After the fetus is born it is illegal to kill it, and from there pro lifers job is done. From there its the mother that has to take care of her unwanted child. Many people get abortions because they don't want the child, they cant care for it, they aren't financially stable enough to care for themselves let alone another human and yet if abortions is taken away they will be forced to take care of this baby. After its born where are the prolifers? They aren't there to help take care of the baby.
Many times the mother is left alone to take care of it herself so yes, it is her choice, it is technically her body because this fetus is attached to her, it is feeding off her, it is quite literally a parasite while inside of her. This fetus is unborn, it does not have a life yet, it is inside of its mother. Until it has been birthed into the world it has no rights.
How can you say that everyone has the right to be in control of their own body and do with it as they please as long as they are not harming other beings but are against euthanasia or abortion etc. Euthanasia is seen as an act of compassion and is up to that person and that person alone (generally) so why say that if someone is in uncontrollable pain then they must suffer for many years to come when the inevitable is bound to happen. To prevent further pain and suffering that person can sign a piece of paper and end their life, LEGALLY.
And whats this about abortion being wrong? If a woman will be physically or mentally affected by the birth of a child then why say that she must suffer? Personally, I wouldn't have an abortion unless under specific problems. I'm not saying that women should have an abortion willy-nilly but I am saying that she should be in control of her own body and do with is as she pleases.
I agree on both points. It is hypocritical to say people have a right to be in control of their own body, but be agains euthanasia or abortion.
Recently in the news a judge offered that people could donate blood to avoid jail time. Oddly enough, people were outraged. The wondered how a judge could think this was at all moral. People were suddenly bringing up bodily autonomy. However, donating blood is incredibly safe! Every year hospitals must delay life saving surgeries waiting for blood. Like pregnancy, there are TWO people involved in this contract. The donor, and the patient in need of blood to save their life. People also die every year waiting for kidneys and livers, which living donor may give. People die waiting for hearts and other organ that cadavers may give, and cadavers aren't even using them!
People seem to understand that in any other circumstance, even when dead, FORCING someone to give or use their body to sustain another is immoral and wrong. But for reasons that do confuse me, people do not give this right to pregnant people. I do not understand how refusing to donate a uterus is any more different than refusing to donate blood. I also think that being against abortion sets a horrible precedent. What else are they willing to force people to do with their body? How many more judges will request blood or other bodily donations?
I'm for euthanasia if the person is very ill and would otherwise live in complete misery but I am against abortion because the person dying isn't choosing to die like a euthanasia patient is choosing to die. To say that a fetus is a part of a woman's body is absurd. http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-12-weeks_1101.bc that's what a 12 week old fetus looks like. They have livers, hearts, genitals ect. That's not the woman's body its a different body. She can do what she wants wit her body but she cant do what ever she wants with her babies body.
Its simple: the fetus isn't some "organ" or your hair. Pro-Lifers view it as an issue not of the body: if the life of the fetus has an intrinsic value equal to that of a human, then killing it is not some right you have. The fetus is dependent upon the mother, it is inside of their body, but:
1. The fetus is not a "part' of their body, like an organ. It is a separate, human being in the early stages of development.
2. Just because someone is dependent wholly upon someone or something does not mean that what they are dependent upon has the right to end their life.
Also, the argument: "I am personally against abortion, but its the womens choice" is like saying
"I am personally against murder, but its the persons choice."
Whenever abortion comes up people make it all about a woman's right to her body. What pro choice supporters ignore is the unborn child's right to its body. Shouldn't the baby have the freedom to live? A fetus isn't part of a woman, regardless of the fact that he / she lives inside of her.
As for assisted suicide, I'm not quite sure what I think. Hmmm . . .