No it is not...If a woman gives a child up for adoption they don’t come knocking on her door if the child is defective and they want to return it. Same thing, she signs off all ties are cut.
I say it is from day one...but I am much more comfortable with the morning after pill than anything else. And I am not completely against abortions…I just think that the father should have some say, not the final say but something. I also think they should allow physicians to aid in suicide in some cases, but that is a debate for another time. ETA: Actually I take that back..they may still get inheritance rights in some cases in Louisiana…I’ll have to check on that.
Most scientists, specifically embryologists, agree that life begins at conception. The zygote immediately begins to display all the traits of life, like any other cell in the mother's body, and has a unique sequence of DNA different that either the father of the mother. This is truly an individual and a human. The debate around abortion has never been about when life begins. If it was abortion could not be legal. The debate centers around arbitrary philosophical concepts like personhood, and things that are purely functions of technology like viability. When ROE v. Wade was issued a 2nd trimester fetus could not survive outside the womb. Now they can. What happens to the pro choice argument of viability when first trimester babies are viable? To be intellectually honest, pro-choicers have to be willing to admit they value one life more than another and are ok discriminating against certain humans based on stage of development. I have met few willing to admit this. Most patently deny it clinging to the viability threshold or trying to distinguish between a human being and a person. I think it is considered an abortifacient. It prevents the implantation of the zygote onto the uterine wall. Most forms of the birth control pill contain an abortifacient as a failsafe. This is something that truly baffles me, because I have known a lot of people who are pro-life, but pop a birth control pill every morning and don't recognize the hypocrisy.
And what of the rights of the baby? Are you ok with discrimination based on developmental stage? Since that is absolutely an arbitrary thing would you be ok if it was decided it was ok to kill bothersome old people or infants because they are incapable of caring for themselves and therefore not viable humans?
so wait a minute, you are saying someone that is pro-life that takes birth control is basically a hypocrite? What if you get a vasectomy or a woman gets her tubes tied. Is that abortion also?
I'm ok with ALL types of birth control BTW...some people have way to many babies. I know some areas that might want to consider putting it in the water
Absolutely. I think that the life of a mother in her 62nd trimester has more rights than a one-day-old single fertilized cell in a woman's body. Anti-abortion zealots think they have a right to interfere with a woman's personal medical issues. Ultimately they think this because life is sacred to them. That is to say that they are projecting their religious beliefs onto others.
No. I am saying someone who professes to be pro-life and uses a birth control pill with an abortifacient is exactly a hypocrite. Do you know what abortion is? The vasectomy or tube tieing prevent fertilization from occuring. Without fertilization abortion is not possible.
Babies have full humans rights, this is not the question. Even second and third trimester fetuses are accorded human rights by law. It is only first trimester embryos that must defer to the rights of the living mother. They cannot survive without the mother and are part and parcel of her body and can endanger her health and sometimes her life.
