When it is viable it has a
right to life as I have stated dozens of
times.
I specifically stated that it DOESN'T have
a legal claim to her body; ONLY that it
has a legal claim to LIFE because it is
CAPABLE of it. Induce labor or have a
c-section.
You waited too long. Now, unless your life
or your mental health is in danger or
unless the fetus is severely deformed ETC
(we all know the exceptions by now) you do
NOT have the right to voluntarily kill it
just because you want to. You need a
REASON.
"Oh no, what? I can't kill a nearly-born
for no reason!? You're
evil!"
Eiri, all you've done is show why you
personally oppose
late-term abortions. In fact, the logic
you've used to support your stance are the
same as the ones you've used to debunk the
pro-life rationale: you say "late-term
foetuses are capable of living". I'd say
that the wording here is slightly
inaccurate: "They COULD be capable of living
IF
the woman gave birth". This reminds me
immediately of the pro-life: "It COULD/IS
CAPABLE OF turn(ing) into a born
baby IF it isn't aborted". These
are not definitive facts, they are
suppositions. Maybes. Possibilities.
Hypotheses. Not, I repeat NOT facts. The
current situation, the now, of ALL
foetuses is a parasitic existence inside
and off its hostess. Period.
You say it doesn't have the right to
control its hostess's body but simply to
live. This is politically correct,
euphemistic re-wording. If the late-term
foetus is given the right to live, then
the mother's right to abort, i.e. bodily
autonomy is usurped. Furthermore, abortion
is STILL justified in such a case because
the woman could argue that her rights to
bodily autonomy are being taken away from
her because of the foetus's presence
inside her, hence abortion is a form of
self-defense, preservation of her rights,
and fending off an invader. The right to
live doesn't include the right to exist in
another person's body. It is there by
permission. This permission can be revoked
at any time. It is wholly illogical to cut
that right at week x, day y, hour z.
You also say that at a late stage in the
pregnancy it is not "just about the woman,
discreteness etc.". 'm sorry, but you're
wrong. This is the history of human
rightsand upon which they are based. Wendy
McElroy would rip your argument to pieces.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:111
Posted: 03-20-08 16:06pm
poopoopoo
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
As I have stated on other
topics, I do not believe the labels are as
black and white as everyone wants them to
be. A lot more pro-choicers would be
willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't
like abortion for this reason or at this
time" if they weren't scared of people
screaming at them and calling them
anti-choice.
It is possible to not like abortion for
this reason or that reason, but still
accept that it is a CHOICE that someone
may make. It is possible to not approve of
or like any reason at all for an abortion,
but accept that it is the choice of the
woman and no one else to make the
decision.
I agree with this 100% and this is my own
stance on abortion.
However, I do realise what Eiri is saying,
everyone's beliefs are different - I am
unconditionally pro-choice (not extremist
but always the choice of the woman while
she is pregnant, whether I personally
'like' it or not) where as I see Eiri as a
somewhat conditionalist pro-choice (i.e.
always the right of the woman but not
believing she should be able to choose for
'social' reasons after a certain point).
Just as I understand the pro-life view I
also understand that of those who aren't
unconditionally pro-choice.
This may not make sense, I have had very
little sleep recently with a newborn lol
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-20-08 17:10pm
We love you anyway Moo ^^ And yes, it
makes sense. I am a conditionalist, but as
I've said, my conditions are not solely
based off of a "moral" feeling. It is
based off of scientific facts so I just
laugh when people tell me I can't tell a
woman when to abort based off of my own
morals, because I'm not. It's cold hard
science, and that stinks when it goes
against what you want to believe.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2132 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 03-20-08 18:04pm
Moo
wrote:
poopoopoo
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
As I have stated on other
topics, I do not believe the labels are as
black and white as everyone wants them to
be. A lot more pro-choicers would be
willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't
like abortion for this reason or at this
time" if they weren't scared of people
screaming at them and calling them
anti-choice.
It is possible to not like abortion for
this reason or that reason, but still
accept that it is a CHOICE that someone
may make. It is possible to not approve of
or like any reason at all for an abortion,
but accept that it is the choice of the
woman and no one else to make the
decision.
I agree with this 100% and this is my own
stance on abortion.
However, I do realise what Eiri is saying,
everyone's beliefs are different - I am
unconditionally pro-choice (not extremist
but always the choice of the woman while
she is pregnant, whether I personally
'like' it or not) where as I see Eiri as a
somewhat conditionalist pro-choice (i.e.
always the right of the woman but not
believing she should be able to choose for
'social' reasons after a certain point).
Just as I understand the pro-life view I
also understand that of those who aren't
unconditionally pro-choice.
This may not make sense, I have had very
little sleep recently with a newborn lol
congrads moo.. what did you have?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4146 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 03-20-08 20:01pm
Birch
wrote:
When does a fetus have legal
claim on the body and resources of it's
mother?
The answer is never.
A fetus never has a legal claim on the
body and resources of it's mother.
Advocating for legislation against any
abortion is advocating that a fetus has a
legal claim to the body and resources of
it's mother.
Eiri
wrote:
Now, unless your life or
your mental health is in danger or unless
the fetus is severely deformed ETC (we all
know the exceptions by now) you do NOT
have the right to voluntarily kill it just
because you want to. You need a
REASON.
Of course, you mean a reason you
approve of.
I find this all to be very arbitrary. I
have not read a compelling argument for
viability being the main piece of the pie
for legislating against later term
abortion.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-20-08 20:50pm
You just don't want to have ANY ethics at
all. Thankfully YOU have to follow the
law, and the law says that you can't kill
babies the day before they are due. That's
because the people who have made the law
realise how wrong it is biologically to do
so. Not ethically wrong: biologically
wrong.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4146 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 03-20-08 22:51pm
"I don't want to have ethics at all", or
"I don't want to have your
ethics at all"?
Everyone has to live with their own
decisions, take responsibility for their
own choices. I choose choice for all.
Isn't that a Buddist belief?
But I digress. Anyways, on the other
hand, one with views such as Eiri's could
look at their reasons for being prochoice
in early term pregnancies. Are they only
viability-related or is there more to the
puzzle?
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3837 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 91
Thanked:77
Posted: 03-21-08 05:08am
Moo
wrote:
I have had very little
sleep recently with a newborn lol
I agree with Birch. Eiri, I simply
disagree with you. I don't want your
ethics, I have my own. All you do is try
to knock down anybody who differs from you
in belief. Please don't ever call me a
fascist whilst you act in this way.
I also consider viability (which, as I
have highlighted before, should really be
"possible viability") to
be an arbitrary development to pinpoint
and say "Right, the foetus has rights
now!" Why should it matter if the foetus
has the potential to live if born
prematurely? This is an entirely different
issue to whether or not a woman should
have the right to abort. In early
pregnancies, abortion is not legally
permissible because the foetus is not
viable or looks like a little bean. It's
because the foetus is a parasite, lives in
and off another person's body, and is
attached to that body. For this very same
reason I want late-term abortions to be
legal. Because, to be blunt, I don't
really care whether the foetus is capable
of blinking, moving, 'laughing', 'crying'
etc. etc. - these are irrelevant facts.
Every woman should have the right to
control her own body no
matter what.
There is no such thing as "biologically
wrong". Biologically, the nature
of all foetuses is just the same. It's
this very nature that has made abortion
legal. I have no desire to force every
woman to follow my thoughts. I personally
would struggle psychologically with having
any abortion, let alone a late-term one
(it's too late for me PERSONALLY) - but
I'm not a bigoted, closed-minded, control
freak and I love choice and individual
freedom, so I would never compel a whole
nation of people to follow my thoughts.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1180 Location: ,
Thanks: 23
Thanked:13
Posted: 03-21-08 07:35am
Eiri
wrote:
You just don't want to have
ANY ethics at all. Thankfully YOU have to
follow the law, and the law says that you
can't kill babies the day before they are
due. That's because the people who have
made the law realise how wrong it is
biologically to do so. Not ethically
wrong: biologically
wrong.
Actually I don't have YOUR ethics at all.
While I would not abort late term myself I
will not stop another woman from doing so.
Its not my job to control her body.
"Biologically wrong" is a study in
equivocation. Biology is the study of life
since it is a branch of the sciences there
is no right or wrong involved. Therefore
late term abortions cannot be biologically
wrong.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2729 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:17
Posted: 03-21-08 09:21am
Kypros
wrote:
I love choice and
individual freedom, so I would never
compel a whole nation of people to follow
my thoughts.
I too love choice and individual freedom,
but not the choice of killing other human
beings, whether they are fetuses, children
or adults.
I love choice and
individual freedom, so I would never
compel a whole nation of people to follow
my thoughts.
I too love choice and individual freedom,
but not the choice of killing other human
beings, whether they are fetuses, children
or adults.
I don't like any of those either, but
because I - and you - love choice and
individual freedom, I urge you to join the
pro-choice movement and respect
everybody's decisions regarding their own
lives whatever we outsiders may think.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-21-08 10:38am
Birch
wrote:
But I digress. Anyways, on the other
hand, one with views such as Eiri's could
look at their reasons for being prochoice
in early term pregnancies. Are they only
viability-related or is there more to the
puzzle?
Well I've always disliked late-term
abortions, but I know it wasn't "just
because", I knew there was a reason. Some
of the pro-choice beliefs that try to
simplify the issue down to "her body, her
choice" seem almost shallow and ignorant
to me, and I just can't agree with them in
every single case.
Yes, the fetus is attached to her body...
BUT, that's how reproduction is supposed
to work!! You cannot punish the fetus for
doing what it's supposed to do, especially
since it is not making the choice to do
so. It can no more dislodge itself than it
can think or speak. It IS HUMAN.
I have listened and even used pro-choice
arguments stating that the fetus is
"attacking" the woman, or "raping" her
etc. It's your choice to view reproduction
that way, but that's NOT what is
happening. Using those examples is shallow
and falsifying. "But pro-life uses
terrible examples!" Yeah, so what? Don't
stoop to their level.
It IS parasitic in nature, one cannot deny
that. Then again, it's SUPPOSED to be
doing that. It's like punishing your hair
for growing. It's supposed to do that!
I'm not totally clear on how oviviparous
reproduction evolved, but I do know it
didn't do so because it was harmful.
That's now how evolution works. It evolved
because it was a good way to protect the
young until they were developed enough to
come out. It allows for the animal to be
more mobile instead of having to sit on an
egg.
Prevention is always the key. Prevent
pregnancy, or kill a life. But accidents
happen, and I agree that it's dumb to
restrict treatment right after the
accident. However, if you wait nine months
to go to the hospital for a broken limb
and it's all deformed, they can't just set
it nice and simple like the could have
before. If you want your arm straight
again, they'll have to operate, re-break
your arm, set it, and let it heal all over
again. You cannot choose the simple way
out.
That's how I feel about elective late-term
abortions. Because of the viability of the
fetus, it is now worthy of life; it has a
RIGHT to life because it is CAPABLE of it.
That's why you can't just kill people in
comas or in vegetative states. It's not
much of a life, but they are ALIVE and
they are doing so NOT attached to another
human being.
The viable fetus has a right to LIFE. It
does not have a right to control the
woman's body, but it does have a right to
live. Thus, if the woman wants her body
back, the fetus must be removed alive.
Just like you can't simply have your arm
re-set; you must now pay the price of a
painful re-breaking and re-setting.
The fetus has EARNED its right to life by
surviving up until this point. Killing it
without a good reason is not only
disrespectful to it, but to life in
general, to the process of evolution and
reproduction, and most of all,
disrespectful to the woman.
You might not LIKE it, but we ARE the
bearers of LIFE. Our bodies are designed
to bear life, so if life manages to get in
there, our body cares for it. A symbiosis
has evolved between our bodies and the
unborn. We are designed to get pregnant
and give birth. That doesn't make us
inferior, in fact in some ways it makes us
superior. We can't lift heavy objects, but
we bring life.
