I don't know how you can defend that argument w/o saying its a blatant contradiction. Its still a human. After its born, its still developing. Its just in a different stage of development. You were once in that small stage of development too. The same person who was in your mothers womb,is the same person writing these post today, They were both YOU. What gives anyone the right to make a claim that because a person is small and not fully developed they have less value as a person?
We are all humans and the Government has the right to protect every human from people who wish to do it harm.

Women need options to protect their health in emergency situations.
In the case of health emergencies, great harm can come to the mother.

I have no problem with medical emergencies. If its the docters intent to try and save both lives, that's their job.But in his professional opinion only one life can be saved, than the mothers should
take the priority. The key here is the intent. The intent is to try and save both lives.

Sometimes people have things like pregnancy forced on them through rape and sexual abuse.
Great emotional harm can come to a woman who is forced to raise the child of sexual abuse. What about the rights of the mother in this case?

Their not forced to raise the child, there are many who can't have child of their own who want to adopt.

Do we really want people addicted to crack being forced to raise a crack baby in a environment that is only going to breed suffering for the parents, the child and society?

No we want them forced to get off crack which is illegal.

This isn't about fetus rights. Fetuses can't survive without the obligation of the mother. A fetus is part of her body and completely dependent on her. She should have the right to choose what happens to her body.

"fetuses" Have survived from a little as 20-24 weeks of gestation. Who and what gives you or anyone the right to say exactly when a "fetus" can maintain life outside the mother?

YOU DON"T have that right, nor should anyone else.

Do you believe all laws are a "moral decision?"

Morality being defined as a decision by someone between what ‘s right and wrong. Don't all our laws claim to be a moral decision by someone or a group of people? Aren't those morals/laws forced on society?


My point is there is nothing wrong with forcing morality on someone else, which you seem to believe there is,

This post was last modified: Jul 03, 2008 11:05 AM by EdTwo.

After its born, its still developing.

After it's born, it can be taken care of by anyone. After it's born, it's not feeding off of the placenta and receiving it's sustenance from the umbilical cord. Until it is born, it is part of the mother's body. It is not an independent being.

The key here is the intent. The intent is to try and save both lives.

It's hard to legislate intent Ed. Making abortion illegal would nullify this option for doctors. Even if this was the only legal form of abortion, where is the Christian argument that abortion is murder? Shouldn't god ultimately get to decide which of the two survives?

Their not forced to raise the child, there are many who can't have child of their own who want to adopt.

The adoption process in this country is broken. Basically, what you're saying is that even in the case of rape, you want to force, through legislation, women to birth children that they don't and didn't want in the first place. Good argument for human rights Ed.

No we want them forced to get off crack which is illegal.

Do you really think this is a solution that will work? What world do you live in where all drug addicts are going to give up drug abuse? This is nice in theory, but reality is a different matter.

"fetuses" Have survived from a little as 20-24 weeks of gestation. Who and what gives you or anyone the right to say exactly when a "fetus" can maintain life outside the mother?

They haven't survived on their own. They have needed incubation and the support of machines that emulate the processes that would take place inside of the mother. That gives me the right to say when a "fetus" can maintain life outside the mother. They are completely dependent organisms.

"G"

This post was last modified: Jul 03, 2008 11:16 AM by ggeorge2814.

I don't have time to go through all your responses, but I'll pick on this one that seems to me an
obvious contradiction.

"They haven't survived on their own. They have needed incubation and the support of machines that emulate the processes that would take place inside of the mother."

Yes, they need someone else to care for them, just like a new born does. Yet, you don't believe
a mother should be able to kill her newborn because she all of a sudden decides she doesn't want to care for it? There is no difference between a newborn and a fetus, they both need someone else's care

This post was last modified: Jul 03, 2008 11:26 AM by EdTwo.

Does anyone believe this is moral? This type of abortion is done in the 2nd and 3rd trimester, right up to the time of delivery. If it's for the mother's health, how can they wait till delivery to murder the baby. No one can tell me this is not murder. Full term babies can survive outside the mother. This is not a fetus. It's homicide!

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.Html

Let's just strip all of the developmental talk out of this, because it's not important to me anyway. Unwanted pregnancies are unwanted. Accidental pregnancies are many times, unwanted.

Basically, you think that accidental and unwanted pregnancies should be carried to term, put up for adoption and just hope that someone adopts all of the accidental / unwanted children and that they don't become a burden on the state until they are 18, when they are thrown out into the world on their own? Do you really think that illegalizing abortion is a good thing for society as a whole, aside from your religious moral agenda?

"G"

I think it is because I have 3 friends who cannot conceive and desperately want children. They would be wonderful parents. But there are too few babies. There are thousands of couples who want babies, but can't get them. Many are not in a position to handle an older child with the emotional problems that many of them have as a result of their circumstances. Some can, but some cannot.