?

Does she have any rights at all?

And don't anyone come out with that stupid idea that she should have kept her legs closed. Your kind seems to forget that it takes 2, and that the male half is the agressor 99% of the time.

And for your women out there who object to abortion==
tell you what....
We'll just remove the embryo and implant it into YOU!
How do you like that?

The reason she should be forced to stay pregnant is that the unborn child is a human being, and the last time I checked, murder was frowned upon.
Unless the woman was raped, then her having sex was a consenual act, and one of the possible consequences is pregnancy. I suppose if you believe that we should live in a consequence free lifestyle, where there are no negative repercussions to any decisions(or responsibilities to deal with) you could justify the taking of an innocent life for the sake of convenience.

Originally posted by BlueRaja


The reason she should be forced to stay pregnant is that the unborn child is a human being, and the last time I checked, murder was frowned upon.
Unless the woman was raped, then her having sex was a consenual act, and one of the possible consequences is pregnancy. I suppose if you believe that we should live in a consequence free lifestyle, where there are no negative repercussions to any decisions(or responsibilities to deal with) you could justify the taking of an innocent life for the sake of convenience.

umm...ya see here's the problem....
one of the consequences of being pregnant, can be that the mother's health is put at risk! brought this up once before on this thread and no one bit.
so you make this unborn child a person with rights....now what, you have these two doctors over here telling you there's a 80% chance that the women will face some dire consequences if she tries to carry this pregnancy much longer....so, you have this situation where the courts, having to uphold the constitution and protect the rights of both the mother and the child. and they can't do it! they are gonna have to take someone's rights away!! and I bet you ten to one, at least some of the time, they will side with the baby's rights, and you are gonna have women being bedridden....(are you gonna be willing to help supervise the three kids she already has while daddy goes to work?), handicapped....(there's a lady in poland who was refused an abortion, she's blind now!!), or maybe even dead!

thank god that I can't have children anymore!! but if I could, under those circumstances, wouldn't matter if I was married or not, wouldn't matter how financially able I was, and might not even matter if I wanted kids or not....i WOULD NOT HAVE THE SEX!!
which seems to be what I often encourage the women to do now, before some of these laws actually make it through the supreme court. they are treated the women's health as an afterthought with these laws, ahh...we'll take care of that when the situation arises, well, by the time the situation arises, and they get around to it, well.....you will have denied some women a lifesaving medical procedure that would have saved her life! possibly orphaned a few kids in the process!

I think it's better that the women stand in force, refuse the sex, and well, let the guys be ticked off for awhile...then we can see what they decide to do, let the abortion issue alone, or well....start writing laws again that enforce the male rulership...

but as far as I can see, the people writing these laws don't seem to care about the health and wellbeing of the mother. this is why the supreme court keeps shooting them down. And, society has no right to expect anyone to sacrifice their life for another person.....and sacrifice isn't a sacrifice if it's forced onto someone....