CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I believe abortion is killing an innocent human being. If we kill them then that doesn't give them a chance to even live or become something. I believe if the parents have no hope, then put up the child for adoption.
This is what pro abortion supporters do to deceive the public & hide the inhumanity of their policies.
1) Steer the abortion conversation to life of mother & rape pregnancies, to Zygotes & first trimester abortions, all to deflect what they really support which is No Restriction abortions of all babies, even viable babies for any reason up to birth. This is the first thing pro choice people do. The GOP has allowed extreme case exceptions since abortion was legalized yet we still hear every day about these extreme rare cases. Lie, deceive, exaggerate, etc. all to condition the electorate to think the GOP wil deny these extreme case abortions.(by the way, rape pregnancies can be prevented within a day or two with a doctor visit)
2) They talk about the medical name of an unborn Baby..... Fetus. By using the name Fetus, they somehow believe it changes the status of the life growing inside the mother. Somehow in their thinking, a Baby that has not yet traveled through the birth canal is somehow different than it is after it is has moved down that canal. WOW, TALK ABOUT DENIAL!
3) They talk about the supposed hard life these unwanted children will have if allowed to live. So in all their God like powers, they know the future of every Baby aborted? How many great people have come from poverty or foster homes, etc.? To be so arrogant to allow the deaths of innocent life because of some perceived hard life is beyond diabolical.
4) Pro choice people like to say they do not personally believe in abortion, but would afford other's the choice to end the lives of their unborn Babies. Gee, how nice of them. I always wonder how a person who personally believes that aborting his own Baby is wrong because it is ending a human life, can support allowing other babies to die. HYPOCRITE PHONEY!
5) After all the scare tactics and deceptions, their next step is to lie and say they do not support late term abortions for any reason. They refuse to accept accountability for supporting all late term abortions of even viable babies every time they vote for Democrats who support it.
6) The Democrat Party and the Left even supports killing viable special needs babies, for any reason up to birth, for merely being different from them. That's like the Nazi mentality where we only want blond haired blue eyed people being born in Germany. In all their arrogance, they will deem who is deservng of life. Where is all their talk about diversity, inclusiveness, compassion? I guess these special olympic children actully mean nothing to them. Their lives are disposable.
7) Pro abortion people love to say that we can not tell a woman what she can do with her body. WERE NOT TRYING TO! WE ARE TELLING HER WHAT SHE CAN'T TO DO THE OTHER BODY INSIDE OF HER. There are two bodies involved after getting pregnant.
I am not here trying to judge any woman who has had an abortion. I'm trying to bring humanity back to our nation by protecting our most innocent vulnerable lives.
Do you believe that a mother should be required by law to utilize her body to care for and protect her baby after it is born? Do you believe in laws against neglect?
I know those laws exist, that’s not the question. I asked if you believe in such rights because they take choice away from the mother. She cannot choose to neglect her new born baby who just yesterday was in her womb. Once the baby is born, the law puts all kinds of constraints on the mother. She is required to do things (with her body) for the child. Your agreement with these laws represents an inconsistency in thought.
To answer your question, yes I do agree with laws that protect rights. As for the second part of your question, some things are called rights that shouldn’t be. Just because a government calls it a right doesn’t make it so. Do you agree with the protected rights of Saudi men to beat their wives? If not, then you too only believe in the rights you find acceptable.
I realise it wasn't the question but to me it was obvious that it was a given
I asked if you believe in such rights because they take choice away from the mother.
Very strange indeed so in your opinion choice to neglect a baby is the right you assume I wish to protect?
She cannot choose to neglect her new born baby who just yesterday was in her womb. Once the baby is born, the law puts all kinds of constraints on the mother. She is required to do things (with her body) for the child. Your agreement with these laws represents an inconsistency in thought.
No it doesn’t , using your logic then are you saying the unborns should be given rights that supercede a woman’s rights?
To answer your question, yes I do agree with laws that protect rights. As for the second part of your question, some things are called rights that shouldn’t be.
