the misconception people like to believe is that the fetus Has the right to life. The "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use an individuals body. People have the right to refuse to donate organs, for example, even if doing so would save another life.
Then why is the murder of a pregnant woman classified as double homo side in the court of law? It is clearly seen as a "Right to life" in that instance, but not when the fetus itself is being aborted? The pro-choice argument does not make sense in this case, especially when the law contradicts itself.
@Lee Scott Each of us hold an equal right to life to a degree, because no one has that right when it comes to using someone else's body without their consent. Acknowledging that the fetus is a life under is not justification to attribute it specials rights. This is literal a reinstatement of the original comment.
@Lee Scott Why do Republicans only advocate for pro-life when it comes to women making personal choices about their bodies? You preach pro-life for unborn fetuses, yet your president has immigrants dying in cages and separating real l i v e b o r n children from their parents.
@Julia - A beating heart and brain activity to be ended with pain (yes, it is scientifically proven that the murdering of an unborn baby will cause pain to the aforementioned fetus) is wrong, and the Democratic Party is a proud supporter of the "Human Rights Movement", however denies the right to human life. So yes life beginning at conception is the only logical and fair line to draw to define where human life exists, so that is denying the right to human life (aka: living, which is denied in the process of murdering a baby, aka: abortion). #Logic
No baby is murdered. That's only sound through pro-life propaganda, but nowhere else. To think it is murder for a woman to deny gestation for the is the same as me denying to donate my blood, tissue, organs, etc. thus I am murdering the thousands of children on the donor list.
@Brian Cevallos Than what is it, the something inside a woman? That something has its own DNA code that is completely different from the woman's, it is programmed to look a certain way and more.
I agree life begins at conception, but calling it a baby and saying they're being murdered is just sensationalism and overall irrelevant. No biological parent is legally obligated to provide their born child any form of bodily donation, but pregnant people are an exception? What's the justification for this?
The people need to recognize when there is a crisis such as abortion being legal in the US. It is not the concept of reproductive freedom that I disagree with, however it is the concept of murdering unborn babies.
The people also need to realize that you cannot tell someone else what to do with their bodies. if a woman has a valid reason for the abortion( which should be discussed with her doctor) then she should be able to get a abortion. Now with that being said there also needs to be a point in time where an abortion can no longer be given. But everyone that feels so strongly about abortions should also feel the same way towards the foster care system. That system has been broken for a very long time. If you want to stop abortions then fix the foster care system, because that's where most of the children will end up.
i understand your argument was that abortion is murder. to answer that we must explore that further. is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter. are all choses that ends life called murder? if that is the case, all things that lesson life should be addressed before abortion. you and everyone would change their answer if Times Square showed the population of people growing every second. You may be amond the people who would suggest we need purge in order to lower population. my twisted my goes far
Yes, I agree that getting an abortion is sad, by deleting a fetus. Here’s the thing. A fetus is not yet a baby. It is cells slowly forming parts that are slowly forming babies. If you think a heap of baby parts not attached together is a baby, I’m afraid you are mistaken. Women who are raped should get to get rid of the baby. When a women are having a baby, they should be able to choose whether they want to go through hours of extreme pain, years of caring for a child and paying their fees. Some people are not in a situation where they can properly take care of a child, and when they are given up to orphanages they will feel completely unwanted. And then when children do end up getting adopted, if it’s a gay couple MAGA slaves complain. There are too many orphans, and so hating on LGBTQ and saying that they can’t adopt while forcing women to give up their children contradicts your opinion.
I agree with you that supporting a child is difficult, however I have to disagree when you say that a fetus is a heap of baby parts. A fetus is a human organism (with human DNA) that is growing and developing kind of like how a 1 month old grows and develops into a toddler.
