Quote:
Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna:
I am not argueing for the rights of the unborn, SirK. I am argueing that men have no business telling women what to do with their bodies. So far all I have gotten by way of responses is men telling women what they can and cant do with their bodies. Ironic, isnt it?
|
No, you seem unable to make the distinction [img]smile.gif[/img]
When you abort a baby, you are *not* letting the woman do what she wants with her body. You are letting the woman do with the body of the child she carries inside her.
No man is telling a woman what to do with their body. We would simply like a fair say in the life or death of our child. It takes 2 to make a baby (and the Child Support Agencies
love that phrase). Men are assumed to be responsible for the financial upkeep of
their child, but have no rights at all about the life or death of their unborn?
If a woman is pregnant, there is no matter of 'ownership'. She does not 'own' the baby because it is inside her. The baby belongs to nobody, because it is an individual human being.
An unborn baby is not simply "a part of the woman's body, like a kidney"
Look at it this way. If you had a child of, say, 6 months old who had been born, then had an accident and was on a life support machine. Would the mother have the right to arbitrarily turn off the machine? Of course not - she'd be killing another human being. The fact that the child's life support machine is the woman's body makes no difference.
Oh, this is also why I think that people who murder pregnant women should be charged with 2 murders.