In today's world we have the choice NOT to
reproduce, and that's fine. It doesn't
make you any more or less of a woman if
you give birth. However, it's YOUR
responsibility to protect your body from
becoming impregnated because you know that
your body will do what it can to grow that
egg into a baby if given a chance, because
that's what it's designed to do. Killing a
viable fetus right before it is due is
disrespectful to nature, too. You're
saying "I don't care about my body, or
life, or nature".
"Women shouldn't be punished for their
bodies!" - As any child learns, it is
better to fix a problem when it occurs
than to wait and procrastinate. As any
child knows, what may not be a major
problem now may result in punishment if
she does not deal with it right away. If a
poo-poo ends up on the floor and she tells
right away fine; it gets cleaned up, no
harm done. If she hides it in the closet and
it stinks up for nine months... well, then
she will be punished. You shouldn't hide
things; you should deal with them right
away.
I've had to re-learn this lesson as an
adult, too. A lot of my problems last
spring could have been resolved in a much
better way if I'd confronted them, but I
didn't, and even today I am still paying
the price - literally, in some cases.
So no, you cannot get off scott-free and
kill your offspring for the entire 9
months. Pregnancy is a development, and if
you let the problem develop, you're going
to have to deal with far more dire
consequences in the end.
I'm not saying you have to give birth
vaginally, or that you have to keep the
child. For God's sake, you want to KILL
it!!! Like HELL I'm letting you keep it.
"Waaah, I don't want to be cut open!"
Well, sorry, too bad so sad. You should
have thought of that before you let
yourself become 7-9 months pregnant.
Don't try to come up with exceptions.
"What if her husband forced her, what if
she's a teen who hid it, etc etc." You
already know I'm fine with exceptions, and
that as long as the woman has a valid
reason, then go for it. But you just can't
get away with slipping in and slipping out
anymore.
|
emiko
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Mar 2008 Posts: 2
Posted: 03-21-08 11:09am
What if a 15 year old had been raped and
went 7 months without knowing she was
pregnant? But once she finds out, she
can't have an abortion because people want
to choose for other people. Just because
the baby can be independant if you take it
out, does NOT give other people the right
to decide if a woman can have an abortion
or not. If she wants an abortion let her
have it. Some people cannot afford a
child. ESPECIALLY a 15 year old girl.
It is the womans choice if she wants
the baby or not.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-21-08 11:11am
emiko
wrote:
What if a 15 year old had
been raped
*Ahem*. As I said, do not try to search
for exceptions. You clearly didn't read
what I wrote.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4146 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 03-21-08 12:35pm
Basically, if I've got her correct, Eiri
is saying that late term abortion is okay
if someone provides a reason she agrees
with.
She also adheres to some bizarre
stereotypes of women ("we can't lift heavy
objects") and decides that allowing late
term abortions is "disrespectful to
women". A general lack of understanding
why women obtain later term abortions and
a complete blockade against empathy is
also prevalent within her post.
It was a good move for Eiri to refrain
from providing reasons why she is
prochoice in earlier stages of pregnancy.
To clarify my own opinion, I do not agree
with late term abortions either. However,
that private medical decision, just like
all others, are best left up to the person
in question.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-21-08 12:39pm
It's not a reason I agree with. There's in
fact really only ONE reason I disagree
with, and that's "I just don't feel like
having this baby even though it's due
tomorrow". That's just... sick.
It's a reason DOCTORS agree with. It's a
reason SCIENCE and NATURE agrees with.