Personal convenience cannot be a justification to murder an unborn child..the fact that one doesnt want to take up the responsibilities of the child after they are born cannot justify that childs murder...if u cant take up the responsibility dont get pregnant..simple....u cannot make a child pay for your careless decision with their life....and about rape....abortion due to rape is a very minor fraction of the total abortions taking place...so you cant justify all the abortions by bringing up the marginal percentage....sure rape is traumatic to women...i cant even comprehend what a raped woman must go through but abortion doesnt unrape a woman...its not like after she kills her child she magically undoes her rape...rather abortion will be another trauma to the woman who has yet not overcome the first trauma.....and of course the rapist is the culprit.....and in a country where even the rapist is not given death penalty,why should the innocent third party(the child) be given the death penalty?
@Srija Karki Obviously you can't "unrape" a woman, but that isn't the only issue she'd be facing. She would be carrying an unwanted baby that she most likely was unprepared to care for. You say that abortion will be another trauma to this woman, even after being raped. But the true trauma will be the guilt she feels sending her newly born unwanted baby into the foster care system; who will live a struggling life; being another statistic; not having a chance in life. That's trauma.
Do you consider the seed of a plant to have feelings? My guess is no unless you are actually crazy. Well isn’t a fetus basically a seed? Plants are living things and so are humans but now all the sudden a fetus is the opposite of a seed. The process is the same. As someone else in the comments said: you have the choice to donate an organ and even though it could save someone’s life it is a choice. Abortion is the same thing but to a seed. So should if abortion is illegal than every person the US should HAVE to donate an organ unless they are the ones in need of it. This is what Republicans try to do. Instead of focusing on humans that are here and actually living they choose to focus on the seeds. If God gave us free will and we have this technology than shouldn’t we be allowed to use it?
If the mother had a two year old in need of an organ transplant and she is the only person who matches, should it be legal to force her to donate that organ?
The two year old is a child by definition, so we have taken the term out of relevancy. Also if that same two year old is capable of using someone's body without their consent, I wouldn't declare them as innocent - so we have also taken innocence out of relevancy. So if the two year old cannot use his/her mother's body for an organ, then the fetus does not have that right either in regards for the pregnant person's ENTIRE body being used.
Consider this...a womans kidneys are designed to function for her body..remove them both she wont survive...likewise her heart is designed for her...remove her heart she will die...same is the case with her lungs and other organs that are designed to function for HER body...so she cannot be forced to donate her kidneys if she doesnt want to....but consider her uterus...it is designed to house and nurture ANOTHER life..it prepares itself every month in the hope that it gets a child it can nurture...the nature has designed the uterus for SOMEBODY ELSE..unlike your kidney or your lungs or your heart that is meant just for you...so how can letting a baby grow in the uterus which is meant for the baby by nature the same thing like giving away a kidney?
@Srij Kark None of that is relevant to the point I am making. Did you forget that there is a thing called consent? Just because the vagina is "designed" for a penis, no man should go around penetrating women without their consent. What a terrible appeal to nature and it sets a dangerous precedent where a person's bodily autonomy can be disrespected and therefore violated using that same logic. No one is owed a body and no one should dictate others on making bodily decisions against their wishes, that's the idea behind slavery. Any form of bodily donation, whether it be a kidney or the entire body for nine months, must be met with the donor's ongoing consent. This is why you don't have hospitals forcing their patients to donate their bodies of any form, because that is illegal.
@Brian Cevallos the thing is, a fetus is not part of a woman's body, it has different DNA, different fingerprints l, and sometimes even a different gender! But seriously, the big difference in our arguments is that prolifers believe a fetus is not just a regular organ belonging to her, but another entity with its own programming, prochoicers on the other hand, as you've said yourself, the fetus is part of a woman's body and so is therefore like any other part of her body, something she can dispose of or care for as she sees fit. So let's debate that, is the fetus a life?
Look. People (woman in particular ) have been made to believe that it's really their choice, and that it's the better choice... I HIGHLY implore you to research SENOMYX.. They have created what i'm calling a "Circle of Consumers" Senomyx uses aborted fetal limbs to amplify certain flavors...
