Neapolitan

It doesn't matter what the laws men write, women should stick up for the rights of the unborn child.

During the pregnancy the mother is the sole "carer" of the baby, and if that experience of being pregnant for nine month does not impress upon her the humble beginnings of life, and believe in her heart the unborn should be protected, then who will stand up for the unborn?

I just can't see any mother who would want to advance the cause of the pro-choice agenda. Though, I sympathize for the mom, who made a wrong choice had a change of heart became advocates for the unborn child.

Astronomer

You speak of the rights of the unborn child, but what about the rights of the pregnant woman? Surely if the unborn child has rights, the already born mother should have a right to defend her own body, own health, and own life? It's not uncommon for complications to occur during pregnancy which risk the life and health of the mother. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. I think the woman should have rights as well.

__________________

Bane of your existence

That's a bad argument. You're giving babies and women equal rights, you can't say that the possibilities of complications is the same thing as guaranteed killing.
I'm all for baby killing and all, just sayin'.

Astronomer

Yeah but the bodily (and emotional) sacrifices the woman has to make are guaranteed.

As are the risks she has to take.

I get what you're saying about them not being the same thing, though. I was just trying to emphasize the fact that the woman's rights shouldn't be forgotten in the debate.

__________________

Guybrush

As I've posted a couple of times earlier in this thread, I lean towards the utilitarian view that the mother is likely much more capable of suffering (and happiness, rational thought etc.) than the unborn fetus is, so of course her rights have to come first. If you put the fetus first, what sort of logic is that based on?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Astronomer

Exactly, I agree completely and couldn't have said it better.

__________________

Son of JayJamJah

While I agree, playing devils advocate the opposition who say the child can not decide for itself so it's not fair to let the mother. Flawed logic, but that's the common retort to your sentiment.

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread

Neapolitan

It's not the ablity of the mother versus the ablity of the unborn. The unborn child has life and the mother has life, life = life, there is no taking sides. With Pro-life both the mother and the unborn child are equally important, because both have life.

Hesher

Most people with medical backgrounds laugh at this argument. You genocidal freak, how dare you shed your entire mass of body cells within seven years? Those cells ALL HAD LIFE! It's almost as silly as the religious Christians who argue that you are wasting potential life by masturbating or having sex with birth control. Your body produces millions of "possible lives" in the form of sperm or eggs that are never fertilized or will even have a remote possibility of becoming human. The question in this debate is, when does a fetus become human, and considering that spinal tissue and brain material don't develop until relatively late in a pregnancy (when very few abortions occur), it's really silly imo. In most cases an abortion as a medical procedure has more in common metaphorically and technically with excising a tumour than delivering a baby.

Fetuses (note, I didn't say babies) are not human and therefore do not have rights. The science doesn't support the "pro-life" argument, and religious belief should not affect lawmaking.

Guybrush

As Hesher writes, to many this statement will seem utterly ridiculous. Not only is it idealistic to the point of naitivity, it's also rather unable to help us when we need to make important decisions about life. By this logic, stepping on an ant makes you a murderer. You have life - the ant has life. If only you or the ant could live, which one of you should? The rule says to revere all life equally. The ant might as well live.

See? It makes no sense at all.

__________________
Something Completely Different