Mental danger, physical danger,
extenuating circumstances etc. And AGAIN:
AGAIN: I am NOT SAYING she must REMAIN
PREGNANT. I am NOT REMOVING ANY OF HER
RIGHTS!!! I'm just giving one right to the
fetus: the right to be removed ALIVE, not
DEAD. It's already viable. I'm not asking
the woman to wait, or to give birth, or to
keep the baby. I am asking that the baby
be removed ALIVE.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 03-21-08 15:51pm
Eiri
wrote:
AGAIN: I am NOT SAYING she must REMAIN
PREGNANT. I am NOT REMOVING ANY OF HER
RIGHTS!!! I'm just giving one right to the
fetus: the right to be removed ALIVE, not
DEAD. It's already viable. I'm not asking
the woman to wait, or to give birth, or to
keep the baby. I am asking that the baby
be removed
ALIVE.
I'm not trying to attack you, but how can
a baby be removed "alive" without giving
birth. The only two ways I know of are
literally giving birth and a c-section
both which we consider "giving birth".
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-21-08 16:12pm
C-section. I meant vaginal delivery when I
said "giving birth".
In many late term abortions that have been
approved by a team of doctors, the fetus
is actually delivered partially and then
has the skull collapsed (Intact Dilation
and Extraction aka D&E) so there can
be a body for the parents to mourn -
because most of the time, that child is
wanted and is removed in a fatal way only
because it absolutely must be done that
way. The non-scientific name for this
procedure is partial-birth, and I honestly
can't understand what the fuss is about
that name, since that is literally what
happens. The fetus is partially given
birth to, killed, and then removed.
D&E is safer for the mother than other
forms of late-term abortions.
My point in this is that if you're having
a late-term abortion, you're very likely
to give birth half way in the first place.
Why are you so offended by the thought of
delivering that child ALIVE? Be induced at
7 months if you've grown bored or
whatever. Again, remember, there are
always exceptions and I am not talking
about them. I am talking about a woman who
has no excuse.
Just not wanting to be pregnant anymore
isn't an excuse. I'm pretty sure most
full-term women want that baby OUT! You
don't see them having abortions. I can
think of a lot of GOOD reasons to have a
late-term abortion. In fact, I think there
are many good reasons, so why are you so
offended by having to state WHY you want
to kill a viable human being? murderers
are always asked "why" they did it. In
some cases, they actually get set free
because their reason is good enough.
As I know it, right now, ALL late-term
abortions are done for damn good reasons.
I hope, I pray, that the law never changes
in regards to that.
Well I've always disliked
late-term abortions, but I know it wasn't
"just because", I knew there was a reason.
Some of the pro-choice beliefs that try to
simplify the issue down to "her body, her
choice" seem almost shallow and ignorant
to me, and I just can't agree with them in
every single case.
Yes, the fetus is attached to her body...
BUT, that's how reproduction is supposed
to work!! You cannot punish the fetus for
doing what it's supposed to do, especially
since it is not making the choice to do
so. It can no more dislodge itself than it
can think or speak. It IS HUMAN.
I have listened and even used pro-choice
arguments stating that the fetus is
"attacking" the woman, or "raping" her
etc. It's your choice to view reproduction
that way, but that's NOT what is
happening. Using those examples is shallow
and falsifying. "But pro-life uses
terrible examples!" Yeah, so what? Don't
stoop to their level.
It IS parasitic in nature, one cannot deny
that. Then again, it's SUPPOSED to be
doing that. It's like punishing your hair
for growing. It's supposed to do that!
I'm not totally clear on how oviviparous
reproduction evolved, but I do know it
didn't do so because it was harmful.
That's now how evolution works. It evolved
because it was a good way to protect the
young until they were developed enough to
come out. It allows for the animal to be
more mobile instead of having to sit on an
egg.
Prevention is always the key. Prevent
pregnancy, or kill a life. But accidents
happen, and I agree that it's dumb to
restrict treatment right after the
accident. However, if you wait nine months
to go to the hospital for a broken limb
and it's all deformed, they can't just set
it nice and simple like the could have
before. If you want your arm straight
again, they'll have to operate, re-break
your arm, set it, and let it heal all over
again. You cannot choose the simple way
out.
That's how I feel about elective late-term
abortions. Because of the viability of the
fetus, it is now worthy of life; it has a
RIGHT to life because it is CAPABLE of it.