They have manipulated so many irresponsible woman (EXCLUDING UNFORTUNATE OCCURRENCES) into having unprotected sex purely for pleasure, than getting stuck with a kid that they tell them to abort so they can make your chips and pop taste better.
If you want to have sex, fucking be prepared. if not you contribute to the inevitable extinction of a fairly promising species... the human race
No a fetus is NOT basically a seed. A seed has no chance at becoming a plant if it isn’t given soil, water and sunlight. An unfertilized egg is more comparable to a seed.
If A woman willingly has sex she should be prepared to take responsibility for her actions no matter what. Babies don’t just pick a uterus and claim homestead they are put there. So if the question is INNOCENCE then yes they are innocent and deserve to a chance to grow not be murdered. If I choose to get drunk and drive a car, I am accepting the risk of going to jail. There is no OWI clinic I for me to pay and have all the problems I caused myself gone forever. If you choose to have sex you are accepting the risk of becoming pregnant and should have to deal with the consequences of your actions. Abortions should only be performed when the pregnancy is a result of rape.
And yes God gave us magnificent abilities. One of them being pregnant and growing a child inside our bodies. He also gave us the intelligence to make bombs and missiles. We only use those when we have to why can’t abortion be treated the same way?
It depends whether the pregnant was raped or by accident,if it is about my money then it should be illegal to abort considering how the choice is made on the dependency of the financial status and because there could be government subsidies.If you are not ready to take care of the baby than it can be put up for adoption. So in my opinion is that abortion should be illegal but with a ability to have put up a case on why they should be able to abort.Unless rape if so than legal.
Abortion, yes should be illegal. People may say it's a woman's body they shouldn't be pushed into having it but... it's murder when it's born and not when it's inside the womb as some people say a fetus, which is a scientific name that they give it, to make it not seem as if it's a baby. Even if they didn't have money for this baby or didn't want it, the best option in my personal opinion is to give it up for adoption. Therefore, they know they're baby is safe. This is truly my opinion.
I believe when people mention the word baby, they are speaking in a colloquial sense whether it be a newborn or their 14 year old child. Yes, the scientific term for a baby during the gestation period is fetus. I believe when people address the fetus as baby, they are doing this colloquially and manipulatively to appeal the emotions of others - say a friend to another friend with a wanted pregnancy. When arguing for abortion whether you are against it or not, should be structured in a way that's logically sound and substantiated. Unfortunately, language isn't the issue. It's a tangent, sidetracking from the actual topic which is whether an abortion should remain legal or become illegal. Whether you call the fetus a baby or not a baby, I see no justification for anyone to use another person's body in the absence of their willful and ongoing consent. Denying someone your body for them to live is not murder, it is your bodily right. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, because we are talking about someone legally bringing up a child as their own in place of the biological/legal parent. This has nothing to do with abortion. Telling someone with an unwanted pregnancy to give the baby up for adoption as a solution doesn't help, because they have an unwanted pregnancy and they shouldn't have to decide to keep it because others tell them they should.
@Kylee Prescott It classified as a double homicide because the fetus was taken from the mother without her consent. If a fetus is a person why can't they take out insurance on it until it is born?
I feel like the question people should be asking regarding abortion is if the fetus is sentient; can the fetus feel pain and/ or is it aware of its surrounding. If a fetus can’t feel pain, it’s surroundings or even feel emotion then I don’t believe it should be classified as murder because in that sense the fetus is just a clump of cells NOT A HUMAN BEING. Therefore it shouldn’t be illegal if none of the “people” involved in the abortion are set at a disadvantage or harmed in any way. In conclusion, women should have the choice in what happens to their bodies as long as no one is hurt. P.S there’s much more I could say but I’m not going to unless this gets post attention.
ngl, I think it should be the mother's option, although, I do believe that if you do not want the child, but them up for adoption, if you don't feel comfortable with either. Keep them.
the misconception people like to believe is that the fetus Has the right to life. The "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use an individuals body. People have the right to refuse to donate organs, for example, even if doing so would save another life.
