The issue is that a nation that claims to be pro-life and puts the fetus on a sacred pedestal,
Not wanting to commit murder is putting the fetus on a pedestal now?
yet ceases to care once said fetus becomes a newborn, is nothing but hypocrisy.
This is just a retarded argument and will never cease to be a retarded argument. Just because I, to use one example, don't care to spend my money feeding the homeless, doesn't mean I want to see all homeless people murdered in the streets. That line of argumentation is never
not retarded.
States that have abortion bans in place are experiencing an exodus of OB/GYNs, creating a maternal healthcare desert. These are the direct consequences of your moral stances.
First, citation needed. Second, correlation doesn't equal causation.
You say that a man shouldn't take care of someone else's child because it isn't his obligation, yet want full responsibility from the woman for getting knocked up.
Where did I say that? I don't believe I've articulated at all that the actual
father of a child should not be fully responsible for it. In fact, I've said the exact opposite, that he alone should in fact be held responsible.
Fathers who seek custody will get it.
We aren't talking about fathers who seek custody. We are talking about a man being stuck with child support for a child who isn't his because he
voluntarily took on the role of father by, say, adopting a child that wasn't his after marrying the mother, only for the mother to leave him after the fact. Two very different situations.
The abortion issue in the US is based on a moral question, and therefore it is a government/state policy question.
Not all government policy questions are moral questions. Abortion is a fundamentally moral question, so one must answer the moral question before they ask the related policy questions.
The people who want smaller government for everything else wants extensive government powers for women's bodies, because you value the sacredness of the fetus.
We just want to stop people from committing murder, which is neither a big government or small government question. The question is whether or not you consider abortion murder. If you do, ergo, you see it as a moral imperative to prevent it, thus the government reaction naturally follows to outlaw it.
And? It shouldn't matter how much it costs.
Uh...we live in the
real world. Cost VERY MUCH MATTERS for most people, unless your rich. And, what do you know? Rich people, like Angelina Jolie, tend to adopt multiple children if they are willing to adopt at all. Because they can afford.
You want those children to be born because abortion is a grave sin; it should not matter how expensive or difficult adoption is.
I'm not sure what your argument even is here; the difficulties of adoption do not have any real effect on the morality of abortion. Whether adoption is difficult or easy, abortion is still murder and therefore wrong.
If you want reform to make sure that all those people demanding that those babies be born become adoptive parents, sure. I'll be there plopping babies in their arms - whether they are financially ready for it or not.
I think you are misunderstanding my point; the actual process of adoption itself, not taking care of the kid, is prohibitively difficult and expensive, and can be a months or even years long process. A lot of people absolutely want to become adoptive parents but simply cannot afford the exorbitant cost or jump through the bureaucratic hoops to do so.
And? Plenty of women you call murderers for having an abortion cannot afford those children.
Financial difficulty has never been a valid excuse for
murder. Period.
They need to take that responsibility because they made the decision to have sex (but the blame is not on the man who impregnated her).
Uh, the man is on the hook for child support and has to take responsibility whether he wants the child or not, even if he wishes to forego other parental rights. Meanwhile, the man gets no say in whether or not the woman wants an abortion.
We shame childfree people all the time, even those women who wholly admit they'd be absolutely God-awful parents.
Shame is
way too strong of a word. We don't shame anybody for anything anymore; not for being a drug addict, gay, a slut, an asshole, a tranny, etc. We accept everybody for who they are now, no matter their life choices. Do people who are unmarried and childless get nagged on to tie the knot? Sure, but nobody's getting shamed for it. They are called strong and independent for living their best life.
There it is. What should they be charged with? Murder or manslaughter?
Murder, obviously. If you are knowingly taking a life, its what you should get.
What charge should this woman get when her baby was born without its
brain attached? She wasn't one of those dirty sluts. She was a good woman who wanted a large family. Now she can't because she's missing a fallopian tube, because Tennessee said there were no medical exceptions and a fetus without its brain attached that had no chance at life should pose a grave risk to its mother because uh, morality, I guess.
