Then elaborate on your declaration of absurdity for the reasons.
I don't know if this will suffice other then to say that I just had to.
who knows, but none the less I can only say I felt the need to post it.
Then elaborate on your declaration of absurdity for the reasons.
Where should the line be drawn? PUG is an indicator that the thread is intended for war is it not? Did the proabortion side surrender?
You know the drill. Keep it civil. No personal jabs, and nothing overtly inflamatory.
It seems that you don't understand the arguments as well as you think you do.
Nobody is advocating for abortion. Abortion is a horrible thing, and nobody out there is demanding the right to have abortions. What women are fighting for is the right to do what they will with their own body.
Regardless of whether or not a fetus is a "part" of it's mother's body, it exists within it's mother's body, gets all its sustenance and eliminates all it's waste through its mother's body, breath's through it's mother's body, and cannot survive without it's mother's body. Women arguably have a right to do what they will with their own body, including aborting a fetus from it. Does that make it right? Does that make it reasonable? The reality is that it is none of your business.
and the father.It is the mother who has to live with the decision.
That is the reality if she seeks to do it with a licensed doctor, or by herself in a back alley with a coat hanger. The reality is that you can't control, even if you made illegal, what a woman does with her own body.
Of course, what you want to seem to do is give a fetus's life precedence over a mother's liberty. You want to call a mother a murderer if she chooses to abort a fetus. Maybe she is. And it is your right to judge her as such if you so choose. However, it is not your right to infringe on any woman's liberty. It is not your right to try to force your belief that the fetus's life takes precedence over the mother's right to choose what she will do with her own body. Nor in reality can you infringe on that right, unless you want to create laws whereby women are thrown in prison for having abortions.
Instead of trying to force your views on women, you should seek to work with them so that they don't want to get abortions. Providing sexual education and contraceptives so that they avoid getting pregnant to begin with and working to improve upon alternative options to abortion. Instead of being an adversary to women's right to choose, become an advocate for a women's right to give birth to a child. Become an advocate for sexual education. Become an advocate for adoption.
What is ridiculous is thinking that you can get people to change by condemning them for their choices. Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
It seems that you don't understand the arguments as well as you think you do.
Nobody is advocating for abortion. Abortion is a horrible thing, and nobody out there is demanding the right to have abortions. What women are fighting for is the right to do what they will with their own body. Regardless of whether or not a fetus is a "part" of it's mother's body, it exists within it's mother's body, gets all its sustenance and eliminates all it's waste through its mother's body, breath's through it's mother's body, and cannot survive without it's mother's body. Women arguably have a right to do what they will with their own body, including aborting a fetus from it. Does that make it right? Does that make it reasonable? The reality is that it is none of your business. It is the mother who has to live with the decision. That is the reality if she seeks to do it with a licensed doctor, or by herself in a back alley with a coat hanger. The reality is that you can't control, even if you made illegal, what a woman does with her own body. .
Of course, what you want to seem to do is give a fetus's life precedence over a mother's liberty. You want to call a mother a murderer if she chooses to abort a fetus. Maybe she is. And it is your right to judge her as such if you so choose. However, it is not your right to infringe on any woman's liberty. It is not your right to try to force your belief that the fetus's life takes precedence over the mother's right to choose what she will do with her own body. Nor in reality can you infringe on that right, unless you want to create laws whereby women are thrown in prison for having abortions. .
Instead of trying to force your views on women, you should seek to work with them so that they don't want to get abortions. Providing sexual education and contraceptives so that they avoid getting pregnant to begin with and working to improve upon alternative options to abortion. Instead of being an adversary to women's right to choose, become an advocate for a women's right to give birth to a child. Become an advocate for sexual education. Become an advocate for adoption.
What is ridiculous is thinking that you can get people to change by condemning them for their choices. Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
And what they want to do is have abortions. They demand that right.
Says you , you are not the father.
and the father.
Getting people to change by condemning thier choices is what laws and prison time andcommunity service, etc. is all about
Barnabas, is this thread about the morality of abortion, the legality of abortion, both or neither? I'm wondering whether it really belongs in the politics section.