Then why is the murder of a pregnant woman classified as double homo side in the court of law? It is clearly seen as a "Right to life" in that instance, but not when the fetus itself is being aborted? The pro-choice argument does not make sense in this case, especially when the law contradicts itself.
@Lee Scott Each of us hold an equal right to life to a degree, because no one has that right when it comes to using someone else's body without their consent. Acknowledging that the fetus is a life under is not justification to attribute it specials rights. This is literal a reinstatement of the original comment.
@Lee Scott Why do Republicans only advocate for pro-life when it comes to women making personal choices about their bodies? You preach pro-life for unborn fetuses, yet your president has immigrants dying in cages and separating real l i v e b o r n children from their parents.
@Julia - A beating heart and brain activity to be ended with pain (yes, it is scientifically proven that the murdering of an unborn baby will cause pain to the aforementioned fetus) is wrong, and the Democratic Party is a proud supporter of the "Human Rights Movement", however denies the right to human life. So yes life beginning at conception is the only logical and fair line to draw to define where human life exists, so that is denying the right to human life (aka: living, which is denied in the process of murdering a baby, aka: abortion). #Logic
No baby is murdered. That's only sound through pro-life propaganda, but nowhere else. To think it is murder for a woman to deny gestation for the is the same as me denying to donate my blood, tissue, organs, etc. thus I am murdering the thousands of children on the donor list.
@Brian Cevallos Than what is it, the something inside a woman? That something has its own DNA code that is completely different from the woman's, it is programmed to look a certain way and more.
I agree life begins at conception, but calling it a baby and saying they're being murdered is just sensationalism and overall irrelevant. No biological parent is legally obligated to provide their born child any form of bodily donation, but pregnant people are an exception? What's the justification for this?
abortions are none of most peoples business
It is when the mother is committing murder of another human being.
@Lee Scott even still its none of YOUR buisness. It isn't your child. But if it was, its a different story
The people need to recognize when there is a crisis such as abortion being legal in the US. It is not the concept of reproductive freedom that I disagree with, however it is the concept of murdering unborn babies.
The people also need to realize that you cannot tell someone else what to do with their bodies. if a woman has a valid reason for the abortion( which should be discussed with her doctor) then she should be able to get a abortion. Now with that being said there also needs to be a point in time where an abortion can no longer be given. But everyone that feels so strongly about abortions should also feel the same way towards the foster care system. That system has been broken for a very long time. If you want to stop abortions then fix the foster care system, because that's where most of the children will end up.
i understand your argument was that abortion is murder. to answer that we must explore that further. is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter. are all choses that ends life called murder? if that is the case, all things that lesson life should be addressed before abortion. you and everyone would change their answer if Times Square showed the population of people growing every second. You may be amond the people who would suggest we need purge in order to lower population. my twisted my goes far
@Nolan's Life it is not a woman's body it is a completely different
Yes, I agree that getting an abortion is sad, by deleting a fetus. Here’s the thing. A fetus is not yet a baby. It is cells slowly forming parts that are slowly forming babies. If you think a heap of baby parts not attached together is a baby, I’m afraid you are mistaken. Women who are raped should get to get rid of the baby. When a women are having a baby, they should be able to choose whether they want to go through hours of extreme pain, years of caring for a child and paying their fees. Some people are not in a situation where they can properly take care of a child, and when they are given up to orphanages they will feel completely unwanted. And then when children do end up getting adopted, if it’s a gay couple MAGA slaves complain. There are too many orphans, and so hating on LGBTQ and saying that they can’t adopt while forcing women to give up their children contradicts your opinion.
I agree with you that supporting a child is difficult, however I have to disagree when you say that a fetus is a heap of baby parts. A fetus is a human organism (with human DNA) that is growing and developing kind of like how a 1 month old grows and develops into a toddler.
