Kasz216 said:
No they would of went to doctors who would of performed them illegally. The doctors know how... and many would still continue to give abortions. Just off the record. I'd say most would. It's one of those things that just wouldn't stand being made illegal. It'd be like the prohibition era, except no awesome music. Also, how can you justify abortions when the mothers life is in danger? And people under the age of consent? It would go against the Hippocratic Oath. No doctor would perform a "legal" abortion. Also, anyone who voted for such a law would be a hypocrit of the highest order. Giving fetus' conditional humanity is worse then none at all. It's something I can't understand in people who see fetus' as kids. It's the real inhumanity in this debate. Well they wouldn't be hypocrits if they believed in speeding up peoples deaths to save people on trasnplant lists and the like. But like i said. Inhuman. |
All fetus's are humans as that is the only life-form that it is possible for them to become. Obviously if the mother wishes to struggle on with the pregnancy to try and save her child she should be allowed to. People in positions of authority regularly choose to prioritise one person's life over another (women and children first ring a bell?). In this case it is simply prioritising the mother over the child.
As for people under the age of consent? The reason I said age of consent rather than a specific age is because the age of consent is the age at which society deems people to be old and mature enough to be responsible with sex. It logically follows that we cannot expect them to deal with the consequences of sex if they are underage. Though I admit that I am shaky on this point and open to pursuasion. I do think that perhaps this acception should be erradicated.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS







