People say a woman's body is her right how selffish what about the child's right to life so her body is her right but the babys body isn't? That's just sick I can even understand why someone would kill a baby like that it is pure evil and selfish and murder
Men cannot dictate whether women should be given the "right" to do as they choose with their bodies. It is her body, and in America we are given the right to do as we please with our body, regardless of other people's opinions. Some may argue that it is more than the woman's body at stake. "Pro-life" advocates argue that you are killing a child, this, however, is not true. A woman can only physically get an abortion in the early months of fetal development. In this amount of time the small collection of tissue has not fully developed into a living life form. If the tissue cannot survive on its own (if it were removed from the woman and the cells died) then it is not an individual life form, and certainly not a human being (in such an early stage). Women get abortions for thousands of different reasons, and some may argue that the woman should just have the baby give it up for adoption if they cannot take care of it (possibly for financial problems, addiction issues, or their age). What if the mother did have the child, but became so attached that they kept it, despite their preexisting problems. This would give the child a horrible life. Giving the child up (possibly to child services) would become a hideous fight. If the woman is financially stable and there are no addiction problems, but the victim of rape, she should not be forced to carry and have a child as the result of such a traumatic experience. Even if the woman was not raped and is capable of raising a child, she should not have to carry it and go through with the child birth if she does not want to. It is her body, her choice, and her right.
It goes without saying, that we have the right to do we want with our body, but apparently, woman cannot decide what happen with their own. We men would never accept that someone burst into our room and tell us to get a vasectomy, so why do some men feel they have right to tell woman what they should do with their body.
The only exception I could understand is a doctor refusing to provide late-term abortion, because it could be difficult to live with the other decision if it result in the death of woman... Because he just made a choice that lead to the death of his patient, while he had to protect her life...
My arguement is if you feel so strongly against abortions and your a male. Then get a sex change and have hundreds of babies of your own dont go telling people what they cant do espicially if you dont know what it takes, what it [actually] takes to have a baby and the risk. Yes babies are precious but women were born with the amazing ability to birth babies if they choose. And its between a women and her docters advice that determines if she is ready to have a baby if she finds out that shes pregnant.
The foetus grows inside the mother's body, so I think she has a word to say about. At the stage of an abortion, the baby is not even a baby. Most pro-lifers think that the best way to prevent an abortion is to stand outside a clinic and threating a pregnant women ? Well, boo hoo, that's not how it works. If the foetus isn't growing in your body, you don't really have a say. (except if you're the father) Some women just can't afford to have a baby, either because it is dangerous to their health, because they can't afford to have one, or because they simply don't want one.
It's just a baby, 1 human, there already exist BILLIONS of humans, besides, a fetus is barely even conscious, I've read that only at around the 6th month of pregnancy do they become conscious so before that they're just a lump of flesh and dna.
People say ''well only if it threatens the mothers life'' what about the life of the fetus AFTER it is born? People will fight to the death to have any fetus be born but once they're born they're on their own and can have a miserable life for all they care.
It's her body, her money, and her life that is going to be affected if she gives birth to the baby. The government doesn't need to be involved in everything we do, especially if it is something as personal as getting an abortion. People act like getting an abortion is an easy decision, but truly it's an emotional rollercoaster. I say it's a woman's right to choose NOT THE GOVERNMENTS!
If you get an abortion, you can only get in when the egg is not yet grown into an organism.
So, by that logic, it's not really alive. You cannot get an abortion once the baby has grown into an organism. So, yes, abortion should be allowed, but I don't think you should be having intercourse unless you are trying for a baby.
I have my comment on another abortion debate. To sum it up, my choice doesn't affect you in any form of way. Egg yolks aren't a human, they are just cells. All those who say no is selfish, thinking only about themselves and their own beliefs and morals instead of the person that's actually carrying the egg yolk. It's not even a "baby" yet until it passes the first part of pregnancy.
You don't have the right to take away my choice to do what I want with my life. If it's apart of me, its apart of my body, its also my choice what I want to do. It's not about you, its about the mother. Its much more complicated than that as well there's a lot of addition things that goes on with the mother prior and after the procedure. Much more than just saying that the mother is wrong. There is no wrong and right way to live life. There is only choices and consequences. You have no right to tell me how I can live my life or what I can and can not do. You are just a self entitled stranger.
