No, nothing like that
Here's the post
The main difference is that there's physically no way for me to be a burden on them and purely them. The burden can be passed to someone willing to carry it. Or I could simply be cast away from the person and kicked out of their house. I'd be uncomfortable, but their burden would be nonexistant. Abortion works the same way. It's just the fetus can't SURVIVE outside. And no one CAN take the burden. If they could, I'd be all for allowing that. But they can't, so oh well.
First off, I do not except your description of any child (including those who are unborn) as being a *burden* on their OWN mother ...
But beyond this point, who is responsible for creating the burden? Is there any other circumstance in which you can think of that we are allowed to snuff out the life of anyone who is at our mercy due to conditions that WE created?
IF you accidentally burn down your neighbors home through your own carelessness, do you feel any responsibility your neighbor's well being and care?
And as soon as they come up with a cheap, reliable and effective way of transferring fetuses from one woman to another, I'll concede to the pro-life movement.
Perhaps you would ... or maybe not. However, there ARE those who even under those circumstances would make claims that "the surgery puts them at risk" or "I don't want a child of mine to end up being a victim of abuse by pawning them off on strangers".
There is always an excuse because in most cases the
only reason for abortion is due to the unborn child being an inconvenience for his/her parents.
Not at all. I say that what a woman decides to do with her body is HER CHOICE. That's what the pro-choice movement is all ABOUT, man. You're arguing against "pro-abortion" which is just silly. No one's pro-abortion :angel:
I am very curious as to whether or not you follow this line of logic in other conditions. IF the mother is responsible for what she does with her own body, then common sense says you wouldn't say a word or try to intercede if that same mother was getting ready to jump off a bridge or drink a class of kool-aide laced with cyanide, correct? After a all, it is HER body and by your own logic, she can do whatever she likes with it.
Pregnant and unmarried? Perhaps still in school? or a rape victim? It's a strange society we live in when sexual promiscuity is acceptable, but getting pregnant outside of marriage is not, eh? Weird. But I also see it as being pretty foolish when condoms have a 98% effective rate when properly used. But, I digress. Yes, it's socially traumatizing having a child outside of wedlock.
My only agreement with you on this issue would be that I do NOT agree with the attitude many prolifers have towards unwed mothers. It is counterproductive and foolhardy to believe that stigmatizing a mother for having sex outside of marriage is not the same thing as stigmatizing the unborn child. The comments and attitudes towards these women from some of those who are supposedly pro life is atrocious and counter productive, IMO.
oooh, kinky
And according to my mom, who not only gave birth to me and my brother but is also a doctor and very much on the fence regarding abortion, a birth is still painful even with and epidural. Not as painful, but painful nonetheless. And there's the whole back pain issue from becoming 40 lbs more front-heavy. And the strain on the breasts from lactation. And lack of mobility and the like
Yep, it is VERY painful ... but guess what, so are many other conditions and procedures that we allow ourselves to go through. I find it ironic that woman can whine about stretch marks and the pain of child birth, and yet some of them think nothing of going through plastic surgery. Very painful, but when it comes to vanity, we all know that giving life is not comparable to enhancing an ego through surgical means.
Symbiosis is defined as mutually beneficial. A fetus doesn't enable the woman to do anything that she couldn't before. The fetus relies solely on the woman for nourishment and gives nothing back in return. That's a parasitic nature, dude.
Hey dude, we are ALL parasites, from the beginning of life until the end. Anyone who ends up in a car accident, bleeding to death and has their life depending on that nice firefighter or cop to pull them out of harms way is a parasite.
IF you are in the hospital and require blood, you are a parasite. IF the hospital has plenty your blood type on hand or has the ability to acquire the blood necessary to keep you alive, is it their right to let you die? I mean after all, they are required to use their body and their energy to treat you.
I am curious ... how would you feel if a mother or father with a rare blood type refused to give her BORN child a life-saving blood transfusion?
LEGALLY ... they are entitled to this right, but what about morally?