That's why you can't just kill people in
comas or in vegetative states. It's not
much of a life, but they are ALIVE and
they are doing so NOT attached to another
human being.
The viable fetus has a right to LIFE. It
does not have a right to control the
woman's body, but it does have a right to
live. Thus, if the woman wants her body
back, the fetus must be removed alive.
Just like you can't simply have your arm
re-set; you must now pay the price of a
painful re-breaking and re-setting.
The fetus has EARNED its right to life by
surviving up until this point. Killing it
without a good reason is not only
disrespectful to it, but to life in
general, to the process of evolution and
reproduction, and most of all,
disrespectful to the woman.
You might not LIKE it, but we ARE the
bearers of LIFE. Our bodies are designed
to bear life, so if life manages to get in
there, our body cares for it. A symbiosis
has evolved between our bodies and the
unborn. We are designed to get pregnant
and give birth. That doesn't make us
inferior, in fact in some ways it makes us
superior. We can't lift heavy objects, but
we bring life.
In today's world we have the choice NOT to
reproduce, and that's fine. It doesn't
make you any more or less of a woman if
you give birth. However, it's YOUR
responsibility to protect your body from
becoming impregnated because you know that
your body will do what it can to grow that
egg into a baby if given a chance, because
that's what it's designed to do. Killing a
viable fetus right before it is due is
disrespectful to nature, too. You're
saying "I don't care about my body, or
life, or nature".
"Women shouldn't be punished for their
bodies!" - As any child learns, it is
better to fix a problem when it occurs
than to wait and procrastinate. As any
child knows, what may not be a major
problem now may result in punishment if
she does not deal with it right away. If a
poo-poo ends up on the floor and she tells
right away fine; it gets cleaned up, no
harm done. If she hides it in the closet
and it stinks up for nine months... well,
then she will be punished. You shouldn't
hide things; you should deal with them
right away.
I've had to re-learn this lesson as an
adult, too. A lot of my problems last
spring could have been resolved in a much
better way if I'd confronted them, but I
didn't, and even today I am still paying
the price - literally, in some cases.
So no, you cannot get off scott-free and
kill your offspring for the entire 9
months. Pregnancy is a development, and if
you let the problem develop, you're going
to have to deal with far more dire
consequences in the end.
I'm not saying you have to give birth
vaginally, or that you have to keep the
child. For God's sake, you want to KILL
it!!! Like HELL I'm letting you keep it.
"Waaah, I don't want to be cut open!"
Well, sorry, too bad so sad. You should
have thought of that before you let
yourself become 7-9 months pregnant.
Don't try to come up with exceptions.
"What if her husband forced her, what if
she's a teen who hid it, etc etc." You
already know I'm fine with exceptions, and
that as long as the woman has a valid
reason, then go for it. But you just can't
get away with slipping in and slipping out
anymore.
You are still yet to convince me, I'm
afraid. You say that foetuses shouldn't be
'punished' for merely existing inside its
hostess's body and living in accordance
with natural reproduction - I will now
question you why you are pro-choice at
all. Why should ten-week old foetuses be
'punished' for something they can't help?
And no, the foetus has not
"earned" the right to life. It is not a
right that is earned. It is given based on certain
criteria, none of which even the late-term
foetus possesses. Why don't we kill
comatose people? Because they do
possess the aforesaid criteria - somatic
independence and discreteness. It really
is, despite how bureaucratic you want to
make it, that simple.
The foetus is only capable of living if it were
born; in the here and now it is still
inside its mother, living a parasitic
existence. Therefore, it is
unconditionally subject to its mother's
personal bodily 'law'. Whether you or I
like it or dislike it, we have no say. We
don't deserve or have a right to.
Yes, it is our responsibility to make sure
we don't get pregnant if we don't want to
be. If this fails, we have a
responsibility not to give birth, and this
is done through abortion. You give nice
arguments for your personal opposition to
late-term abortio, but none are
constructive to hold up your desire to
force every woman to cnform to your
ethics. Unconditionally pro-choice for
all!
