Does an unborn baby have rights or the mother
Baby
Side Score: 9
|
 |
Mother
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
I don't understand why this is a big controversy, the baby should definitely have the rights. The baby can't talk, but the baby has a brain and you should not just be able to kill another human being at your say. The baby is not just a big ball of cells as people will usually refer to because if that was the case then that is what you would be. If your argument is well what if the women was raped, then the baby shouldn't die for it the rapist should. There is no reason we should kill a human being for nothing wrong, not only is it a sin. Side: Baby
1
point
https://lozierinstitute.org/ Of course you are 100% correct. Even Democrats understand that abortion is taking an innocent human life.... THEY DON'T CARE! They are tied to the hip of feminist and pro aborton lobbies. It's all about money and politics. The Left has sold it's soul for sake of their ideology and convienence. These are the people calling themselves compassionate tolerant people. ROFLOL, their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Side: Baby
|
1
point
Your argument is clouded. A human right is by constitution in opposition to a human wrong. It is a woman’s burden, as well as a man’s burden to separate actions of personal nature. Right and Wrong. There are simply a number of medical reasons that a choice must sometimes be made. It is almost impossible for this one choice to be inalienably human right. Whenever two actions that are wrong are presented as a choice, either choice ever made is most certainly wrong. Necessity of choice does not make any wrong a human right. It makes the burden a truth that must be confronted, exonerated if necessary from criminal wrong. Side: Baby
1
point
If you could even grasp your words, but then again you are completely lost. Use your same words when mankind in America decided that Black people had no rights. So using your logic, man has the right to take another's life on his say so? Hitler decided Jews had no rights to life. In your sick Liberal world, we are witnessing man's selfish evil and you sit there justifying it. Pathetic! Side: Baby
1
point
We are not Fetus, while a human right is an acknowledgement made by the idevigaual, a person who makes a claim on what is right, and what is wrong. The United States Constitution was a separation process of human right, and human wrong. It really didn’t need any law to work as separation. Just a path that could be described as right, not good. Right.That is why it was written as law of the land. Its power supreme above all others. Side: Baby
1
point
So once you make a human being another "man" in your words then your argument is wrong. And why should you decide the rights of another human, who says you have the right for something two people made. Just because the women carries the baby why doesn't the father have half the right as the women since the baby is equally half and half. And I am saying a baby not fetus because that's what it is a human being so why do you have the right to terminate another life. Just cause you made it just because your the "creator". The baby will grow up and have a mind of its own and it could live a healthy life but instead someone who isn't ready to have kids or someone that didn't use protection will kill this baby out of the inconvenience of themselves. But excuse me if you think you have the right to terminate another HUMAN BEING!!! Side: Baby
Whatever I write is going to automatically offend the pro-lifers on this site, yet I'm going to try to write this with a fairness and open honesty regardless... Although I am a prochoice US citizen I will abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. If at some point it flips to make abortion illegal then I may criticize but I will abide by it. Also, as I have said many times, my wife and I chose to have our kids and we will not at any time be choosing to abort. Yet we still support the right of the mother to make that choice. So now then, why does the mother's right outweigh?... 1) Many many pregnancies will fail naturally. Growing life is complicated and there are lots of ways it goes wrong. Which is why most families keep quiet about their pregnancy until they clear at least the 1st trimester, because it's so incredible painfiul and awkward to come out about it and then lose the baby. With that said, the moment society declares there is a legal right to that baby to exist it also forces the question of whether medical intervention should be required to save or help that baby failing naturally. Whether it be vitamins, drugs, surgery, whatever, the mother who did not cooperate with trying to save what should naturally be a failed pregnancy anyway would be liable for prosecution under the law. That's what you get when you declare a legal right manifests in a cluster of cells which may or may not make it anyway. 2) The mother having the right to choose is a direct result of modern laws having to counterbalance the male dominated societies which for almost all of history have been the perpetrators of rape, abuse, neglect, and oppression. The economic and social freedom which abortion allows for a woman through abortion is unparalleled compared to the rest of history. In essence, taking that right away and saying it rests in the hands of the baby and/or society making the rule is resubjugating women. 3) The baby already has some degree of reasonable rights, meaning if a mother exhibits negligent behavior which causes biological harm to the baby's develpment she may be liable. But per the Supreme Court, ending the life of the baby while still in the mother is not a liability to the mother. And the ludicrous assertion by some on this site that no-limit abortions are a significant problem and fully advocated by those who are pro choice are utter nonsense. Those cases are extremely rare, and in those handful of states where they are not expressly forbidden it's a matter of the state making it's own choice as well as the reality that those abortions just aren't happening anyway so a law was never necessary. Side: Mother
1
point
The Supreme Court has not passed a ruling to make abortion legal. The Supreme Court has simply not been allowed to listened to an appeal of a criminal charge presented by the Court system concerning criminal abortion. Remember the structure of the judicial system does not account for a public reluctance in prosecuting people endeared by public opinion. The United States Constitution has been structure to move taxation to public spending. Not impartial separation of possible criminal conduct by groups of people.
The United States Constitutional argument, or criminal separation made by constitutional separation and not law outlines a accusation describing the term abortion as confession to murder, not murder, therefore judicial separation to protect the public from self-incrimination should have taken place, in part to protect, in part to protect the voters from becoming connected to the many millions of murder confessions. This is because the public is told directly of a murder having, or will be taking place by a publicly made confession. Abort means to stop or pause and the word abortion is used in place of the word termination. The basic principle in understanding is still the same, abortion is knowing something being stopped has started, or there would be no reason for any abort, or termination to take place. Period. Some-one defending the United States Constitution would go on to point out by stating that Gender Specific Amputation makes no legal attempt to direct the public into the crime of murder. This term is in fact meant to present an impartial meaning to voters and the general public for their own protection. Side: Baby
"Also, as I have said many times, my wife and I chose to have our kids and we will not at any time be choosing to abort." Good for you Boy from Boston but your hypocrisy is so noted. There is one thing that stands out here that is you are pro life by your own words but one is evil if they oppose abortion. I enjoy watching you Leftist trying to figure out where you stand from day to day. Side: Baby
1
point
Again, as always, you exhibit an unusual and incomprehensible understanding of the English language. You are so focused on a radical agenda you see things that aren't there. I have heard that, due to recent budget cuts by the government they will start rounding up the mentally ill to save money. I almost cried when I thought of you; Run, my crazy friend, run! ;-) Side: Baby
|
