Biology is a thing. Parenting of small children falls on the mother's shoulders because biology has prepared her, and not the father, for that. Ideological wishful thinking doesn't change that.
If a man ejaculates into a woman, he has implicitly agreed to take responsibility for the child that may result. This is why society formerly encouraged monogamy, and required men who got their girlfriends pregnant to marry and provide for them. Part of the argument above is that women should be allowed to have consequence-free sex, and not have to take responsibility for their actions. Responsibility goes both ways.
The argument that a fetus is essentially a parasite on the mother's body can be easily extended - children are essentially parasitic these days until their 20s. This line of reasoning would therefore entitle mothers to kill their children at any age, not just in the womb. Pretty soon you're essentially back at the old pagan law, where the paterfamilias (although in this case, the materfamilias) has power of life and death over their children throughout their lives.
Taking it further: if the baby counts as parasitic upon the mother's resources, it also counts as parasitic on the father. After all, even if the father doesn't marry the mother, the state will enforce child support payments - extracting resources from the father to feed the child. If the issue is to be framed in terms of bodily autonomy, and the fetus is to be considered to have no rights in the matter, then surely the father gets a say? Therefore, by this logic, should the father not be entitled to demand an abortion? Or does bodily autonomy only apply to women?
When it comes to children, bodily autonomy is simply the wrong frame. At any age. Aborting a "clump of cells" by tearing apart a nearly fully formed baby in the womb during the third trimester is murder. One's desire for a career or whatever is not a valid reason to deprive another of their life. The fact that the left so rapidly dropped "my body my choice" as a principle in order to force needles in everyone's arms just demonstrates that they never really believed this.
Not everyone agrees with your belief system - which happens to coincide with religious Christian beliefs. Not everyone in the US are "Christians" and may have different spiritual/metaphysical views than you do.
That is why Roe vs. Wade was passed in the first place, to protect the rights of all Americans - not just the Evangelicals.
None of my arguments related to the soul or "metaphysical personhood". I'm simply taking the left logic to its logical conclusion. If a fetus is a parasite, so is a child; therefore a child can be killed at any age. If the fetus is a parasite on the resources of the mother, it is parasitic on the resources of the father; therefore men should have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies (or unwanted children).
I didn't see anything religious in Mr. Carter comments it seems that you are pushing the leftists view that this is being done by their arch enemies the evangelical right - which frankly is nothing but a boogey man used to scare the left.
Pregnancy exposes a woman to a long list of possible complications that can result in physical injury or death. Each year, over 50,000 WOMEN develop pregnancy complications.
This is the reason a woman should have the FINAL WORD on continuing a pregnancy.
I had an acquaintance who told her children she reserved the right to abort them until they were 26 years old. Then the West Valley City Police Department exercised the "right" to abort her. (Burnt her trailer home with her in it, and kept the West Valley City Fire Department from responding until she was dead.)
Do I need to provide background details? Had nothing to do with what she told her children (who where out of town when she was immolated). She was a paralegal, and resistance to their legal abuses bothered the West Valley City Police Department.
Biology is a thing. Parenting of small children falls on the mother's shoulders because biology has prepared her, and not the father, for that. Ideological wishful thinking doesn't change that.
If a man ejaculates into a woman, he has implicitly agreed to take responsibility for the child that may result. This is why society formerly encouraged monogamy, and required men who got their girlfriends pregnant to marry and provide for them. Part of the argument above is that women should be allowed to have consequence-free sex, and not have to take responsibility for their actions. Responsibility goes both ways.
The argument that a fetus is essentially a parasite on the mother's body can be easily extended - children are essentially parasitic these days until their 20s. This line of reasoning would therefore entitle mothers to kill their children at any age, not just in the womb. Pretty soon you're essentially back at the old pagan law, where the paterfamilias (although in this case, the materfamilias) has power of life and death over their children throughout their lives.
Taking it further: if the baby counts as parasitic upon the mother's resources, it also counts as parasitic on the father. After all, even if the father doesn't marry the mother, the state will enforce child support payments - extracting resources from the father to feed the child. If the issue is to be framed in terms of bodily autonomy, and the fetus is to be considered to have no rights in the matter, then surely the father gets a say? Therefore, by this logic, should the father not be entitled to demand an abortion? Or does bodily autonomy only apply to women?
When it comes to children, bodily autonomy is simply the wrong frame. At any age. Aborting a "clump of cells" by tearing apart a nearly fully formed baby in the womb during the third trimester is murder. One's desire for a career or whatever is not a valid reason to deprive another of their life. The fact that the left so rapidly dropped "my body my choice" as a principle in order to force needles in everyone's arms just demonstrates that they never really believed this.
Not everyone agrees with your belief system - which happens to coincide with religious Christian beliefs. Not everyone in the US are "Christians" and may have different spiritual/metaphysical views than you do.
That is why Roe vs. Wade was passed in the first place, to protect the rights of all Americans - not just the Evangelicals.
None of my arguments related to the soul or "metaphysical personhood". I'm simply taking the left logic to its logical conclusion. If a fetus is a parasite, so is a child; therefore a child can be killed at any age. If the fetus is a parasite on the resources of the mother, it is parasitic on the resources of the father; therefore men should have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies (or unwanted children).
A parasite on society until it leaves home. Just like a retirement savings plan is a parasite
Guess that applies to you too since you are a child too, barely anybody here seems to realize they were all children once too.
Yes. also, children are everyone’s future builders, medics, farmers…. The veritable soul of a society
Okay boomer.
i find john's argument well reasoned, fair, and full of emphathy, and has nothing to do with religion.
I didn't see anything religious in Mr. Carter comments it seems that you are pushing the leftists view that this is being done by their arch enemies the evangelical right - which frankly is nothing but a boogey man used to scare the left.
Pregnancy exposes a woman to a long list of possible complications that can result in physical injury or death. Each year, over 50,000 WOMEN develop pregnancy complications.
This is the reason a woman should have the FINAL WORD on continuing a pregnancy.
Physically, men risk absolutely nothing.
I had an acquaintance who told her children she reserved the right to abort them until they were 26 years old. Then the West Valley City Police Department exercised the "right" to abort her. (Burnt her trailer home with her in it, and kept the West Valley City Fire Department from responding until she was dead.)
Fair is fair.
Threatening to kill and killing are not the same. Are you one of those eye for an eye types?
Do I need to provide background details? Had nothing to do with what she told her children (who where out of town when she was immolated). She was a paralegal, and resistance to their legal abuses bothered the West Valley City Police Department.