Calvin_Reagan:
There are two human beings involved here: the baby and the mother. Both lives have meaning and value. Simply because of the location of the child or its developmental stage does not make someone less of a human. A human is a human. You continue to not comprehend this point/scientific reality.
In our system of government, you cannot kill another human being unless your life is in danger of being killed or disabled.
It does MATTER that the baby didn’t have a choice. If a mother commits a crime, say manslaughter, and she dies before the end of the sentence, does it make sense to have her son go to jail and complete his mother’s sentence? No. It does not. It does not make sense to punish people for committing no crime, no due process of the law.
Having an abortion is by no means risk-free. Women have died having abortions, whether it be through back alley or through a legitimate doctor’s office. Having a baby ripped from its mother’s womb AND having its body parts torn in pieces does put at risk her ability to have more children. So in other words, abortion is not actually GOOD for the mother, both short-term and long-term, and poses health risk.
Lastly, I do not understand why viability is somehow a benchmark for human statehood. Yes, the baby can survive outside the mother’s womb, but you’re simply switching one kind of womb to another kind of womb. What do I mean? Lets say the earth’s oxygen goes away, does anybody survive? What if one day the ocean and lakes dry up and we no longer have water. Does anybody survive? If you throw a baby/adult/teen in a locked closet with no food, water, and sunlight, can they survive?
The courts have it wrong here. The word “privacy” exists no where in the constitution, nor does the word “viability” or “women’s autonomy”. It was an activist decision and the courts decided to play scientist. And where is the woman who complained about not having an abortion today? She’s on the pro-life side and regrets the mess she caused.
The fact that its human is irrelevant, if the woman doesn’t want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed.
And this is based on what logical basis?
Are you for abortion for all periods during a pregnancy? If not, then your argument does not hold up. If the placement of the baby matters and your argument is “if it’s in the woman’s stomach, therefore her choice”, then the viability argument should not come into play.
It’s rather disturbing that you (and pro-choice America) should argue “who cares if it’s a human life”. I thought our constitution was protecting the lives of ALL humans.
My argument is based on the fact we need to take into consideration both human lives, not just one side of the coin.
Wrong! You right wingers want “freedom” from government interference, rules/regulations, but are OK with interfering with medical/personal decisions?
What’s wrong with you people is that you don’t even want birth control available.
I guess you’re not counting all the golf trips Idiot Boy has taken in the past 16 months or the $1.4 trillion spending bill he signed a few months ago.
Your argument is ignorant and controlling. There is no other side of the coin.
Calvin_Reagan:
And this is based on what logical basis?
Are you for abortion for all periods during a pregnancy? If not, then your argument does not hold up. If the placement of the baby matters and your argument is “if it’s in the woman’s stomach, therefore her choice”, then the viability argument should not come into play.
It’s rather disturbing that you (and pro-choice America) should argue “who cares if it’s a human life”. I thought our constitution was protecting the lives of ALL humans.
My argument is based on the fact we need to take into consideration both human lives, not just one side of the coin.
That if she doesn’t want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed ever if this results in its death.