Yes as in the right to bear arms which I disagree with yet you agree with , I think they shouldn’t be you think otherwise , isn’t that always the way?
Just because a government calls it a right doesn’t make it so. Do you agree with the protected rights of Saudi men to beat their wives?
I don’t , but Saudi men do , to you and I what appears abhorrent in another culture seems to them entirely fair and rational and the latter also applies
If not, then you too only believe in the rights you find acceptable.
in your opinion choice to neglect a baby is the right you assume I wish to protect?
I don’t believe you wish to protect this behavior, but it is inconsistent of you.
Jace is probably the most consistent debater here. He is pro-choice. He also believes a mother should have the right to “un-mother” herself by killing the child up to a given age. This is because he understands there is no real difference between a baby in a womb and the same baby outside the womb the next day. The baby is the same.
are you saying the unborns should be given rights that supercede a woman’s rights?
No more than a child’s rights supersede the rights of their parents.
to you and I what appears abhorrent in another culture seems to them entirely fair and rational
I don’t believe you wish to protect this behavior, but it is inconsistent of you.
How so?
Jace is probably the most consistent debater here. He is pro-choice. He also believes a mother should have the right to “un-mother” herself by killing the child up to a given age. This is because he understands there is no real difference between a baby in a womb and the same baby outside the womb the next day. The baby is the same.
But I never claimed there was a difference between a baby itself inside or outside the womb, the inconsistency of Jaces argument is that the mother has brought the child into the world by choice she was allowed to make freely so therefore the child is now entitled to the privileges and freedoms granted us all as a valid member of the human race
Jace is I agree a most consistent debater and always a pleasure to debate with
No more than a child’s rights supersede the rights of their parents.
A fetus is where it is by permission of the woman why do you not think she should be allowed to withdraw this permission at her will?
Not all cultures are equal.
I agree , but surely those cultures say the same about us?
You believe that a woman’s rights over her own body should allow her to act in a manner which will cause the death of her child, so long as the child is within her womb. You do not believe that a woman’s rights over her own body should allow her to act in a manner which will cause the death of her child, so long as the child is outside of her womb. I say that this is inconsistent because little changes concerning the child and mother with a mere change of location relative to each other.
the mother has brought the child into the world by choice she was allowed to make freely so therefore the child is now entitled to the privileges and freedoms granted us all as a valid member of the human race
The womb is not other-worldly. The child in the womb is in this world. In most cases, the child in a womb was brought into the world with the mothers consent when she copulated.
A fetus is where it is by permission of the woman why do you not think she should be allowed to withdraw this permission at her will?
I assume you meant to ask why I believe she should not. As you stated earlier, “the mother has brought the child into the world by choice”. So the question is why do you believe a woman cannot change her mind? Why must she be forced to act in a manner conducive to the child’s life in one instance, but not the other?
I agree , but surely those cultures say the same about us?
How does one measure equality?
A fair question, but quite a bit off topic from the issue at hand. Perhaps a separate debate for the question?
You believe that a woman’s rights over her own body should allow her to act in a manner which will cause the death of her child, so long as the child is within her womb.
Yes I do ,a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body,therefore a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus
You do not believe that a woman’s rights over her own body should allow her to act in a manner which will cause the death of her child, so long as the child is outside of her womb.
Yes
Isay that this is inconsistent because little changes concerning the child and mother with a mere change of location relative to each other.
I disagree , a lot changes as a woman who has decided to give birth has done so in the majority of cases willingly , Jace brings up additional scenarios which is always the case in these type of debates by citing extreme and bizarre examples as they have little or no relevance to everyday life
The womb is not other-worldly. The child in the womb is in this world. In most cases, the child in a womb was brought into the world with the mothers consent when she copulated.
You seem to assume that giving birth is the "responsible" choice in the event of a pregnancy, but that's just your opinion.
How do you reach that conclusion?
I assume you meant to ask why I believe she should not.
