Am I the only one that thinks this is backwards? How does this make sense?

LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited March 2014 in The Social Lounge
If a woman learns she is pregnant and decides she does not want to have the child she can terminate it without repercussion.

If a woman is pregnant and decides to keep the child but the fetus is killed in an accident I caused I am a murderer and face repercussions.

Even if the woman does not want the child and I ? it in an accident I still get punished and she can be compensated.

This is completely left to the opinion of the mother. If it is okay to end a life based on personal views then why can't my neighbour come here and end mine because he feels like it? How are feelings a good justification?

It seems the only justification for ending a preborn's life is that it is an inconvenience to the mother. She has the right to arbitrarily end its existence in the first six months of life and it based on nothing but subjective ? .

What is it that is so special about the first six months of life that make it acceptable for the mother and only the mother to terminate the child?

I would assume the typical feminist counter is that the woman houses the child in her body for 9 months and she should have a right to decide whether or not she wants to do this. Well women also housesthe child in their houses for 18+ years, so should we give women the right to Casey Anthony their kids when they decide they do not want to be mothers? What is stopping us from giving women the right to arbitrarily eat their young when they cause their nipples to be sore, or are a financial burden on the family?


  • LUClEN
    LUClEN Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I understand that this entire argument is based on an idea that subjective views have little merit and that detracts from it but is it really so bad that it can't even get a troll response?