I actually believe the Tennessee law should be amended to allow abortion in cases where the fetus has a fatal birth abnormality or defect which would prevent life outside the womb. But, after reading the article, the woman did in fact get an abortion in Chicago. Her health issues didn't start till
after her abortion because said abortion didn't remove all of the fetal tissue. The issue isn't that she couldn't get an abortion in this case, or, at least that wasn't the issue for why she became infertile, which is her primary problem. And here's the thing; Acrania, which is what her fetus had, is not always fatal. Children have been born with it and survived. Her child may have survive the birth. Hell, her kid having acrania may not even be the reason for her potential medical issues; her abortion may have aggravated existing issues, or there could have been already underlining problems with her body. There's a whole lot that could have gone wrong.
How many other medical procedures require a doctor to go in front of a court to argue that what they did was right?
A lot? You know doctors get sued
constantly, right? There's a reason they get medical malpractice insurance. And doctors have been charged with medical malfeasance, malpractice, dereliction of duty, and various other crimes due to screwing up in their field. I'm saying that whether or not an abortion is necessary to save a mother's life or health should be left up to the doctor, and the question of whether or not that was the right decision should be based on reasonable medical principles, his duty to his patient, and should only be litigated if there is a reason for a third party to believe that he was mistaken.
And in the case I mentioned above, that fetus still had a heartbeat. But without a brain attached.
I've already explained my position. We could launch into endless hypotheticals all day, but I've made my position clear.
It is using the woman's body.
It isn't "using" anything. That terminology implies that the fetus is actively doing something. Its not. Its passively surviving on the mother's bodily nutrients. It was the mother who took action to put the fetus there in the first place.
You cannot argue that it is a person legally (but not a citizen) and has rights no one else has (but seemingly loses once born), and that, despite being a person, it cannot be held legally culpable of anything.
That's not, in fact, my argument. A fetus is legally a person and citizen (if their parents are citizens and/or they are born on U.S. soil). I never argued once that a fetus has rights that other humans don't have. A fetus cannot be held legally culpable in the same vein that you can't hold a 1 day old baby culpable of anything. This isn't hard to understand.
It either is a person in the law or it isn't.
This isn't hard. Its a person, and like every other person under the law, it has a right to life.
I'd like to introduce you to
de novo mutations. A wonderful development where, at age 35, men's sperm starts turning sour. Your tism jism starts creating defective babies, and every man reminded of this throws a colossal tantrum because sperm is immortal and never ages and you can have kids at 80 etc etc.
Male fertility does not decrease in the same way female fertility does. While sperm quality decreases somewhat, for most men,
they won't see issues with fertility until around age 60. But even then, men can, and are, fully capable of impregnating a woman well into their 80s and siring healthy children with younger partners, and have done so. There is simply no maximum age of male fertility and a woman simply cannot say the same.
Teenage pregnancies suffer more complications because -surprise surprise - a girl's body isn't yet developed enough to give birth. Our plates don't settle until 18-20. Teenage pregnancy complications include
lower birth weight, higher blood pressure, and, my favourite -
lower IQs.
You are twisting around studies to try to support your point. Teenagers are in fact just capable of having children as older women, because their bodies have already developed the capability of giving birth. One study pointed to potentially low IQs among the children of younger mothers. Another looked at articles to determine some potential, non-fatal issues, like low birth weight (while also pointing out that teens are less likely get C-sections), but this doesn't translate to inability to give birth or that giving birth is fundamentally different. It may not be
safer for the woman or the child, but its still pregnancy, at the end of the day.
Assuming these teens were not raped - mandatory child support from the teenage boy. I don't care how much he cries. You want that baby born? He's gonna pay. I don't care if he's not ready.
As long as we are clear that the mother can't get an abortion either, sure, I agree to those terms.