Yes , thanks
you stated earlier, “the mother has brought the child into the world by choice”. So the question is why do you believe a woman cannot change her mind?
But of course a woman can change her mind
Why must she be forced to act in a manner conducive to the child’s life in one instance, but not the other?
But who’s forcing her?
A fair question, but quite a bit off topic from the issue at hand. Perhaps a separate debate for the question?
Yes I agree it’s off topic but one that interests me greatly as I’m sure it does you .
I would have no problem posting it up except for the appalling place C D has turned into in the last couple of months , non stop political point scoring debates and one guy bringing the site to total ruin .
I’ve been in contact with Andy and he’s promised me the clean up I’ve asked for , I’ve agreed to moderate for him along with proposed others who I think would do so fairly your name was included on the list , I hope he may finally gives the thumbs up and allow moderation
I mostly now debate elsewhere it’s a great pity I miss the old days on here
If you scroll up, you’ll see that I’m not taking a pro-life position. Rather, I am pointing out the flaws in certain pro-choice positions, such as yours. Jace gets around these flaws through consistency and moral nihilism. While I’m not willing to state the specifics of his position on his behalf, I can say that he need and does not rely on extreme or uncommon examples to support his extremely uncommon position.
You said that a woman can change her mind about motherhood, but in most cases her parental responsibility places legal requirements on her which significantly limit her freedom to do so. Requirements you earlier stated you agreed with.
In most cases a woman freely chooses to give birth. But this is not unlike the pregnancy itself, which most often occurs via the mothers free choice. So I am still left asking what it is about the child or the mother that justifies the killing of the child the day before it’s birth, but not the day after.
If you scroll up, you’ll see that I’m not taking a pro-life position. Rather, I am pointing out the flaws in certain pro-choice positions, such as yours.
But isn’t this always the case in this debate it divides entire countries, I used to be one of those people that also seen like you the supposed flaws but have over the years changed my mind as the convincer for me was what gives me the right to tell a pregnant woman she cannot abort is she so wishes
?
A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right if not why not?
Have a look at this societal turnabout in just 40 years in my country which was once ruled and dominated by The Catholic Church .....
Irish Times
The emphatic decision of the Irish people to remove the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution is perhaps the most remarkable referendum result since Independence. No single moment better captures the quiet but rapid revolution in social attitudes that has taken place in less than 40 years – one that has turned a closed, conservative Catholic country into one of Europe’s most liberal, outward-looking states.
With powerful symmetry, the result turned the 1983 referendum on its head. That year, 66.9 per cent of voters approved inserting the Eighth Amendment, which affirmed an equal right to life of mother and unborn, into the Constitution. On Friday, 66.4 per cent chose to take it out. The past 35 years have tested those who believe the Constitution is a living document. Today, with the removal of an amendment that this newspaper has long argued should never have been there in the first place, the connection between Bunreacht na hÉireann and the people is renewed.
Jace gets around these flaws through consistency and moral nihilism. While I’m not willing to state the specifics of his position on his behalf, I can say that he need and does not rely on extreme or uncommon examples to support his extremely uncommon position.
I find my position to be perfectly reasonable how is my example extreme as I stated the difference as in a pregnant woman is allowing a fetus to reside in her by permission she may withdraw this permission at any minute ,by allowing the child to be born she has ruled out the possibility of an abortion willingly.
Jaces position actually made me smile as always comes up with very thought provoking scenarios but to me it’s one of those bizarre situations that are fun to muse over but have no life relevance , out of interest did you argue the points with him or agree with his position?
You said that a woman can change her mind about motherhood, but in most cases her parental responsibility places legal requirements on her which significantly limit her freedom to do so.
Please explain further as in parental responsibility and legal requirements?
Requirements you earlier stated you agreed with.
Do you mean the legal status between the born and unborn?
