Originally posted by Fellowship
tonton if you can answer the following questions which I believe really need answers badly then I can one by one respond to each and every one of your questions and I will be happy to freely. I truly believe the questions I ask here need answers and as of yet nobody here has answered them. Can you?
(when I say "abort" in the following two questions I mean have her child put to sleep / killed.)
What about a mother's right to abort her 2 year old? Should the Supreme Court grant this right? Yes? if so why? No? if not why?
If the child is suffering in agaonizing pain from a terminal illness, or is in a permanent vegitative state with complete brain death and no chance of recovery, then absolutely! Otherwise, of course not. This is a living, breathing being, with connected synapses and a completely operational nervous system. The right of this child that no one, not the majority nor any minority doesn't belive is a child, is more important than any reason the woman might have to kill that child.
What about a mother's right to abort her 6 month old? Should the Supreme Court grant this right? Yes? if so why? No? if not why?
Same as above. This is a living baby with connected synapses, a fully developed nervous system, etc.
What if an unwanted pregnancy is carried to term and the son or daughter is born and yet remains all the same "unwanted" do parents have the state granted right to "abort" kill / murder / put down the born child?
Same as above. This is a living baby with connected synapses, a nervous system, etc.
-The following intended originally as reply to Northgate-
I mean after all Northgate you yourself said:
"It is my experience (through my sister-in-law's social services career) that a majority of unwanted children thrown into the social services programs do not become productive, responsible adults."
I can't believe you think that way quite frankly.....
Actually, the unwanted fetus shouldn't have been carried past the first trimester. But if it is carried past the first trimester, it should go into adoption at birth. Then it will never enter the social services programs because all healthy newborns can find adoptive parents. Unfortunately, many mothers without the means to raise a child change their mind during pregnancy or after birth, and they try to raise the child they may not have originally wanted. Sometimes they fail. And that's when Social Services takes over. Shouldn't have happened. If she wanted to abort during the first trimester, she should have. Social opposition to the intelligent choice may have caused her to make the wrong decision. The situation would be even worse if first trimester abortion were made illegal.
What about the father's right to NOT support a born child re: financial budren? Can a father opt out of having to be "responsible" ?
They often do, even after the child is born! Why? Because the mother by nature is the default parent, and by psychology is also the most attached. But if a woman gets pregnant, it is her choice whether to have the child or not. The guy should have used a condom. If the condom broke he should honor the wishes of the woman. If she put holes in the condom then there's something screwed up about the whole situation, but sorry, guy, you're going to be held responsible.