I still say that the bloodsucker that is surgically removed
was a parasite.
It shud be simply the same as getting a haircut,
with NO interference from government,
as morally innocent as killing a burglar.
The only sort of law involving abortion which makes any sense to me would be banning late-term abortions beyond some point since, normally at least, the woman having carried the baby that far amounts to a sort of an implicit contract which an abortion at that point would violate. Again beyond some point, there ceases to be any meaningful difference between abortion and infanticide, as the ongoing Gosnell trial has shown.
There is unfortunately at least one exception which you'd have to make to even that minimalistic a rule and that would be the case in which muslims rape, impregnate, and then keep some poor girl locked up until she has a slammite child (the slammite version of an "anchor baby") and is forced to convert at that point when she presumably has no place to go back to.
That one is coming to a neighborhood near YOU if it isn't there already.
Contracts involve mutual consent
for an exchange of "consideration".
The subject is outside your reach Dave. Those in favour of abortion at any time must cringe when you take a deep breath. Which side are you actually on?
I 've not seen much cringing yet, Spendius.
For the most part, the freedom side has been the winning side.
I can live with that.
Feel free to cringe all u want.
Why would I cringe Dave? Keep up the good work.
It's not something that I ofen recommend.
It's not as daft as recommending that the government is incapacitated.
Are you not up for answering the question?
I advocate that government become progressively less capacitated,
weaker n feebler. The trouble with government is that
it's not feeble enuf.
I agree with you on the point that a baby is a punishment for "spreading one's legs". This kind of undermines the "rights" a child is given for it seen, not as another being, but a liability. A woman's right to not be pregnant is more important than the right of the "contents of a pregnant uterus" to come out into the world. A major argument could be the woman being the citizen of the State and the unborn child obviously not.
Some people believe that abortion is wrong because it is the termination of what is viewed as a human, regardless of its development (For example religious views such as Christianity they believe all life is precious, and I acknowledge and understand that). They argue that it is murder of a child and against the child’s rights other people think that abortion should be allowed because if some people decide against giving birth to the baby while they are pregnant, and hospitals have the power to dispose of the developing foetus, they should have the option to have an abortion, as the birth of the baby will affect the mother’s life greatly, especially if they are a young adult. I personally think that abortion should be legal but someone should only be allowed to abort a developing baby a certain number of times in their lifetime. Another reason why I think that abortions should be allowed is because in very serious or in-preventable cases such as rape, women should have the decision to keep the baby. I think this is important as it is the women’s decision to care for and look after this child, as a lot of time and effort is required to raise a child. The woman should have the responsibility to care for a child that she did not want or ask for as the birth of the baby can also have emotional and psychological effects as well as emotional. In some cases children have reminded the mothers of the attack and encouraged them to act more violently towards them.