I have never met a person who wants to have an abortion. It is often a very painful choice and it is anything but a pleasant experience. What people want is the choice.
But I can speak for someSeparate issue entirely. You can't speak for all fathers.
Justice is not about providing life skills. Justice is about reconciling everyone involved in a fucked up situation (which is what abortion is). And I mean everyone, blatocyst, fathers, and mothers alike.Justice is about holding people accountable, protecting the community, and providing people with the life skills needed to be productive members of society. Justice in no way seeks to condemn people for their choices, but to recognize and protect those hurt by their choices and to seek to change the behaviors or circumstances that lead people to make those choices.
By this line of logic then the mother has the right to abort the child after birth, the child is still wholey dependent on the mother after birth for the next several years. the only diference is the woman is no longer shletering the child in her body but instead sheltering it in her home.
Along those roads, we have outlawed: murder, theft, abuse, and slavery but it still occurs should we make it legal.
I argue against the mothers right to choose if you can call it that. "the right to extend your fist ends at my nose" sums it up well enough, others rights end where they start being harmfull to others why is this different?
I do indeed support adoption, education and condoms, the things almost all abortions come from when these things fail.
I have thouroughly clensed my eyes, I made sure of it. I could not let myself adress such topic if hadn't. I hope show people where there wrong, and in doing so hope to change there mind.
I have never met a person who wants to have an abortion. It is often a very painful choice and it is anything but a pleasant experience. What people want is the choice..
Separate issue entirely. You can't speak for all fathers. .
Justice is about holding people accountable, protecting the community, and providing people with the life skills needed to be productive members of society. Justice in no way seeks to condemn people for their choices, but to recognize and protect those hurt by their choices and to seek to change the behaviors or circumstances that lead people to make those choices.
First of the infant is not a part of the mothers body, it may be inside and attached to the mothe but is not a part of her body.
In the case of rape or incest, the child still has the right to live even if your bothered by the fact that you have to carry it, you don'y have to raise the child but it still deserves it's shot at life.
[/quote]If the parent is not ready, simply give birth and adopt the child out of your care immediatley after birth. You can go back to school, Parents can have there child, and the child gets to live win, win, win.
No because they want the choice so that they can go have an abortion with as minimal hassel as possible. Some people are in the place of wanting to get one so they want to be allowed to by law.
But I can speak for some
Justice is not about providing life skills. Justice is about reconciling everyone involved in a fucked up situation (which is what abortion is). And I mean everyone, blatocyst, fathers, and mothers alike.
The child is no longer within the mother's body after it is born. Your argument is irrelevant because the option exists after the child is born to place the child with a different mother. That option does not exist before the child is born. The fetus draws directly upon the mother's body while it is within the mother's body without the mother's choice, but the mother must choose to provide support for the child after it is born. .
True. I'm only posing the question of whether or not making women criminals for choosing to have an abortion makes any sense given that it is their body. You want to impose your value that the fetus's life takes precedence over the mother's liberty, but you aren't protecting anyone by doing so. The mother will still have an abortion if they so choose and the only difference is you will be locking them up for doing so. Murder, abuse, and slavery involve another person's body and invading another person's liberty. Theft involves another person's property. .
Yes. My fist is not inside your body. My body and continued existence are not dependent upon your body. .
Then perhaps you should focus on why they fail and seek to reduce those failings. By doing so, you will almost certainly reduce abortions. Considerably more so than you could probably accomplish by outlawing it and forcing it into secrecy. .
All your OP arguments did for me was reinforce my belief that anyone with a penis has no business dictating legislation mandating that a pregnant woman must bear her child.
Well, let's not turn it into a sexist divide. There are plenty of women who would agree with Barnabas (in position, if not entirely in arguments), and plenty of men who would agree with you. If the reasoning can be accurately expressed in text, then people of either sex can understand it, and can therefore base legislation upon it.All your OP arguments did for me was reinforce my belief that anyone with a penis has no business dictating legislation mandating that a pregnant woman must bear her child.