I don't think that's publicly funded for her to do. What if she doesn't have the money for that? Should she then be forced to give birth to the child that she never willingly engaged in the sex to have?
That's usually the case, isn't it? She has the choice to have an abortion or not. If she decides to have the baby, he's on the hook legally speaking to pay child support at the very least. And morally speaking most would call him a dead beat if he tried to get away from the mother and child. He has no choice to opt out of the responsibilities of fatherhood. The question in the OP seems to be whether or not she should have that choice. I think the vast majority of the time abortions are done so early that it isn't much of an argument and she should be allowed.
The current state of the law in the jurisdiction/country/state in which you happen to reside doesn't seem relevant to the OP.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Women are "allowed" to have elective abortions up to 23 weeks. Not sure what you mean.. No state says women are obligated to give birth.
Uhhh, what "should or shouldn't be"? What are you trying to say??? The FACT is women are NOT obligated to give birth....do you have a pertinent comment?
Exactly what I did say. That the current state of the law is irrelevant to what should or should not be. Abortion used to be illegal in many places. Now its legal where you live. The law changed. What's right or wrong didn't change.
What's right is that all people have the same rights, even women....if you disagree well good luck trying to take away 50% of the poulations rights … It's WRONG to take away rights...
I'm not advocating taking away anyone's rights. I'm pondering if the unborn should ever be included and also have rights. For example, if you kill a pregnant woman, should that ever count as a double homocide?
WHAT rights do you want them to have....that don't interfere with the woman's rights? Oh, trotting out the old trite thingy about how killing pregnant women is a double homicide. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act gives added charges for killing a pregnant woman and/or her fetus. It does NOT make the fetus a person with rights.
WHAT rights do you want fetuses to have....that don't interfere with the woman's rights? …….. why can't you answer that question?
She doesn't have the money for a Plan B pill and uterus suction, but she has the money for an abortion (later on) ? I suppose in a perfect world, the uterus suction technician would check to see if there was anything sucked out (i.e. fetal remains), and if there wasn't, the taxpayers would reimburse her. Would that be enough to satisfy you on this point?
Do you question her having that right? Why would she not have a right to bodily autonomy? Is the question not a weighing of that right against the rights of the unborn? If you do say that the woman doesn't have the right to bodily autonomy, then we have a fascinating full spectrum within this forum, as FoxHastings has declared the unborn has no rights. That is possible. Perhaps the father or another is willing to pay for the abortion. Or perhaps she comes into money later on, by the time of the abortion. Why not put that burden on the taxpayer in any event? Why do you make that contingent on if anything was sucked out?
FoxHastings said: ↑ WHAT rights do you want fetuses to have....that don't interfere with the woman's rights? Which she does...Anti-Choicers have not succeeded in turning women into slaves, yet Are YOU yet another one, like Jolly Penguin, who can't answer a simple question : WHAT rights do you want fetuses to have....?
You seem to be using an equivocation fallacy, confusing rights with legal rights. Obviously we are talking about rights that an individual should have (moral, ethical, normative rights, etc) If all rights stemmed solely from the law and nowhere else, then any problem of rights could easily be remedied with an editing of the text of the law.
FoxHastings said: ↑ I haven't seen that "law" or mandate that women are obliged to give birth..... Who's talking about rights? I asked and you have never answered the following: WHERE is the law /mandate that says a woman has an obligation to give birth?
Who decides what problems are aborted? Who are these geniuses that know better than nature? If they were around a couple million years ago when they saw the first human thumb in a fetus...oohh problem; abort! Keep in mind the FIRST thumb may have not been useful at all and maybe even appeared as a monstrous deformity. It could have been generations until other gene combos made it effective. But if these deformity abortion deciders were around, they would have royally screwed the human race over. Careful when aborting for so called deformities or conditions.
All women in the US are currently legally obligated to give birth after the the third trimester unless doing so carries a serious threat to the health or life of the mother.
The lines are so polarized In this debate. I’m a monster on both sides because I favor a first trimester abortion rule. Feminists argue it is their body all the way up until birth or at least the baby is viable outside the womb so I’m a monster for not allowing them that choice. Meanwhile the pro life people call me a monster for allowing a life to be taken at any point. To me there is no reason to force a woman to carry a child she does not want especially in the case of rape. But as she grows closer to term that human being becomes increasingly sentient so this is where I draw my ethical line. And there are conditions affecting fetuses that have proven to be so debilitating to life that it’s not fair to the developing life or the life of the parents in my opinion.
I can envision a lot of different things being done to fetuses. By both individuals, en mass or by governments. For reasons from designer to world domination. Why are these things wrong to do if it's ok to scrape it out? If you can kill it, then you can do anything you want to it. It's these other moral arguments I have been thinking of. What principles are at work when saying that one should not tweak the DNA of a fetus? Or otherwise experiment on it with negative consequences? I think those principles have something to do with unborn rights. And if they have those rights, how do they not have the right to life?