Personal convenience cannot be a justification to murder an unborn child..the fact that one doesnt want to take up the responsibilities of the child after they are born cannot justify that childs murder...if u cant take up the responsibility dont get pregnant..simple....u cannot make a child pay for your careless decision with their life....and about rape....abortion due to rape is a very minor fraction of the total abortions taking place...so you cant justify all the abortions by bringing up the marginal percentage....sure rape is traumatic to women...i cant even comprehend what a raped woman must go through but abortion doesnt unrape a woman...its not like after she kills her child she magically undoes her rape...rather abortion will be another trauma to the woman who has yet not overcome the first trauma.....and of course the rapist is the culprit.....and in a country where even the rapist is not given death penalty,why should the innocent third party(the child) be given the death penalty?
@Srija Karki Obviously you can't "unrape" a woman, but that isn't the only issue she'd be facing. She would be carrying an unwanted baby that she most likely was unprepared to care for. You say that abortion will be another trauma to this woman, even after being raped. But the true trauma will be the guilt she feels sending her newly born unwanted baby into the foster care system; who will live a struggling life; being another statistic; not having a chance in life. That's trauma.
Do you consider the seed of a plant to have feelings? My guess is no unless you are actually crazy. Well isn’t a fetus basically a seed? Plants are living things and so are humans but now all the sudden a fetus is the opposite of a seed. The process is the same. As someone else in the comments said: you have the choice to donate an organ and even though it could save someone’s life it is a choice. Abortion is the same thing but to a seed. So should if abortion is illegal than every person the US should HAVE to donate an organ unless they are the ones in need of it. This is what Republicans try to do. Instead of focusing on humans that are here and actually living they choose to focus on the seeds. If God gave us free will and we have this technology than shouldn’t we be allowed to use it?
If the mother had a two year old in need of an organ transplant and she is the only person who matches, should it be legal to force her to donate that organ?
The two year old is a child by definition, so we have taken the term out of relevancy. Also if that same two year old is capable of using someone's body without their consent, I wouldn't declare them as innocent - so we have also taken innocence out of relevancy. So if the two year old cannot use his/her mother's body for an organ, then the fetus does not have that right either in regards for the pregnant person's ENTIRE body being used.
Consider this...a womans kidneys are designed to function for her body..remove them both she wont survive...likewise her heart is designed for her...remove her heart she will die...same is the case with her lungs and other organs that are designed to function for HER body...so she cannot be forced to donate her kidneys if she doesnt want to....but consider her uterus...it is designed to house and nurture ANOTHER life..it prepares itself every month in the hope that it gets a child it can nurture...the nature has designed the uterus for SOMEBODY ELSE..unlike your kidney or your lungs or your heart that is meant just for you...so how can letting a baby grow in the uterus which is meant for the baby by nature the same thing like giving away a kidney?
@Srij Kark None of that is relevant to the point I am making. Did you forget that there is a thing called consent? Just because the vagina is "designed" for a penis, no man should go around penetrating women without their consent. What a terrible appeal to nature and it sets a dangerous precedent where a person's bodily autonomy can be disrespected and therefore violated using that same logic. No one is owed a body and no one should dictate others on making bodily decisions against their wishes, that's the idea behind slavery. Any form of bodily donation, whether it be a kidney or the entire body for nine months, must be met with the donor's ongoing consent. This is why you don't have hospitals forcing their patients to donate their bodies of any form, because that is illegal.
@Brian Cevallos the thing is, a fetus is not part of a woman's body, it has different DNA, different fingerprints l, and sometimes even a different gender! But seriously, the big difference in our arguments is that prolifers believe a fetus is not just a regular organ belonging to her, but another entity with its own programming, prochoicers on the other hand, as you've said yourself, the fetus is part of a woman's body and so is therefore like any other part of her body, something she can dispose of or care for as she sees fit. So let's debate that, is the fetus a life?