In most cases a woman freely chooses to give birth. But this is not unlike the pregnancy itself, which most often occurs via the mothers free choice. So I am still left asking what it is about the child or the mother that justifies the killing of the child the day before it’s birth, but not the day after.*g
Well to be honest I don’t know of any women who have done it a day before birth and I would have to individually ask such women why wait till a day before ?
A day after I’ve said is because the woman has agreed to bring the child into the world which is after all her decision to make.
Incidentally I my position has always been for a woman to have a right to choose as I see anything else as a denial of her right to bodily autonomy
I wasn’t saying your examples are extreme, I was saying that Jace’s examples were not extreme as you had suggested.
Well to be honest I don’t know of any women who have done it a day before birth and I would have to individually ask such women why wait till a day before ?
A day after I’ve said is because the woman has agreed to bring the child into the world which is after all her decision to make.
I don’t know why you would need to question a woman’s decision just because it’s later than other women’s. The principle is the same.
Incidentally I my position has always been for a woman to have a right to choose as I see anything else as a denial of her right to bodily autonomy
People do not have the right to do everything they want with their body, as you have agreed. A mother can not legally use her body to strangle her child, even though it’s her child that she no longer wants. She doesn’t have the right to hire someone to strangle her child either.
A womb is in this world, as is it’s contents. An unborn baby has already been brought into this world. Arguing that the location of the child makes the difference is like arguing that you have the right to choke me out simply because I happen to be in your headlock.
I wasn’t saying your examples are extreme, I was saying that Jace’s examples were not extreme as you had suggested.
Again isn’t that just a matter of opinion?
I don’t know why you would need to question a woman’s decision just because it’s later than other women’s. The principle is the same.
But I have no need or desire to question the why’s but you asked a specific question regarding a day before as if I somehow would know the why’s of it
People do not have the right to do everything they want with their body, as you have agreed.
Correct , but they have the right to abort certainly in my country and most others is this not the case in the U S?
It was put to vote in my country and the results were decisive , so you’re saying you disagree with certain rights because of your moral objections?
A mother can not legally use her body to strangle her child, even though it’s her child that she no longer wants. She doesn’t have the right to hire someone to strangle her child either.
Agreed
A womb is in this world, as is it’s contents. An unborn baby has already been brought into this world. Arguing that the location of the child makes the difference is like arguing that you have the right to choke me out simply because I happen to be in your headlock.
I will give you a better analogy a guest resides in your house by permission you are feeding , clothing and giving shelter to this guest , using your reasoning you have not the right to eject this guest when you wish , why is that?
You put the alleged rights of the unborn over the woman, if the woman does not want the child why should the unborn child be given greater consideration?
You continue to think I’m making a pro-life argument. I am not. I am saying that the reasoning of your pro-choice position logically extends beyond the womb.
You are feeding, clothing, and caring for the person in your home. But you decide to kick them out. Fine. But why then should you be required by law to continue to feed, cloth, and care for that person after they move out of your home by their own accord?
I’m honestly not sure of your position in the whole debate but it’s not important as I’m trying to explain why I think the way I think about it .
You are using my analogy to ask why? But in the case of a person in your home you have no duty under law to care for them and why should you?
A child you bring into the world you have done so out of choice otherwise you would abort , so why wouldn’t you be required to care for them if it’s what you wished for and desired?
If a woman decides to give birth she has done so out of free choice and likewise if she decides to abort , if she gives birth do you not think she has a moral right and duty to care for the child she willingly gave birth to?
Prior to abortion the fetus is their by permission which may be withdrawn by her at will or not
I don’t know if I can ask it another way. Prior to birth, the woman has the right to change her mind. After the birth the woman does not have the right to change her mind. Why don’t you support the woman’s right to change her mind after the birth? Because she choose to give birth? So what? It’s her body and her life and her right to change her mind and stop caring for her infant whenever she wants.
I don’t know if I can ask it another way. Prior to birth, the woman has the right to change her mind.
Yes
After the birth the woman does not have the right to change her mind.
Yes
Why don’t you support the woman’s right to change her mind after the birth?
