why you making this about me? There's 20 people in this thread. I haven't made an argumentative post since like page 3. If you would like me to share my opinion please directly refer to a topic/point, or ask a question.
Pro Choice or Pro Life?
- Thread starter 7
- Start date
shizangle
Graphics Crew
Does politics really have a place in pawn?
Probably shouldn't.
If you're asking me personally, I don't think babies have rights until they come out of the womb. Infants in development are unseen and have no real connection to the outside world. The mother may have an innate connection to her baby, but if she is the one choosing to rid of the baby then she'll have to solely deal with her feelings, and that's between her and herself. You don't know an unborn child looks like, it's easy to dispose of something you never interacted with.
If you don't want a baby then practice responsible sex.
If you REALLY made a mistake and it is too late, then at least give it up for adoption instead of ending its life.
I agree completely. I am just wondering how far 7's view will go. If it really does go this far, we won't find common ground.
I knew you'd present me with me with some borderline scenario. I think ideally the answer is yes because we are a modern society with great technological advancements and a superb standard of living. But in practicality it's nearly impossible. Doctors take an oath to heal, and aborting a late baby would require either negligence or directly killing the baby. This goes against what doctors are for so it's not really acceptable. But yes, I think up until birth babies could be aborted.
obviously a baby would die if no one took care of it. my point is in the first and second trimesters, a fetus must be in the mother. I don't think it should be anyone's decision except the mother as to whether or not the fetus is aborted. no one should ever have the right to tell someone else how to treat their own body.
most abortions are either suction from the uterus or chemical abortions, idk where this hook thing is coming from
the closest i can think of is a cesarean but thats late term
it. I got bored.
I have a serious question for some of you. I've been reading a baby book that someone gave me (My wife and I are having a baby), and it says that 24 weeks is a huge step for viability. Over half the babies born at 24 weeks will survive outside the womb. As worried parents-to-be I remember my wife and I looking up the earliest that babies can survive outside the womb and there have been multiple cases of babies born during the 21st week and surviving. So this begs the question, when is a baby viable? If we bestow value and rights upon a viable baby, how do we decide which babies are viable at 21 weeks and which babies are not? I think when dealing with human life it's only right to air on the side of caution.
Also, if someone does not support giving rights to a viable baby I pose a question for you. Imagine your wife or girlfriend is 36 weeks pregnant, you guys are having a daughter and her name is picked out, you have a nursery set up, and you just can't wait for her to be here. Then one night your wife is violently attacked and she loses the baby. I don't know how anyone else would feel but my wife is 27 weeks pregnant and a situation like that would feel like the world just crashed down on us. Would you not want her attacker to be charged and punished for homicide? Or would you be satisfied with only an assault charge and feel that justice had been served? It might be hard to really know until you and the love of your life are pregnant but I'm curious about everyone's thoughts.
Also, if someone does not support giving rights to a viable baby I pose a question for you. Imagine your wife or girlfriend is 36 weeks pregnant, you guys are having a daughter and her name is picked out, you have a nursery set up, and you just can't wait for her to be here. Then one night your wife is violently attacked and she loses the baby. I don't know how anyone else would feel but my wife is 27 weeks pregnant and a situation like that would feel like the world just crashed down on us. Would you not want her attacker to be charged and punished for homicide? Or would you be satisfied with only an assault charge and feel that justice had been served? It might be hard to really know until you and the love of your life are pregnant but I'm curious about everyone's thoughts.
Last edited:
yea that is the thing, isnt it. flip it around and ask if you would feel the same way about a homicide charge if it was regarding a 1 week old zygote instead of 36 week fetus. i know id feel much more strongly if it was 36 weeks old vs 1 week old, despite that fact that theyre just two different stages of the exact same thing. however by calling both cases murder would mean that we are granting a singular cell the exact same rights as an actual human, which just honestly doesnt seem to make sense either
Last edited:
Most people here forgot to mention if they are against all forms of abortions (doesn't matter how old the unborn child is) or if certain exceptions are fine. Same goes for pro-choice-advocators (I really doubt most pro-choice-guys here would be fine with late-term-abortions unless absolutely necessary).
For instance: I'm pro-choice, but only to an extent: 12 weeks or something like that. It'd be enough time to inform yourself about abortion.
A good question: At what point are cells humans? When is a lump of cells a human baby?
i mean to be completely honest i dont think an unborn child should have "rights" to begin with but thats just me
if we're talking about viability, a premature birth that does not result in any physical or mental complications later in life is what i would describe viability as
imo? after birth
Interesting, with that definition I suppose viability can be as early as 21 weeks in some cases.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...tensrud-born-21-weeks-one-pound-look-now.html
cool, i still dont think a fetus should be given rights. government should have no control over people's bodies
Hypothetically if a doctor performed an abortion on a woman without her knowing or against her will, do you think he should be criminally prosecuted for anything? Or just lose his license and be sued for malpractice?
i don't know the laws on surgeries done unbeknownst to the patient, but prosecution is up to the patient. the patient would have to charge the doctor with (insert charge here)
so the question here in my eyes is were the patient's rights violated, and in which case yes.
Without doing any research I’m pretty sure in many states she would be able to charge him/her with manslaugter. But you don’t find that fair for the doctor in your opinion?