Let's stop making conditions Jenn. I see no one mentioning risking the mother's life but you. Lots of abortions take place when no life is at risk. Sure we can say killing is wrong, but if I kill my attacker in self defense is that not also justified? This doesn't make killing OK. Thus Let's speak on the idea of abortion with no risk involved.

Pregnancy is always a risk. Women die giving birth.
Abortion is also a risk, but not as great a risk as giving birth.

Even a healthy woman who would very likely survive giving birth should not ever be subject to a society that would force her to give birth against her will.

This is what people who are against abortion are advocating. Forcing women to give birth when they don't want to.

Unwanted pregnancies do happen. Rapes do happen.

I dont agree, thats all

I think we can and do FORCE parents to be responsible for their childs lives all the time

it is not forced if the presence of a child in the situation was a CHOICE in the first place

but once the CHOICE is made to take THAT RISK, than the RISK associated with responsibility for that life should follow

Too vague. You are skirting the issue.

I am talking about a fetus. Not a child who has successfully been born and is living and breathing.

And you can try, but you can never "force" people to be responsible for anything except in monetary terms. (Child support etc.)

And BTW, if you force a woman to give birth who does not want to have children, then what next? Are you then going to force her to be a responsible parent? How?

All these people against abortion don't have a solution as to what to do with all unwanted children that are born to parents who can't take care of them.

Where are the programs for that? Adoption? And how do you know where your child goes after it is adopted? They keep that from you. I shutter to think where they go.... given this evil Satan controlled and ruled world...


Seriously I shutter to think...

"The soul, while it may be attached to the fetus in the womb, is not yet born into the world."
... Oh but it is born unto the world. The Well of Life (the womb) exists in this world does it not? By the very nature of Mankind that child is breathing... It breaths through the gift of the Mother... Is this not a truth?

Yet only the Mother can choose when there is danger of loss because of the presence of life within her.

That choice I can not make for her... It is hers alone. I have never disrecpected that right. why would you even suggest such a thing?

She does not have a Right above that of the Child to life. Only the right to choose her path.

If she choose to kill the Child I can not judge. I have no womb.

She has a right to her own life above that of an unborn fetus. Not of a "child." A child is not a fetus and a fetus is not a child.

In my opinion, both morally and legally, no society has the legal or moral right to force any woman to give birth when she chooses not to for any reason. If it does, then that is slavery.

You say you "cannot judge" but you have already done that and it is apparent in the wording you use.

You are calling a fetus a "child." That word is used to imply that a an unborn fetus is a child and it is not.

The difference is very simply that a child is living and breathing ON ITS OWN, independent of its host, the mother.

It has not been born. If you think that conception is "giving birth" or "being born" then you have never given birth.

No, the fetus does not breath air through its lungs until after it is born.

That's why they call it the breath of life.

The mother has total control over whether a baby is born or not.

Yet the law says that if a drunk hits the mothers car and loses the Baby it is Manslaughter.

Now the drunk has killed someone. How can this be it's a fetus?

Yes that does not make sense at all if abortion is legal and a fetus is not defined as a "person with rights," according to "the law." This should not happen.

I'm not a lawyer but I bet it probably has something to do with the fact that courts of today are corporate courts and they deal in UCC (codes) and not in common law of the land.

What you think are "laws" are only UCC. (Uniform Commercial Codes).

In the case of a fetus, according to UCC it is not a person and does not have the protection of the corporate courts (UCC.)

BUT somehow, a case like this could be, if handled properly, taken to another level where the living fetus is acknowledge as a living human being (it has no birth certificate and has not been registered with the corporation) and a jury agreed it was a human life, and they enforced and enacted "common law of the land" which can over-rule the corporate courts and UCC.

Common law is real law. It requires a victim. UCC does not require a victim (injured party).

According to UCC, a "person" with a birth certificate, is actually defined as a corporation and that person must have been born into the world. (not a fetus)

According to UCC, a fetus is not a "person/corporation" until is arrives to port. (is born.)

But, if sovereign human beings insist on common law, the courts may have to recognize it. (common law)