Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade, abortions up to the second trimester was deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court. You'd think this would be a reasonable enough of a compromise as after the third trimester, the fetus is very close to an infant and thus morality is taken into consideration. Yet, there is still much opposition from anti-abortionists or pro-life groups advocating for abortion to be made illegal fully or pretty close to it.
The only real good reason they would have is that the fetus is a living being and thus killing of it would be inhumane not to mention murder. The way I look at it though, not giving the mothers the choice to abort is the real inhumane course of action. I'm all for abortion. I see no harm in letting the mother have the choice of abortion if need be or the mother wishes it so.
Just as a mother has the right to remove a tumor which is apart of her body at will, so should she the right to remove a fetus which is technically apart of her, as the tumor is. The difference, some would argue, is that unlike the tumor, the fetus has the potential to become a living thing. I've read many arguments on this and the one that makes the most sense is by this one guy whose name I can't seem to remember ... :149:
Anyways, to paraphrase, he basically stated that potentiality doe not mean life. That just as one would not go and put steak sauce on a cow and try to eat it just because the cow could potentially become steak. At the same time, one would not try to plug the electric stove into the waterfall or a river just because that water has the potential to become electricity. :biglaugh:
I don't know why anti-abortionists would even try to argue against abortion. Don't they know if they got their way, they would've esentially chose the right of the fetus over that of the mother? If one makes abortion illegal and in a sense forces the mother to carry the baby, is it not the mother who loses her rights? The mother then would have the carry the fetus for 9 months against her own will, giving up her way of life and the way she wants to live it. She shouldn't have to put up with incubating a fetus for 9 months inside her body against her own will, all because some thinks the fetus is a living being? To once again paraphrase the guy whose name I can't remember - just as no one is obligated by the law to jump into a rushing river to save a drowning person's life, as noble as it maybe, one also should not be forced to carry something inside her body for 9 months against her own will just so it can live.
I wanted to see if anyone was against abortion and if so, why? (preferably besides the fact that the fetus is a living thing argument)
The only real good reason they would have is that the fetus is a living being and thus killing of it would be inhumane not to mention murder. The way I look at it though, not giving the mothers the choice to abort is the real inhumane course of action. I'm all for abortion. I see no harm in letting the mother have the choice of abortion if need be or the mother wishes it so.
Just as a mother has the right to remove a tumor which is apart of her body at will, so should she the right to remove a fetus which is technically apart of her, as the tumor is. The difference, some would argue, is that unlike the tumor, the fetus has the potential to become a living thing. I've read many arguments on this and the one that makes the most sense is by this one guy whose name I can't seem to remember ... :149:
Anyways, to paraphrase, he basically stated that potentiality doe not mean life. That just as one would not go and put steak sauce on a cow and try to eat it just because the cow could potentially become steak. At the same time, one would not try to plug the electric stove into the waterfall or a river just because that water has the potential to become electricity. :biglaugh:
I don't know why anti-abortionists would even try to argue against abortion. Don't they know if they got their way, they would've esentially chose the right of the fetus over that of the mother? If one makes abortion illegal and in a sense forces the mother to carry the baby, is it not the mother who loses her rights? The mother then would have the carry the fetus for 9 months against her own will, giving up her way of life and the way she wants to live it. She shouldn't have to put up with incubating a fetus for 9 months inside her body against her own will, all because some thinks the fetus is a living being? To once again paraphrase the guy whose name I can't remember - just as no one is obligated by the law to jump into a rushing river to save a drowning person's life, as noble as it maybe, one also should not be forced to carry something inside her body for 9 months against her own will just so it can live.
I wanted to see if anyone was against abortion and if so, why? (preferably besides the fact that the fetus is a living thing argument)