RE: Life is a Natural Right - In response to "Abortion Is a Natural Right"
It is tragically fascinating that someone can argue repeatedly that nobody has the right to control the mother's body while at the same time claiming that the mother has the right to control another's body
How do you account for the fact that you can't control the mother's body? You can't stop a pregnant woman from drinking vodka all day, for a quick example. Have you adopted any children with FAS?
So, you're right about this:
one that is solely the result of her activity and dependent upon her because of her. What a horrific irony.
The mother isn't dependent on the fetus. The fetus absolutey needs the mother. Even more than a parasite needs a host! Funny that. It's only truly symbiotic for the fetus. The mother stands to lose something in the process, there are risks to her health. Risk that are largely dependent on the individual. Anti-choice people have rose-coloured glasses on with this issue.
My personal choice; I'm not going to remain celibate because I can't use birth control other than condoms and rythm method. And I certainly ain't going to miss out on the feeling of a bare cock in me with someone I love, at the time when I want it the most. I'd certainly get an abortion if all other things failed and I ended up in that threatening condition. I'm not willing to sacrifice my quality of life for other people's misplaced ideas of 'murder' and 'innocent' lives. Hell, I'd go to war over it. As limiting women's freedom to safely terminate a pregnancy does violence to our existence.
"Meanwhile, this post shows Medea and her children in a happier moment."
source: http://bestlatin.blogspot.ca/2010_01_01_archive.html
Human reproduction occurs in wombs. Nothing you or anyone can do about it. Developing humans were put there by choice, even if involuntarily (rape). Neither of those facts justifies one person (mother, doctor) taking the innocent life of another. At 5 1/2 months (preferrably laer), the woman can opt for a C-section and give the baby up for adoption. Until then, the fact that she made a "mistake" (or a crime was committed, in which case punish the criminal not the innocent baby) , does not give her the right to kill someone else for her convenience. As a consequece of her choice, she has to "suffer" and carry the child until he can be taken out of her.
That doesn't make any sense. an unwanted pregancy is not chosen
I realize that theres an expectation that women should suffer and be self-sacrificing for the sake of abstract concepts and babies. Some people really like the idea. Perhaps its even the primary factor in adopting anti-choice beliefs for some people. In the case you mention, the suffering doesn't end after the baby is gone; both physical and psychological. Who knows how long the suffering continues. Maybe the rest of her life. Even women who opt to give birth develop a type of love-hate for their infants and children born with it from the sacrifical nature of the whole ordeal. It's a big deal (pregancy) --not something that can be suggested 'just get used to it' in that cavalier way. A woman is just as innocent, anti-choice religious-derivative ideations that having a cock inside her make her less 'innocent' are life-negating.
The fact that you think you can dictate a course of events of someone's life like that shows you think of women generally as abstractions rather than human. The way anti-choice people speak of women and pregnancy is cold and detached. It's like a person going to court for a crime, standing there while two other people debate the conditions of their sentence.
Why do anti-choice people care? Why is a fetus their pet issue regarding 'saving lives'?