Unless you're suggesting that women give themselves abortions with coat hangers, providing abortions costs money that could be put towards helping the children instead of killing them.
In what way are foster homes "nonsensical things that people don't fucking want"? I would think most children would want foster homes above abortions.
An embryo or fetus would rather become a child in a foster home than be aborted.
That's a good point, they shouldn't imply it, they should directly state it because it's true.
Yes, some women would have illegal abortions. They would be known as murderers and be given the death penalty or life in prison. I don't really care if a murderer or attempted murderer hurts herself in the process.
I think that probably simply needing to contact the father and having both parents give their cases before a judge if they conflict is a good idea if that is what you mean. It is possible that there can be a side to the conflict that is legitimately correct so I think that this is a better idea than my previous one. I still think no abortion should be the default position if the conflict cannot be resolved by a judge though.
I have always been confused as to why people defend murderers so much like that. If you consider abortion to be murder (or in my case the destruction of very valuable property) then it should follow that making it more risky would be the best thing for the government to do in order to create a disincentive/punishment for the crime in addition to a judicial punishment should it be discovered
That can't be used in an argument for legalizing abortion because the child will be dead anyways if abortion is legalized
Embryos don't have opinions because they're not thinking things.
Sir, I'm sorry to say, but you have a terminal case of autism.
It is still fundamentally a human being, albeit in its developing stage. Denial of this fact is a polite fiction created by the pro-abortion activists in an attempt to eliminate the moral issues from the equation.
Actually, I think I might want to take this back. At any other time when you're forced to choose who lives and who dies you'd choose the person with the greatest potential in their future. In this case, if the child or fetus or whatever you want to call it is viable, then perhaps its life should be prioritized since it has a better potential future ahead of it.
I would call a living thing with human DNA that will soon have organs and a brain and consciousness a human.
I know, that's why I instinctively said the mother's life should be placed first but now that I think about it I'm not sure I actually agree with that.
It has its own genetic code, its own metabolism, and developing organ systems including a nervous system once the neural crest forms.
If that were the case then I wouldn't be here arguing about this. Read some Aristotle if you want to know how morality can exist outside of religion.
You do realize that there is something called the social contract where people reciprocally agree to take obligations upon themselves towards each other for mutual benefit. A woman who wants an abortion that badly could decide to go out into the wilderness and do whatever she wants but she will have to renounce all the things that she gains from the social contract. Most people wouldn't do this because they value what they gain from being a member of civil society a lot but it doesn't make it involuntary or coercive
I think that abortion is a property crime against the father because joint property is destroyed without his consent. That being said I think that in many (but far from the majority of) scenarios the mother's rational decision would be to give up her life for the child
We don't need to talk to embryos in order to know that they desire life. That is effectively the fundamental driving characteristic of all living things that is so basic that only a neo lysenkoist would deny it
