Originally posted by shavixmirI agree with early-term abortion. However, I don't think your argument is generally valid Shavixmir.
'fraid not there, Slimjim.
You see...until that baby pops out the foetus is attached to the female body. Whatever she wants to do with her own body is up to her. If what she does to the body destroys the foetus...there ain't nothin' you or I can do about it.
That's where the buck stops. Right there. Her choice.
It simply doesn't follow that what is attached to my body is mine to do with whatever I please, especially if what is attached to me is a sentient being with sufficient characteristics of personhood.
For example, a mother is charged with murder if she kills her newly born baby. If is not equally murder if she has that baby aborted a day before it is due? The fact that the nearly-born baby is attached to her does not, I think, remove the immorality of killing the late-term unborn child.
Come to think of it, let's suppose the baby is born, but still attached by the umbilical cord: is it now okay to kill it because it is still physically attached to the mother?
I think the attachment criterion is fatally flawed. But maybe you can persuade me otherwise. Or maybe you meant something more than mere attachment.
Bests,
Aiden
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlMy 2 cents?
Damnit! Leave people alone! If two people want to marry, let them!
Why do people wnat to legislate other people's rights when it doesn't affect them?
It is just like the men who attack abortion rights.
The more gays guys out there the better. Nothing like a few million desperate, straight, single girls to make my day! 😀😀
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree, suppose the man does not want the baby, would Slim argue that the man could forcibly terminate the foetus if the mother still wants the child?
'fraid not there, Slimjim.
You see...until that baby pops out the foetus is attached to the female body. Whatever she wants to do with her own body is up to her. If what she does to the body destroys the foetus...there ain't nothin ...[text shortened]... out it.
That's where the buck stops. Right there. Her choice.
edit>I do think that there is a reasonable arguement for 1st trimester abortions and that late term abortions should only be permitted if the mother's life is in immediate danger.
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlInteresting point. Which side is trying to "legislate" anything?
Damnit! Leave people alone! If two people want to marry, let them!
Why do people wnat to legislate other people's rights when it doesn't affect them?
It is just like the men who attack abortion rights.
Truth? Both. The "losers" are using the courts to "legislate". The winners still have the constitution.
Silly. This is a giant "chimp fight" that could be avoided, but probably won't be avoided.
It seems that we as a society are to the point where we are willing to let people alone. If they don't try to use the courts to "legislate" what we the people reserve as a matter to be voted on. Using the courts to "legislate" is a much bigger thing than "gaydom". Sorry.
See moral law and chimp villages.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateMost men wouldn't argue about an abortion if they didn't want the child. My point is when the father wants the child he should have the right to raise it. The lady didn't get pregnant by herself.
I agree, suppose the man does not want the baby, would Slim argue that the man could forcibly terminate the foetus if the mother still wants the child?
edit>I do think that there is a reasonable arguement for 1st trimester abortions and that late term abortions should only be permitted if the mother's life is in immediate danger.