I guess this solution will satisfy both pro- and anti-abortionists. When a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy, that the father of her child doesn't support before birth, then her parental rights get terminated and her baby goes into adaption upon birth. If the adaption is not successful, then she goes to prison for a few years, to control her sexual promiscuity/scheming. Such a legislation would also be in line with the 1000 year long societal control over unwanted pregnancies that recent liberal PR and legislation destroyed.
how is that a middle ground? I say kill the child at any time within the womb and up to the first 12 months after birth. The child does after all put a strain on the mother's social life
isn't really middle ground, seems just a strangely overly strict attack on sex. the beginning it seemed rational, but the jailing was irrational and completely altered the opinions of people. but good thought on having "middle ground" unfortunately this is a very heated topic and will take another "Great Comprimise" to find middle ground. or it will become either wholly legal or indisputably illegal. i'm personally pro choice.
there can't be middle ground on one side there are those who want to snuff out the life and have no regard for the child on the other side, there are those who cherish life and want to protect the most vulnerable. there can be no middle ground. What would be the middle? One side would complain that they should be allowed to snuff out the life any time. The other side would say that the life should continue at all times.
The middle ground is having a limit in the pregnancy term after which abortion is not legal. We've all heard the tear jerking adjectives before, so lets concentrate on what the issue is really about, which is personal rights to your own body.
thank you, i agree with this being about personal rights to ones own body, and a middle ground being able to be achieved. complete illegalization would be a personal right being abolished.
So the cessation of life processes is unavoidable? What is your basis for deciding on a time limit? How is that time period arrived at? What is the criteria you've considered? Maybe you're leaving someone out. Your position is that death plays no part in this?
20-24 weeks seems to be a good cutoff. From what I understand, that time period is about when the fetus develops sentience. If we have to have a cutoff date, I think that's the best place to start. Death is a part of it, but not the death of a person, more like, the death of an organ, or bodily tissue. We don't have big long discussions with people using finely honed wording designed to elicit as much emotional response as possible when we're talking about someone having their appendix removed. Same thing here. If there's no sentience, there is no basis to even start having a conversation of whether or not it's a person, let alone giving rights to it. Does my spleen have a right to life? My kidneys?
Because the pro-choice people say its not a mans issue .he should get no choice its his body so all responsibility should be on the woman.
The unborn is not a tissue…or body part. It is a complete human being…with its own organs, fingerprints, circulatory system, heart….these are not a part of the woman. The unborn only uses her body to grow….thats it. Louise Brown the worlds first test tube baby was conceived in a petri dish and then implanted in her mother….only to grow. It is human it is a separate person…and that is a scientific fact. TO EVEN SAY THAT A SPLEEN IS A HUMAN BEING IS RIDICULOUS. YOUR POSITION IS LAUGHABLE.
There is no compromise no middle ground. You are either for life or you are not. And those who are pro-choice do not want any protection for the unborn .simple. Your either for abortion or against it.
A complete human person would be able to survive without being inside a womb. Did Louise Brown GROW in that test tube? Was she a connected part of that test-tube, deriving all the requirements of life from it? If she was a complete human being, why put her in a womb at all? I didn't say a spleen is a human being, I said that a spleen is not much different than a fetus in that it is alive specifically because the mother's body sustains it. It is a part of that body and cannot survive without that body(well, without A body, since organs can be transplanted). The same is true of a fetus. If a fetus is a complete separate human being, why can't women have it removed instead of having an abortion?
Or for leaving the choice up to the mother in either direction. You don't get to define the debate just because you're the most hysterical about it.
to the argument between the person who compared a fetus to and organ and the person who said his argument is "LAUGHABLE". our tonsils aren't needed, our appendix only gives us appendicitus, but until they become a problem we don't bother getting them removed. this can be related to abortion because a lot of the time its people that know, without a doubt, that if they have the kid they got pregnant with, they'll go bankrupt, go on welfare, ruin their future and end up screwing up their, and their unborn childs, life. they might actually want to have children, but they don't want to have them right then. imagine if you were seventeen and said, "i want kids when i grow up" and immediately a child appeared in your womb. that would terrify you, even though you may want a kid. because you aren't ready. and if you try to argue that people are only using it as a sick form of birth control, then you are stereotyping abortion patients. just because a few people use it horribly doesn't mean it's a bad thing, just taken advantage of. so their actually could be a middle ground as long as it's regulated. if somebody gets pregnant by mistake, and aren't ready to have a child. then they can get an abortion. if they are fully capable of having a child, then they can't get an abortion. personally i wouldn't vote on this because i like complete free choice, but i'm willing to make a comprimise, because is my contention worth thousands of peoples anger?
The choice to have those organs removed is always there, provided you can find a doctor willing to perform surgery that may not be medically necessary at the time. I'm not sure what the medical stance is on preemptive tonsil or appendix removal. Either way, the government doesn't make laws saying you can or can't take out organs that aren't critical to your own survival. People donate organs to loved ones, heck even strangers, all the time, while they are still alive, but no one is forced to, and on the flipside, nobody is barred from doing so if they are a match for the person who needs the organ. I'm not certain about this so I could be wrong, but I'm not sure they are even allowed to prevent you from donating an organ if the surgery to do so had an elevated risk. Like I said in a previous post, the debate boils down to what type of power a woman has over her own body. The pro-life movement would have them be forced to stay pregnant because abortion makes them have a sad face. The ironic thing is, often it is these very same pro-life people who oppose assistence programs, health insurance programs, and other measures aimed at keeping the already born alive and well. If you're cutesy-wootsy little fetus, they care about you, but not about those irritating already born suckers.
not at all, to the contrary. I don't think anyone here is suggesting to toss away the personal freedom of the unborn child. Every poster here is taking into account if the baby wants to be killed.
I would love for you to have handed to you a 20-24 week old developing baby which had just been killed. I would like then for you to tell me that you have ZERO REMORSE as you see for yourself what you just approved to be murdered.....................sickening indeed
oh, by the way, here's a 24 week old Zygote [video=youtube;xywH5bfurNc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywH5bfurNc[/video]
