Quote:
Originally Posted by footfoot
It isn't inconsistent if it isn't charged when the fetus is not considered human (before X cut off date). It would be inconsistent if double murder were charged when the fetus was ANY date old thereby legally defining it another human being and thus the abortion debate would be partially moot.
|
But why is the fetus considered human in the first place? That's whats inconsistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by footfoot
You're saying it's selfish to have an abortion. There is no easy way out. Whether she keeps the baby, adopts it out, miscarries it, or aborts it the woman is not getting out of the situation emotionally or physically unharmed. You're assuming that having the baby is ALWAYS the best option (not including rape etc). There are so many factors that come into play after the baby is born. Is the mother ready? Does she have a support network? Is the baby being adopted out? (What about the half million other foster children waiting to be adopted out in an already taxed foster care system). Can the mother afford a baby? Can the mother afford the medical care/hospital bills associated with having a baby? The baby is not guaranteed a perfect life the moment it is born. The mother is not allowed to just go back to her normal life. This frames the situation as practically inconsequential as long as a woman HAS the baby.
|
But all those factors that you just listed still aren't grounds for denying someone the right to life.
Life isn't perfect for any of us. Some have it worse than others, but life is never a cakewalk. But go to any person who is less fortunate than us. Go to all those kids/adults who have been adopted. Go to those kids/adults who live/lived in poverty with their mother. Ask them if they would have rather been killed before they were born. I guarantee you that no matter how shitty one's life is, the vast majority of those people would have rather lived life than be aborted.
When someone aborts, that person being aborted doesn't even have a
chance of living life. It may be inconvenient for that person to live, but at least the baby has a
chance at life. When you abort, you deny them that chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by footfoot
"2 people are involved...not just one". Here it becomes another question: why does a fetus, at the outset just cells, have complete control over a full grown woman's body? Why does it dictate her future the second it implants in her womb? I don't care if it was reckless unprotected sex (as distasteful as that is), a woman shouldn't be forced to carry to term a fetus just because it will eventually develop into a baby.
|
It's not about control. It's the fact that a decision is made about the human in the woman's body. In the end, the choices are "kill" or "let live." And I'm not one to kill another human being because of inconviences in the mother's life. Go ahead, deny a human being life because of economic reasons, "overpopulation," or other personal ones. But I'll always be here thinking about how wrong that is.
The most optimal solution, in my opinion (in a world where rainbows drop skittles, and unicorns sing ballads), would be to improve the adoption system and provide mothers with additional resources to help her raise the child.