Look. People (woman in particular ) have been made to believe that it's really their choice, and that it's the better choice... I HIGHLY implore you to research SENOMYX.. They have created what i'm calling a "Circle of Consumers" Senomyx uses aborted fetal limbs to amplify certain flavors... They have manipulated so many irresponsible woman (EXCLUDING UNFORTUNATE OCCURRENCES) into having unprotected sex purely for pleasure, than getting stuck with a kid that they tell them to abort so they can make your chips and pop taste better. If you want to have sex, fucking be prepared. if not you contribute to the inevitable extinction of a fairly promising species... the human race
No a fetus is NOT basically a seed. A seed has no chance at becoming a plant if it isn’t given soil, water and sunlight. An unfertilized egg is more comparable to a seed.
If A woman willingly has sex she should be prepared to take responsibility for her actions no matter what. Babies don’t just pick a uterus and claim homestead they are put there. So if the question is INNOCENCE then yes they are innocent and deserve to a chance to grow not be murdered. If I choose to get drunk and drive a car, I am accepting the risk of going to jail. There is no OWI clinic I for me to pay and have all the problems I caused myself gone forever. If you choose to have sex you are accepting the risk of becoming pregnant and should have to deal with the consequences of your actions. Abortions should only be performed when the pregnancy is a result of rape.
And yes God gave us magnificent abilities. One of them being pregnant and growing a child inside our bodies. He also gave us the intelligence to make bombs and missiles. We only use those when we have to why can’t abortion be treated the same way?
It depends whether the pregnant was raped or by accident,if it is about my money then it should be illegal to abort considering how the choice is made on the dependency of the financial status and because there could be government subsidies.If you are not ready to take care of the baby than it can be put up for adoption. So in my opinion is that abortion should be illegal but with a ability to have put up a case on why they should be able to abort.Unless rape if so than legal.
Abortion, yes should be illegal. People may say it's a woman's body they shouldn't be pushed into having it but... it's murder when it's born and not when it's inside the womb as some people say a fetus, which is a scientific name that they give it, to make it not seem as if it's a baby. Even if they didn't have money for this baby or didn't want it, the best option in my personal opinion is to give it up for adoption. Therefore, they know they're baby is safe. This is truly my opinion.
I believe when people mention the word baby, they are speaking in a colloquial sense whether it be a newborn or their 14 year old child. Yes, the scientific term for a baby during the gestation period is fetus. I believe when people address the fetus as baby, they are doing this colloquially and manipulatively to appeal the emotions of others - say a friend to another friend with a wanted pregnancy. When arguing for abortion whether you are against it or not, should be structured in a way that's logically sound and substantiated. Unfortunately, language isn't the issue. It's a tangent, sidetracking from the actual topic which is whether an abortion should remain legal or become illegal. Whether you call the fetus a baby or not a baby, I see no justification for anyone to use another person's body in the absence of their willful and ongoing consent. Denying someone your body for them to live is not murder, it is your bodily right. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, because we are talking about someone legally bringing up a child as their own in place of the biological/legal parent. This has nothing to do with abortion. Telling someone with an unwanted pregnancy to give the baby up for adoption as a solution doesn't help, because they have an unwanted pregnancy and they shouldn't have to decide to keep it because others tell them they should.
Abortion is a human right as was decided by the Supreme Court.
Then why is the murder of a pregnant woman in court classified as double homiside? That is because the fetus is a living being.
@Kylee Prescott It classified as a double homicide because the fetus was taken from the mother without her consent. If a fetus is a person why can't they take out insurance on it until it is born?
I feel like the question people should be asking regarding abortion is if the fetus is sentient; can the fetus feel pain and/ or is it aware of its surrounding. If a fetus can’t feel pain, it’s surroundings or even feel emotion then I don’t believe it should be classified as murder because in that sense the fetus is just a clump of cells NOT A HUMAN BEING. Therefore it shouldn’t be illegal if none of the “people” involved in the abortion are set at a disadvantage or harmed in any way. In conclusion, women should have the choice in what happens to their bodies as long as no one is hurt. P.S there’s much more I could say but I’m not going to unless this gets post attention.
ngl, I think it should be the mother's option, although, I do believe that if you do not want the child, but them up for adoption, if you don't feel comfortable with either. Keep them.