Who says she has this right or should have ? I certainly don’t .
I’ve already stated several times if she gives birth it because nearly every person does so because they want , wish and desire to do so , anyone who wishes to end a child’s life after deciding to bring it into the world is mentally unbalanced to say the least
Because she choose to give birth? So what?
Yes , because she choose
It’s her body and her life and her right to change her mind and stop caring for her infant whenever she wants.
I never said whenever she wants I explained several times the decision is hers and hers alone when the fetus resides in her body by permission , after that permission has been granted and she still wants to kill her child so be it , but she can expect to face the full consequences of such actions
When I challenge your position with the question “why?”, you only repeat your position. I ask why you don’t support a mothers right to stop being a mother and you simply answer “she doesn’t have that right”. But sure if she was legally barred from abortion you would still claim that she has that right. So why? She choose to get pregnant. She chose to give birth. Why is it not her right to change her mind whenever she wants? What gives you the right to make her into anslave to her new born baby?
When I challenge your position with the question “why?”, you only repeat your position.
I actually don’t , that’s not true at all as I stated the why in my last answer as in ....
I’ve already stated several times if she gives birth it because nearly every person does so because they want , wish and desires to do so , anyone who wishes to end a child’s life after deciding to bring it into the world is mentally unbalanced to say the least
That’s what I said in my last post
I ask why you don’t support a mothers right to stop being a mother and you simply answer “she doesn’t have that right”.
No again that’s not true as I’ve stated repeatedly my position as in above, a "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right?
But sure if she was legally barred from abortion you would still claim that she has that right
That’s also incorrect, I would claim she should have that right , it’s interesting as she is not legally bound but you would claim she doesn’t have that right
So why? She choose to get pregnant. She chose to give birth. Why is it not her right to change her mind whenever she wants?
Because she is making the choice to abort when the baby is in the womb , no one but the owner of a womb should be able to make a decision about whether or not it should be used to carry a child
Once outside the womb the child had been granted life as a separate entity to the mother by choice , why should she be allowed to end the life after willingly agreeing to bring it into the world?
A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life
What gives you the right to make her into anslave to her new born baby?
Enslave her new born , that statement makes no sense to me
You previously stated but never replied to my answers below to your questions,
The womb is not other-worldly. The child in the womb is in this world. In most cases, the child in a womb was brought into the world with the mothers consent when she copulated.
You seem to assume that giving birth is the "responsible" choice in the event of a pregnancy, but that's just your opinion.
How do you reach that conclusion?
Why must she be forced to act in a manner conducive to the child’s life in one instance, but not the other?
anyone who wishes to end a child’s life after deciding to bring it into the world is mentally unbalanced to say the least
That's not fair. You are claiming that a woman who wishes only to exercise her right to change her mind is mentally unbalanced. It is her body, and her life. She can stop being a slave to a child any time she wishes. She can't legally do this, but it is her moral right. Just as it is her moral right to change her mind at any point prior to birth. The only difference is what the law allows.
No again that’s not true as I’ve stated repeatedly my position as in above, a "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body
Making a woman use her body to do what is necessary to cloth, feed, and shelter a baby imposes on her body. It is an imposition just as surely as forcing slaves to pick cotton is an imposition on their bodies.
That’s also incorrect, I would claim she should have that right
This means the law does not determine for you what you believe should be a right. The bars a woman from reversing her motherhood of a 1 year old, why do you believe she should not have this right? Rather, why do you believe that the choice to procreate leaves the right to kill a child but the choice to birth does not?
Because she is making the choice to abort when the baby is in the womb , no one but the owner of a womb should be able to make a decision about whether or not it should be used to carry a child
Does the woman not own her hands and feet while you require her to use those to feed and cloth the newborn?
Once outside the womb the child had been granted life as a separate entity to the mother by choice
And you want to take away her choice at that very moment.
why should she be allowed to end the life after willingly agreeing to bring it into the world?
