The Problem with Legalized Abortion

i see some emotions going to get unnerved in this case.i have avoided this topic, but i beleive i can add my opinion to open a debate by the basis of "freedom"the debate: abortion is murder, but murder only applies to a full human, and that an unborn child, not fully developed, is the property of the host, and the host has a right to kill an undeveloped human, until it is born.freedom must be defined. ever heard the saying : " i brought you into this world, and i can take you out" ?my take: a woman should have the right to abortion, but with limitations.as caretakers of the planet, laws should be revised and classified by "good for the continuance of the human race, or bad for the continuance of the human race. and applied to the genral laws of right and wrong (another debate, but lets just focus on abortion)in the case of abortion: a full grown baby, that can exist outside the mothers womb, should have the rights granted to all living humans. (ie: to kill it would be murder)a child who is not able to live outside of the hosts body, belongs to the host, and an abortion would not be murder (by law, even though many will still consider it such).other circumstances: desease and biological inconsistancies (such as poorly deveoped brain and retardations) would not be against the law as long as the fetus was medically diagnosed as unable to survive outside the womb. so not how many months the fetus existed would not define the abortion law, but the survivability of the fetus outside the womb.reasoning for abortion (in the united states)the country boast freedoms and rights of the individuals who are citizens of this country. i do not beleive in abortion, but i beleive in the right of choice. if abortion under all circumstances was to be made illegal, a great crime against the freedom of choice would have been won. and further limitations of the freedoms of men and wemon in the country will find its footing under abortion law.i cant say i agree with the choices a free person makes, but they are not my own. this is what i beleive would be as perfect a law possible given the great divide in american opinions on the issue.

because by pushing for full rights of the fetus, the right of the host would be destroyed.

because a woman raped and 2 weeks pregnant feels that they have a right to destroy the fetus within them on the basis of a free country.and a right to terminate the unplanned pregnancy.a woman who could potentially die from a preganancy may decide in self preservation.the abortion law is so divided because wemon who say the choice is theirs, and others say life of the fetus is life, and to kill it is murder regardless.many wemon say then: whos life is more important? and who has the greater right? the unborn fetus? or an adult in this country?

Why do you characterize any attempt to confer some rights on a fetus as "fool"ing legislators? Is it a falsehood to say that a fetus is an entity deserving of some rights? How so?
(quote from linear)good point.it is life. if you admit a fetus deserves some rights, the question is; how much?

the cells are life, and given time , will be human.do you suggest that a baby can be slain because it is not an adult?a fetus is a human child in the litteral sense. because given time, it will become an adult. the fetus stage is a stage of human development in the same way that a baby is a stage of human development.to admit that a fetus is not life, is to admit than any non adult stage of humankind is not human yet. and still requires "growth".

i think that is is honest to say a fetus is a person, then explore the rights of the fetus and the host.should a fetus have more rights than the woman who carries it?

i dont see how slavery is a proper analogy for abortion, the abortion problem is the sybiotic relationship with the mpother and fetus.which has a greater right?slaves and the freedoms of single minded individuals cannot be compared logically to sybiotic relations and discerning the rights of the two.

free or not: even a free people has laws discerning "rights"the motives of those wishing to gain rights for a fetus are different per individual.the question still remains: who has more rights, the fetus, or the mother.

I'm asking, analogously, why don't anti-abortionists do the same thing? Why don't they lobby for full (child-sized) human rights at conception? Why not all at once?
(quote from ringo)because the rights of the "mother" is not clearly defined, and cannot be completly ignored.and a fetus's survivability is unsure.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

In any case, I didn't come here to wrangle about the most effective policy. I came here to question the sincerity of the anti-abortionist movement. Can we at least get a definitive statement that full fetal rights - with conception certificate - is the ultimate goal?(ringo quote)the people in the anti abortion movement have varied motives. so they also have varied end goals. do not doubt the movement is sincere.however, a conception certificate appears absurd to me, since the survivability of a fetus is unclear. Edited by tesla, : if i might add:

then maybe a person of rights should be defined as a human that can survive outside the womb as i suggested earlier.it would appear that this is what the norm has been in granting a "birth certificate".as long as a fetus requires the symbiotic relationship; the greater of the two in relation, holds and retains all rights?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it doesnt. it explains why abortion remains an unsolved political hell. (politically speaking in as much as general understood laws)since there is no defined law, organizations have the freedom of their own ideals, and if you exist inside them, their law is final.

how does that explain the fact that if you go to a catholic hospital as a pregnant woman they will not sacrifice the fetus to save your life? (quote by brennakimi)this reply was in relation to post 200 right?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

religeon aside, goverments must have law to protect order.it is against the law to murder. i beleive thats where the political argument begins and the religeos argument ends.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it is a political hell. its so powerful that most politicians aviod it so their career will survive.there has not been an established law clearly defining abortion on the goverment level, and until one does, or probrobly even after one does, the right for and against will be argued.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides