climbing uphill- the last five years

I took these from various places on the web.� I�like them because they bring up the points that pro-lifers consistently ignore, such as how ignorance can play a role in unwanted pregnancies.� And no, you will almost certainly not be able to convince me to be pro-life, just in case anyone out there is tempted to try. :)�

The first argument is the most powerful, if you ask me.� It implies that pro-lifers are primarily motivated by the desire to punish women who make choices that result in unwanted pregnancies.� How many pro-life people would argue that we should make it illegal to refuse to donate blood if the refusal would result in someoneapos;s death?��Thatapos;s essentially the exact same situation that an abortion is, and yet pro-lifers essentially argue that women should go to jail for having abortions.

1) I�think the issue of when life begins is irrelevant.� Letapos;s imagine that the fetus is unambiguously a person. To give a concrete example, letapos;s imagine it is an adult who is connected to the womanapos;s body. If this were to actually happen, our laws would unambiguously say that the woman would have the right to disconnect herself, even if it meant the person would die. Even if it was through some mistake of the womanapos;s that the person came to be connected, she would still have the right to disconnect. Imagine that she had accidentally hit the person with her car, and now they needed to be connected to her body in order to recover. The law may punish her, but it could not force her to stay connected. We cannot legally be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or any other part of our body to save other human lives. In fact, even the dead have a greater right to bodily privacy than people do to life (think about the outcry if organ donation were made mandatory, despite the fact that people die from lack of organ donors. The person who refuses to have their body used in any of these ways does not have to give any reason. They do not have to be underage or have their life at risk. They just do not want to.

2) Alhough they sometimes try to disguise the fact, many people who want to eliminate abortion really do want to give the unborn MORE rights than the mother. The reason for this is simple - they believe that the mother is personally responsible for creating the child so she surrendered any right to object to what that child might do to her at that point.

Framed in this way, there are obvious cases of injustice. A raped mother obviously couldnapos;t consent to anything, nor can one who is underage. But they overlook any number of other - perhaps quite common - similar cases:

What about a woman who is told by her doctor that she cannot get pregnant. Should she be responsible for a child? Or one who has any number of very common mistaken beliefs, such as apos;you canapos;t get pregnant on your first timeapos; or apos;you canapos;t get pregnant if thereapos;s no orgasmapos;? If society has taken no successful means to correct such ignorance, it is fair for them to impose a punishment because of it? And thereapos;s the very common delusion of apos;it canapos;t happen to meapos; (which affects people in almost every domain of life).

A business contract signed under conditions where one party was egregiously mistaken about the terms can be considered completely void. Why is this any different?

If you can get your opponent to grant the unborn even equal rights instead of more, you probably have half your work done. I know of almost nobody who would say that another equal has the right to demand what a fetus gets from mom: food, being carried around everywhere, rearranging internal organs, interfering with lifestyle, and perhaps even causing a loss of workplace benefits and even life itself. If you suggested that someone else had to do all these things and more for you for nine months, theyapos;d laugh in your face and rightly so.

And thatapos;s not even addressing any problems or issues that may arise through the entirety of the childapos;s life

I think the apos;potential human beingapos; argument is more productive that you suspect, too:

Consider that more than 25 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort all on their own. And itapos;s almost impossible to measure how many embryoes simply fail to implant in the uterus and just die. In other words, even in the most advanced countries in the world, babies are not a certain outcome from pregnancy.

If it is valid to treat an adult human as a certain outcome of a pregnancy, it is only slightly less valid to treat other possible outcomes as certain, no? How do we distinguish one possible outcome from other as certain? Or should we prosecute men and women who go to fertility clinics for neglect and murder if itapos;s found that the embryoes canapos;t implant in the motherapos;s uterus (someone who never even became pregnant)?



climbing uphill- the last five years, climbing uphill lyrics, climbing uphill.