Because she has the right to end the little human life while it is in this world in her womb only a day (or month) before. She has this right to not be a mother. You want to take away this right from her just because the child is not located in her womb. As a man, you cannot begin to understand what it means to be a mother. She should have the right to change her mind.
A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life
But that is exactly what the law requires. She must be enslaved to the wellbeing of that child under penalty of the law. And You support this slavery.
Since I misspelled it earlier, I will ask the question again: What gives you the right to make her into a slave to her new born baby? She is forced to act in a manner conducive to the child's life. And who is forcing her? The law, with all it's penalties. And YOU support those slave laws.
That's not fair. You are claiming that a woman who wishes only to exercise her right to change her mind is mentally unbalanced. It is her body, and her life. She can stop being a slave to a child any time she wishes.
It’s perfectly fair and sensible , no I’m saying that a woman who wants to murder a child she’s willingly brought into the world is mentally unbalanced
She can't legally do this, but it is her moral right.
I hold myself to a higher moral standard , and how is it a “ right “?
Just as it is her moral right to change her mind at any point prior to birth. The only difference is what the law allows.
Why do you think we have laws and legislate for laws?
In my country we had a referendum and the matter was debated nationwide and put to the vote we agree these things by common consensus
Making a woman use her body to do what is necessary to cloth, feed, and shelter a baby imposes on her body. It is an imposition just as surely as forcing slaves to pick cotton is an imposition on their bodies.
Who is “making her “? Oddly enough you’re the one who thinks abortion is wrong and you would “make her “ have the baby wouldn’t you ? Yet you accuse me of the very thing you want to enforce
You believe you have the “right “ to force your will on another as a "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body
This means the law does not determine for you what you believe should be a right.
Fairness determines for me what should and should not be a law but in most cases the law works just fine at backing up most positions I hold
The bars a woman from reversing her motherhood of a 1 year old, why do you believe she should not have this right?
I think I’ve answered this question exhaustively at this stage
Rather, why do you believe that the choice to procreate leaves the right to kill a child but the choice to birth does not?
Because she is making the choice to abort when the baby is in the womb , no one but the owner of a womb should be able to make a decision about whether or not it should be used to carry a child
Does the woman not own her hands and feet while you require her to use those to feed and cloth the newborn?
Once outside the womb the child had been granted life as a separate entity to the mother by choice
And you want to take away her choice at that very moment.
why should she be allowed to end the life after willingly agreeing to bring it into the world?
Because she has the right to end the little human life while it is in this world in her womb only a day (or month) before.
Yes , it’s her womb it’s their by permission which may be withdrawn
She has this right to not be a mother.
Yes
You want to take away this right from her just because the child is not located in her womb.
The only person who’s saying it’s a right is you , your whole argument is saying what’s a right ought not to be and what’s not a right ought to be
As a man, you cannot begin to understand what it means to be a mother. She should have the right to change her mind.
Your assessment of how collective motherhood may be thinking is amusing and again I would guess is at complete odds with how pregnant mothers worldwide think , going on your reasoning mothers worldwide are possibly contemplating ending the lives of their newborn after of course happily( mostly ) agreeing to bringing them into the world and for some strange reason may think they are being denied one of these non existent ”rights “
A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life
But that is exactly what the law requires.
But the majority of women have children out of choice and thus agree by doing so to nurture , and care for that child the law is correct in requiring this as it’s an agreed by implication
She must be enslaved to the wellbeing of that child under penalty of the law. And You support this slavery.
I would warrant a guess that you do not call mothers in your family circle enslaved to their children and if so it’s something most willingly do and long for
Since I misspelled it earlier, I will ask the question again: What gives you the right to make her into a slave to her new born baby? She is forced to act in a manner conducive to the child's life. And who is forcing her? The law, with all it's penalties. And YOU support those slave laws.
Forgive me but that cracked me up and again there’s that word “forcing “ and “ slave laws” this sounds like a Germaine Greer type spiel and while it’s amusing it makes little or no sense
I think I’ve answered this question exhaustively at this stage
Right. You said it’s because she chose to bring the child into this world. But the child is already in this world before birth, merely in a different location. You believe the child’s location determines a mothers right to change her mind.
