this is a semi-rational argument, but it suffers from the age old logical fallacy that suffering, especially potential, overrides the value of life itself. it should be a tough decision, but that is the point: you should feel very conflicted, but must make the just choice. the only person who can decide the fate of an unborn child is the child itself, because at that point, it is without conflict, sin, or whatever term you choose to use, and thus there are no grounds for executing it. which abortion is, let us never ignore that, abortion is a very systematic execution. i always counter this argument that the child need not grow up in the hell it was born into. there have been support systems from the dawn of time to help alliviate this. orphanages, foster systems, adoption, there are many means that the child can live a reasonable, if not happy, life. ti tie back in, the point is that suffering does not have a measure where it permits someone other than the aggrieved (the child) to take away one of the natural human rights we as a species have asserted are guaranteed to all.
I am pro choice. I think that not everyone is qualified to be parents and children end up in foster homes or orphanages and they get a bad life. I think that if you aren't able to take care of a child, you shouldn't have one. If you don't like abortion, you don't have to have one.
If you don't like abortion, you don't have to have one.
That's a stupid argument. How about we make it with lots of other laws. If you don't like murder, don't kill anyone. If you don't like theft, don't steal things.
You seem to have misunderstood that the entire pro life argument is founded on the principle of liberty. IE live and let live. Their argument is that because there is another life in there, it needs legal protection. You can't use the "if you don't like it, don't do it" argument, because it isn't just the people who are getting the abortion that need to be considered here. There is also the people who die as a result of the abortion. That is the foundation of the pro life argument. So there's no point in attacking them based on an argument that they haven't made. The pro-life argument isn't "I don't like abortions, therefore no one should have them ever". If it was, your argument of "If you don't like it, don't do it" would work. But instead their argument is "abortion kills a human being", and thus, that is the argument that you need to attack.
I think that not everyone is qualified to be parents and children end up in foster homes or orphanages and they get a bad life.
Since when is anyone qualified to say when a life is bad enough that no life at all would be better?
"Since when is anyone qualified to say when a life is bad enough that no life at all would be better?"
It seems we keep pointing this out, but to my recollection, no one has attempted to deny it, just ignore it, in this thread it seems
I honestly dislike abortion because I view it as legalized murder.I would never do it unless there were health reasons behind it,but I also believe that the right to make that choice should not be taken away.If a woman wants to abort a baby badly enough,she will find a way.Even if it isn't a safe way.
What if only the mother will die but the fetus will survive?