the difference is sperm does not have its own unique DNA code as an unborn baby has. I'm still curious as to where the line is drawn as to who gets the basic right. The right to live. The left continues to claim folks have a right to all sorts of things that aren't guaranteed anywhere, except for the basic right of life. Where is the line drawn? And could it possibly be drawn somewhere that isn't just an arbitrary point that supports your argument, instead your argument supporting where the line is drawn?
@grim_truth - I think the right to your own body is just as important as the right to life. While everyone has the right to life in any stage of human development, nobody has the right to tell another person what their body must go through or that a woman must complete a pregnancy. Only the woman with a pregnancy can decide if she continues the pregnancy, no one else gets to demand that she force her body into giving birth. Does this screw the unborn child out of it's right to life? Yes, it does. Is it sad? Yes, it is. Is it murder? Not if the mother chooses to end the pregnancy on her own accord.
Sperm does have it's own unique DNA code. No, two sperm carry all the same genetic material. Sperm carries as much human potential as a zygote that has a good chance of not surviving as miscarriage is pretty common in early pregnancy when most abortions are performed.
@TiredSoVeryTired - If the woman gets to arbitrarily decide to terminate a pregnancy, then you cannot possibly say that the right to life is as important as the right to your own body. At that point, the right to terminate the pregnancy has become more important than the right to live.
Sperm does not carry the same human potential as a zygote, as a sperm, alone, can never become a full fledged human being, whereas a zygote can.
Equating miscarriages to abortion is a false analogy. That would be like two folks playing ball, one hits the baseball, and it happens to hit a pitcher in the head, killing them. That is not murder. However, purposefully throwing the ball at an unsuspecting pitchers head is murder.
By simply stating that it's early, and the child wouldn't survive a miscarriage (nothing survives a miscarriage) is instilling an arbitrary point that fits one's view, instead of allowing one's view to form around a point determined by science.
And again, the abortion is not performed ON the woman, but inside, as the child has a DNA code unique from the mother's.
Every cell in the human body has 46 chromosomes. 23 shared pair. Except for sperm and egg. They have just one of each of the 23 chromosomes. They do share the same genetic makeup as the father and mother. Now, within each chromosome, lays the DNA. The DNA becomes unique when the egg and sperm join, and begin to mulitply. This is when the new genectic make-up of the new person is formed.
@grim_truth - Of course I can say the right to life is as important as the right to our own bodies. That includes a lot more than just the issue of pregnancy. Otherwise you are suggesting that being a slave (the right to your own body) is worse than being murdered. I don't reckon that one is worse than another.
Only women can get pregnant, so it's not like the entire population is out there usurping unborn children's right to life. Pregnancy happens to the woman's body, on the inside yes, but certainly if a person has the right to their own body they also have the right to what happens inside their body.
I don't get why anyone thinks they have the right to tell a woman that she must be pregnant and give birth. Whatever rights are more important in the hierarchy of rights, nobody has the right to demand what happens inside another person's body. (I'm also against male infant circumcision as I do believe the right to our own body is a basic human right.) The reason the abortion debate is so complex is because both sides are technically right... every human has the right to life and every human has the right to their own body.
Eventually it'll be "acceptable" to kill our own children simply because they're a hassle, they're too expensive, they put a damper on our social lives... Your friend gets shot, they end up in a coma and you have an entire town rally together to fight for "justice" but a woman decides to have her baby killed inside of her and it all boils down to, "oh, but that's her choice." Yes, it is. Just like it's the pedophile's choice to take the innocence of a child, irregardless of what it'll do to them in the future, or of how it may effect the family...right? It all boils down to choice. Everyone wants the "right" to do whatever they please without consequence and without anyone trying to make them feel guilt for it. Guiltless and immediate self-satisfaction. That should be our country's motto. =/
Now that you mention it, I have what seems a viable solution: All of those church ladies who are so opposed to abortion that they would outlaw it should load up on their church lady buses and go on church lady missions, offering up free church lady blow jobs to all the horny young men who might otherwise impregnate women who'd seek abortions.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Once one right trumps another, they are no longer of the same importance. It's just a matter of impossibility. And you are saying that a woman's right to have an abortion trumps the child's right to life. Therefore, they cannot possibly be of equal importance. Sorry, but they just can't.
It's not about telling a woman she must give birth. It's about the unborn child's right to life. Sorry, but the right to life trumps all other rights.
I honestly cannot comprehend how one can sit there and say "nobody has the right to demand what happens inside another person's body" while on the exact same side of the token, be saying that it's ok to kill an innocent human.
It's not a complex issue.
You make it complex, by trumping the basic human right to life with the right to do commit what would otherwise be a crime within one's body.
@grim_truth - One right does not always trump another. Not every pregnant woman will chose abortion. They are indeed of equal importance in the whole scheme of things.
Technically speaking, I reckon you can say that people do have the right to their own body over the right of others to live, or else we'd all be forced to give up one of our kidneys so that others may live. Or we're forced into donating bone marrow so others may live. Heck our livers can regenerate, so at 18 we should all be forced into giving up a small part of our liver, so others may life. No where else are people forced to give up their bodily integrity for others to live. It is only okay to force women to go through pregnancy and birth so that others may live.
There are undoubtedly people who will die because you won't give up part of your liver. And some unborn babies die because some women have decided not to put themselves through pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Women are not incubators for men, women are actual people who should be able to decide that they don't want to be pregnant as much as anyone doesn't have to give up part of their body so that others may live.
@TiredSoVeryTired - They cannot be of equal importance if in one single instant, one right trumps another. If they are of equal importance, than they can NEVER trump one another.
Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy is nothing similar to bone marrow donations. Not even close. First, if one doesn't donate bone marrow, they aren't purposefully and maliciously ending the life of another. There is a difference between not performing CPR, and holding someone under water. You are equating the two, and they are not even close.
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then they should not have sex. If one is not ready for consequences, then they should not partake in the action. That would be similar to me stealing an airplane, taking off, and you saying it's ok for me to crash it into a preschool because that's the only way I can live because they have the bouncy house and I don't know how to land the plane.
No, I must accept the consequences of the action without infringing upon the basic rights of others.
I wonder, do you feel it would be ok for someone to use their 2nd Amendment right to trump your right to free speech? Because that is what the argument for abortion equates to.
@grim_truth - personally, i draw the line at whether entity A is physically attached to entity B. if so, entity B should be able to determine how long that attachment should continue, if at all. i don't think it's arbitrary to say that the right to live is null and void if that life can only be supported by a single other person, with no option to relinquish that responsibility. unlike a child, a fetus cannot be handed off to someone else for care. if they invent a way to transplant feti from one womb to another (essentially, adoption before birth), THEN i'll be against abortion.
is it unfortunate that the only way for a woman to control her body in this case is to kill the fetus? absolutely. but i'm not interested in turning women into walking incubators for nine months. you might be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term, but that's about all you can force. as a woman who'd have an abortion in a heartbeat, i wouldn't do all of those wonderful things pregnant women are supposed to do (avoid alcohol and tobacco, see the doctor, get tests done, etc) for a pregnancy that i'd rather get rid of. chances are, i'd step up my bad habits in hopes that it would lead to a miscarriage. so unless pro-lifers also plan to legislate pregnant women's behavior to make sure the fetus is properly cared for, i don't see how they plan to make sure that those women they force to give birth actually do what they're supposed to do.
"Eventually it'll be "acceptable" to kill our own children simply because they're a hassle, they're too expensive, they put a damper on our social lives.." doubtful. children, as independent entities, can be given up. unlike a fetus, children don't need to be cared for by their birth mothers.
@grim_truth - Life is full of times when rights are equal, but in some instances one right trumps another. My right to peace and quiet trumps your right to freedom of speech if you go yelling at the top of your lungs at 2 a.m. in my town. Such is not the case during the day.
It's the same thing. People die all the time because we cannot force people to be marrow donors. Heck, people die all the time because there isn't enough of their blood type on hand somewhere in the world. Dead is still dead whether from lack of action of your part to be on a marrow list or a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy. In both cases, people could do something.
Ready for sex or not. That's not the damn issue. I knew you were all about punishing women for being sexual beings. Blah blah blah. Always the end result of the abortion debate... women shouldn't be having sex. Silliness. Men shouldn't be having sex if they don't want women aborting babies. How's that?
As far as I know the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, not to murder people. Maybe it says the "Right to bear arms and shoot your neighbor" but I don't recall that. However, if I entered someone's house and refused to leave and they didn't want me there, they can use their 2nd amendment rights, go buy a gun and shoot my ass! Because then the right to their body/property trumps my right to live.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Understood. But is that what it's about? That they just don't want to have to walk around with "it" in their belly for the next 9-10 months? Why not carry it to term, deliver, and place it up for adoption then? They wouldn't have to be responsible for the baby as soon as it's born. That's what I'm getting at. They don't want the inconvenience of not being able to do this and that or having to explain themselves when someone asks about it, you know what I mean? It's all just "too much" for them to handle.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Again, it's impossible to be equal if one trumps another. Your right to peace and quiet is NOT equal to the right of free speech. Because free speech does not HAVE to consist of yelling at the top of my lungs at 2 a.m. The right of free speech can be exercised in other ways. The right of life can only be exercised in one way.
Someone dying of natural causes is not the same as having one's skull cracked open and their brains sucked out. Or burnt to death in a chemical solution.
You are trying to say that one's failure to jump in and save a drowning victim because of a fear of open water is the same as someone purposefully drowning someone. That is the exact analogy you are making. Sorry, it doesn't hold water.
While in some states you may use your 2nd Amendment rights to stop an intruder, you cannot, anywhere in the United States, invite someone into your home just to shoot them dead. THAT is what abortion is.
@flapper_femme_fatale - There is already a movement to legalize infantcide based on convenience. It may be a weak movement, but so was the pro-choice movement decades ago.
Abortion is NOT the only way to control what happens inside the body. Again, that's like inviting someone into your home, just to kill them. There are other methods. If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possible outcome of sex, then they are not ready for sex. If I cannot accept the responsibility of landing a plane, I have no damn business taking off with one.
Pretty air tight case you have. If a woman thinks her life is endangered by an abortion she can often cross state lines and get an abortion where there is abortion clinic. The Pro life folks have to make more states anti abortion and eventually get a federal mandate to completely stop abortions.
What kind of penalty will stop making people use the abortion method? Ten years?, Twenty years? The penalty phase has yet been determined, so far we are only talking about criminalizing abortion.