Once outside the womb the child had been granted life as a separate entity to the mother by choice
A child in the womb is as much a separate entity as a child in the arms.
why should she be allowed to end the life after willingly agreeing to bring it into the world?
Because of her right to choose what to do with her body.
The only person who’s saying it’s a right is you , your whole argument is saying what’s a right ought not to be and what’s not a right ought to be
My argument isn’t for consistency. If a mother has the right to choose not to be a mother, then that right doesn’t go away due to a mere change of location. If she does not have the right to un-mother herself and choose to walk away, then she doesn’t have this right.
going on your reasoning mothers worldwide are possibly contemplating ending the lives of their newborn
Most women don’t want to un-mother at all, regardless of the location of their kid. But some do regardless of the location. But it’s the location that determines if they legally can.
It’s perfectly fair and sensible , no I’m saying that a woman who wants to murder a child she’s willingly brought into the world is mentally unbalanced
She can't legally do this, but it is her moral right.
How is it her “moral right “ you never explained this?
Just as it is her moral right to change her mind at any point prior to birth. The only difference is what the law allows.
That’s why we have laws isn’t it?
Who is “making her “?
The laws you support
No one is “making her “ bring up and care for a child the law states she’s required to do as by having the child one would assume this is accepted , I’ve already covered this
Right. You said it’s because she chose to bring the child into this world. But the child is already in this world before birth, merely in a different location.
Different location ☺️ that’s a pretty neat way of avoiding the fact it’s in her body by permission she’s entitled to withdraw
You believe the child’s location determines a mothers right to change her mind.
Again I believe it’s the mother’s right whether she lets a baby reside within her or not .
You believe you have the “right “ to force your will on another as a "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body
Once outside the womb the child had been granted life as a separate entity to the mother by choice
A child in the womb is as much a separate entity as a child in the arms.
why should she be allowed to end the life after willingly agreeing to bring it into the world?
I’ve addressed this several times as in a woman’s body a woman’s choice ,anything else is tyranny
The only person who’s saying it’s a right is you , your whole argument is saying what’s a right ought not to be and what’s not a right ought to be
My argument isn’t for consistency.
If a mother has the right to choose not to be a mother, then that right doesn’t go away due to a mere change of location.
Well yes it does actually, certainly where I live
If she does not have the right to un-mother herself and choose to walk away, then she doesn’t have this right.
One is an actual right the other is an imaginary right
going on your reasoning mothers worldwide are possibly contemplating ending the lives of their newborn
Most women don’t want to un-mother at all, regardless of the location of their kid. But some do regardless of the location. But it’s the location that determines if they legally can.
There’s that word again “location” , so do you think we should make laws for extreme cases as they make for very poor law
There are many sides to the story, but abortion should be a choice. Imagine a young woman, who has a boyfriend and they have been unlucky. She doesnt have the materials to give this baby a good life, so the choice here is should the baby be born, but have the worst life, or is abortion okay?
You could be a victim of rape. Regardless, abortion should not be justified unless the mother's health or her baby's is at serious risk (life or death). If someone is debating whether they should abort or not because of opportunities to provide for the unborn child, they could always give the child up for adoption so that someone else can. In the end, abortion requires taking a life, an innocent life, which, in my opinion, goes against God's will.
I really only agree with abortion under certain stipulations. Ultimately I can't look at a woman and demand that she have a child but it's honestly not so easy a choice as people want to think it is. If it's in the first trimester, fine. Second and third however I don't agree with it. Unless there is a medical necessity to remove the child after the second and third trimester, it should stay in the womb. If, however, the woman is determined to have it removed we do have the technology to try to keep it alive so we should try that.
In matters of rape, forcing her to give birth is taking her choice away, yet again, and showing her that even as a victim her choices are second in line to breeding.