Stop making everything about you. If you don't want an abortion, than fine, don't, idc. Your choice doesn't affect me, but when you put down females who make this choice, is what pisses me off. Those who never had one will never understand.
My life, My choices, My consequences, not yours.
Let us forget the obvious moral issue for a moment and examine some historical facts. I know this will sound crazy to atheists and even some non-catholic Christians, but Padre Pio was given a gift from God to see what aborted children would have grown up to have been. We have two accounts of women who were told what their child would have been if he had not been aborted. One would have been one of the greatest popes to ever live, the other would have found a cure to cancer. Seriously! Why were these women so greedy as to rod society of what we really need right now, good people. (I know you will laugh at this argument, but it is true.)
Humanity is a nature, not a development. Once a human, always a human. If you are ever not a human, then you never will be a human (accept of course, God the Son). A person's nature does not change once they begin to exist. Their existence is undisputed. The person begins at conception. What is the question is does dependence on the mother change a creature's nature? Does the father's sperm cell become part of the mother for a month before the child becomes a human instead of a blob? The obvious answer to both is no. The nature of an animal never changes. The life is always human from the very first moment of its existence, regardless of whether or not the child is dependent on the mother. While this may be a news flash to pro-death people, it is undeniably true that the sperm cell never becomes part of the mother. That the question of abortion is even debated shows just how low people have sunk. We have tried to take God's rights and the child's rights and give them to the mother, what a shame. NOT her body, NOT her choice, NOT her right.
Well it took two to make the baby so no it is not a "woman's right." It is not your body your choice. There is another living thing inside of you. Even if you for some reason you do not consider the unborn baby living, but a cluster of cells then it still isn't your body. A male had to put his seed in you to make that baby which means it is his "cluster of cells" too.
Pro-abortionists always seem to have different standards for when they think a baby has the right not to be murdered. Probably the most important reason is "she has the right to do whatever she wants with her body". Usually by the word "right," people mean "moral right," and not "legal right." If this is the case, where are you getting your morality? If it is relative, there are no real moral rights in the first place, so the argument falls apart.
We need to figure out if the baby is a part of the mother's body. Obviously it is not since the baby is 100% genetically unique (unless there are twins). It is objectively not part of the mother's body. It is also objectively human since it contains human DNA. It is made up of living tissue, so the baby is a living human being, distinct from the mother. Therefore, the argument falls apart in two ways, but shall wee add a third?
Even if we were to say being inside of the mother is equal to being a part of the mother, the argument would still be less than convincing. Using this principle, the baby only becomes a person when it passes through the magical vagina at birth and gains the right not to be brutally murdered. This is the point when the baby is not inside the mother any more. Are we really to believe that a baby is a living human person 1 minute after birth, but could be killed 1 minute before birth? That is completely indefensible. What about partial-birth abortions? Is the baby partially a part of the woman's body? Of course if being inside the mother is not what it means to be a part of the mother, the argument also fails.
If you make the conscientious decision to become impregnated (Not all pregnant women were consenting and so I make the difference very clear) then your choice to become pregnant resulted in the creation of a human life. Your Choice to create life does not equal the choice to kill it. If women want control of their body then they should have it, but if they choose to create life within themselves then they should be held to that choice and the consequences of their actions.
One person's freedom ends where it infringes on another person's rights. In the case of pregnancy, a woman's right to control her body doesn't give her the right to damage the fetus's body, unless the pregnancy poses a direct threat to her own life (self-defense is always justified).
Inherent to this is the assumption that the fetus is a person, which is the only logical conclusion from the biological evidence. By 4 weeks, the fetus has a brain and a heart, making it more than a lump of cells, and a DNA test will confirm that it's human.
Life begins at conception and a new human being is formed. A woman does not have the right to take another human being's life. It is considered murder for a mother to kill her own child. What makes it okay if the child is unborn? If the mother didn't want the baby, she shouldn't have conceived it in the first place. I'm all about pro-choice. A woman has the choice if she wants a baby or not. The choice is made when she chooses to mate with a man to conceive the baby. That should be the final choice. Why should the baby suffer because the mother can't make up her mind.