Posted: Apr 08, 2014 6:35 pm
michael^3 wrote:
I see no reason why. If the woman is has the freedom to avoid the financial burden of a future baby (by killing it), then the father should have a similar right to renounce it. This seems utterly obvious to me.
Oh good lord do we have to go around with this one again.
1) She does not "kill a baby."
2) It is her body, the cells developing inside her body are not a person.
3) It is her body, she makes the decision about what to do with her body.
4) When the foetus has fully developed, it is born. It is then a person.
5) A foetus when born, becomes a child, with all the rights of a child.
6) These rights include the right to expect both parents to care for it.
7) At this stage of its development, the father has a responsibility.
8) At any stage prior to this, while the foetus is still not viable, and is being carried by the woman, it has nothing to do with the father.
Jesus Christ on a crutch, why does this have to be explained to every single nose-poking theist who comes along with his self-righteous bullshit about "babies" being "killed" by abortion. Get it right, a foetus is not a "baby" it only becomes one when it is able to live on its own.
