The women's forum is not an appropriate place for an overwhelmingly male group to debate whether women are people or incubators, moved to opposing ideologies.
Results 21 to 40 of 47
This is how it always should have been.
The women's forum is not an appropriate place for an overwhelmingly male group to debate whether women are people or incubators, moved to opposing ideologies.
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
So, we have supporters of two main guidelines in this discussion:
- some discussers have said that 1st trimester abortion is OK, but 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions should be illegal
- some others have said that also 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are OK, but infanticide should be illegal
I want to add that I have understanding also for infanticide soon after birth (say, within 7 days), before the child socially enters the society. I sit quite much in the same boat with 3rd trimester abortion supporters: the newborn baby can be in exactly the same stage of development in 3rd trimester abortion and in infanticide of a child born well ahead of the calculated date.
Ok, no sexism.
It never entered my small mind to even check what gender the other discussers were. For me, it was discussion between other people, not a discussion between men and women.
What about in a wealthy society like the US where you can use safe surrender laws and babies if left will not starve?
2+2=4
I disagree with comments made about double homicide. I think killing a pregnant women should qualify. After all, she was going to have the baby. People were expecting it to exist. It was already accepted into the moral community by members of that community. More specifically, it was accepted by the one person with the authority to accept it into the community - the mother.
I don't see how making killing pregnant women a double homicide somehow undermines the pro-choice side of the debate.
Double homicide sounds a bit like splitting of hairs, murder is murder, and will be severely punished. A more interesting question is the situation where violent attack on a pregnant woman causes miscarriage. Is it "murder" or "unauthorized abortion" or what? It really cannot be murder, if medical abortion of the same fetus would not be murder.
Well this is splitting of hairs too, because this is a very rare scenario. But those who behave violently, sometimes do it against pregnant women too.
I think the idea is that an unauthorized abortion is just as morally repugnant as murder. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I think you should consider the fact that the child "would exist" if not for that action. The women was going to give birth.
If you kill a women who has an abortion scheduled for next Tuesday, I'd say it shouldn't be a double homicide.
And if you kill a woman scheduled for giving birth next Tuesday--then you SHOULD be charged for a double homicide. Fair?
I think so, honestly. The choice to have the child enter into society belongs to the woman. As long as she intends to give birth to the child, it should receive the same rights as all other humans, as I see it. There is no reason to arbitrary decide the child, who will be born, shouldn't receive rights because of arbitrary reason X.
Hmmm, then also violence that harms a non-pregnant uterus would be multiple homicide of the children that the woman in future would probably want to have?
Well this is all splitting of hairs anyway, we are not becoming better of worse persons by his discussion.
That's an interesting point. I still there there is a distinction to be made. You can't assume a women wants to have children simply because she is a women. I think you can assume a women who is pregnant plans on having the child, unless she made it known otherwise.
The difference is the degree of a certainty. The death prevents the exist of a being we know, within reason, was going to exist.
All abortions ought to be legal and are a woman's personal choice.
The decision of what a woman ought to do with her own body is hers and hers alone.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Agreed! Except when another human life is involved, no matter his/her location.
This is confusing, what do you mean?
What I am saying is that there are no exceptions. A woman's body is her body - her choice.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Personal choice.
WHAT??? Either a Fetus is a human or it is not, you can't have it both ways.
personnal choice, but i must say that a person that would abort constantly has a mean of contraception instead of using condom or contraceptive pills should somehow be warned and eventually educated about the impact her choices have over the whole health system.
its not like we where short on the contraception method, hell there is even a vaccine that can prevent pregnancy!
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
It's a Public Decision as much as condoning murder or child abuse is.
2+2=4
its not.
you see, its their body man, and the embryo they carry is not mature enough to develop a conscience or any form of intelligence.
there is no good reason to consider it a public decision.
a murder is killing someone who have a brain and a conciousness, embryo dont have that.
i am pretty sure scientist have already proved that.
science beat religion, every time.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
