Pregnancy involves every part of a woman's body. It affects her mentally, emotionally, and physically, and takes over her entire being, so it is accurately described as an invasion. It limits what a woman can do, and she has to consider how her every action will affect the fetus, so certainly her liberty is lost. A woman is not necessarily thinking about only herself when she aborts. Most often, she chooses abortion because she feels she can't provide for a child, or, it could mean she would have to quit her job or education, making her unable to support existing children. You are making a sweeping judgment about people you know nothing about.
Also, "right" or not, the plain need for abortion as an option is obvious from the demand that exists, and has always existed, for it. It's a measure of personal control that women demand, and I feel it's something no one has a right to refuse them, least of all clueless ideologues who simply hate the thought of a developing human child dying.
Maybe she shouldn't have opened her borders. If you think about it, it's really the same sort of situation the U.S. finds itself in with illegal immigration. The country essentially made it a policy to allow undocumented migrants to enter and work within its borders, but these people went on to establish lives and families, and now the country can't just kick them out.
Why does it bother you so much that women have sex? Wait, is abortion like slavery or like illegal immigration? Make up your mind.
Yes, but when the woman didn't use the proper contraceptive measures, she issued Mr. Spermy more than a tourist visa...
Gee, you sure like to concentrate on that sex stuff....... Tourist visas can be withdrawn just like any other form of consent........consent to ENTER the country is NOT consent to be a citizen. And even consent to be a citizen does not give superior rights that others don't have....
And you like to ignore it as though it didn't happen. But once they have established lives... Allowing people to reside within your country is effectively like issuing a temporary (9-month ) residency permit. So tell me, what do you think your other pro-choice friends think about illegal immigration? Do you think they should all be deported?
Yes, once you CONSENT to allowing them to stay you have CONSENTED to allowing them to stay...if they do not get consent or consent is revoked they have to leave. On immigration...it's off topic....go to the immigration forum if you want to discuss that, I don't.
Is it because your views are hypocritical and inconsistent, changing depending on the situation? Is not a fetus in the womb an immigrant in a foreign land?
No....an immigrant would be someone who has decided to immigrate. As no fetus has the ability to think, let alone decide something and act on it, there can be no immigration. there is obviously "Migration" through the mothers body as it moves toward the uterus as an egg...but that ois not even a fetus yet.
So a fetus is more a younger child who's older adult parents dragged them across the border, all the more reason not to deport them.
No, it's a fetus in the womb and I am so glad you finally admit it's a fetus and not a baby......good for you!
And it has established itself. The woman let it establish itself when she didn't use the adequate contraceptive countermeasures. It would be unfair to remove it now. It needs some time (7 months after the woman realizes she's pregnant) to prepare itself to leave. Just like with immigration, if you allow a child to grow up in your country long enough, you owe things to them. You can't just kick them out on the shortest notice.
Sorry, your little game of comparison doesn't work. Immigration has nothing to do with abortion and any imaginary comparison proves absolutely nothing.. A woman's right to an abortions stands alone. The woman did NOT "let it" (the fetus) do anything . Of course it's "fair" to remove it....it's her right.
Nope...you just don't get it, do you? A fetus is NOT a child, it is not a baby or any other emotionally driven designation...it is a fetus and there is a reason we have separate terms.
A fetus has no rights. It is not a born person. There are no documents concerning a fetus with citizenship or legal life, i.e a birth certificate or social security number. the only person who has any rights over the fetus shall be the one who is carrying it, for in reality, they truly downtown that fetus, whether you like it or not. The government does not have the right to claim any ownership or sponsorship over private property, and this applies to abolishing abortion, as it would be equivalent to making it illegal to throw away food you dont want to eat. One counterclaim to address is the attack on official documentation. There are many people living in the U.S. without legal documentation (illegal immigrants) and if you killed this person, you would be charged with murder. HOWEVER, that person has been born and lives a life past absolute dependency, unlike a fetus has. Therefore, this arguement does not hold any true value against my claims. If anyone has another counterclaim, i will be happy to address it
I'm not judging anybody. You still have shown nothing to say liberty is lost when she is pregnant So they are thinking about the baby when they elect to take its life? How thoughtful of them. No pregnant woman has to quit her job, or stop her education, maybe put it on hold at some point, but not stop. Again no judgment, just stating the obvious, that having an abortion is usually for selfish reasons. - - - Updated - - - A fetus is a baby aka juvenile human. Separate terms are for developmental purposes, even when we are born we are given different development titles. Baby is not one of them
You didn't judge having an abortion as selfish? Yes, I certainly did. No baby's life is taken. You can't possibly know the limitations from pregnancy for all women. Did you give blood today? If not, wasn't that selfish of you?
1. judging an action, is not in itself judging a person behind the action 2. You certainly did not. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Liberty show how being pregnant prevents this? 3. No juvenile human life is taken? That would be false. Every abortion with very few exceptions results in a juvenile human being killed aka a baby. 4. You are referring to the few pregnancies that result in exceptions I support. Not arguing against those. Also even in those pregnancies a woman is not forced to stop her education, or quit her job, except in even rarer cases where she has serious complications, or dies. Abortion being legal, or not legal will not prevent those incidents from occuring and nobody has shown anything that proves those incidents will increase by restricting abortion to the exceptions I have mentioned numerous times, which includes life of the mother and serious complications that greatly impact her lifestyle 5. Can't give blood everyday, nothing selfish about it. they wont allow it.
If you think the act of abortion is selfish then you think women who abort are committing a selfish act and therefore you are judging their actions and the women themselves. I don't need your dictionary definition. I have been pregnant and I know how it limits one's freedom. It limits one's physical activities (even sleep positions), it limits what types of jobs the woman can do, it limits what one can consume, including certain medicines, air travel is restricted at late term http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/pre...ow-late-in-pregnancy-can-i-fly-on-an-airplane Women carrying multiples or women with certain medical histories are restricted even further. Some are confined to bed rest. By definition, no babies lives are taken in abortion I am referring to all pregnancies. It simply isn't true that all pregnant women can continue their jobs and education throughout their pregnancies. It depends on the type of job they have, their medical histories, and other factors. I didn't ask if you gave blood every day, I asked if you gave blood TODAY, which, judging from your evasion, you obviously did not. How about yesterday? The day before? If not, was that not selfish of you?