This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

And where is your proof of that? It is only your prejudices shining through...

One need only look at the laws passed and other actions of people of the far right.

LaserBrain ... sorry to Alicia Bobcheck for answerig, technically, to your comment, as I can't to LB directly ... hey, BP, care to fix this stupid rule that we can't answer downvoted comments? What if the stuff that gets voted into the ground, is also the stuff that is in most need of an answer? Anyway, the so-calld care about the fetus is a result of a deranged perception thereof. The antichoicers, the pregnancy-enforcers, make themselves care about something by vastly exaggeratig what's to be cared for, making a cluster of cells counted as a human being. Let's for the sake of shortness - will be long enough anyway - assume that there's some sound reason to consider the protectworthyness of a living being linked to the degree of resemblence to a born human. I know this can't carry all the way, because it still has arbitrary elements in it, but for here and now, it might carry sufficiently far. Ok, now that we have that, let's compare a few things. A born goat, a goat who is able to run, to experience fear, joy, pain, relief and all that ... is resembling a born human to some degree. Now, given that all mammals, or all animals for that matter, go through a process of development, we can beyond doubt state that, in earlier stages, the resemblence to a born human is less than in later stages, and the same applies not only to another species, but also to another timeframe - the earlier in, the less the embryo resembles a born human, or a born mammal of whatever kind, for that matter, and as we're not limited to the appearance or such - not even THIS approach is THAT shallow - we can't get around concluding that a born goat, in any respect that the obligation to ethically consider can reasonablily depend on, is closer to a born human than a bunch of cells. Otherwise, we'd have to admit that we don't just accept a few arbitrarily made decisions as shortcuts, but we'd have to make arbitrarity in favor of anything human the basic principle - and, be assured, you don't want that, as a) there's no reasoning behind arbitrary decisions, even if it feels like it's well justified, even "bEcAuSe ThEm'S bEiNg HuMaN" is accepted at times by less demanding debateurs, it isn't, and b) as any arbitrarity is exactly as justified, wellreasoned and obligatory as any other, we could just as well as apply it to humans, apply it to mammals, all of them, or limit it further and apply it to certain humans only, which not only has a negative ring to it, but has proven itself to be a source of hate, suffering, death, injustice. So, I guess this might be enough to have ruled out any so-called ethics that base themselves on arbitrary decisions of whatever kind - now, back to the goat and the embryo ... the goat, who closer resembles a born human in that she can experience stuff and do stuff, can't reasonably sound, let alone obligatorily, be considered less than a human embryo that fails in resembling anything requiring a nervous system. Cos, there ain't none there yet. Which rules out the possibility of the embryo suffering, at the very, very least within the timeframes considered legal to terminate a pregnancy. So, now that I'v made some antichoicer read a lot and waste a bit of time, I'm, basically, satisfied with myself, and atop - the thoughtless, feelingless cluster of cells can't be considered ethically more relevant than a goat. Now ... let's take a look at the hideous things people can do to a goat, which usually don't prompt busloads of religious nutcases to show up at the facility where these things are performed - goats, healthy and life loving goats, are killed to source material from their dead bodies, like their skin, their flesh, and so on ... still there? The only thing antichoicers can resort to "bUt ItS hUmAn 11111111", and, as shown (admittedly, pretty sloppy ... you grow with your competition, and sometimes, the signum of that just ain't a plus, ...). If you're willing to accept THAT as the property of the entity in question that sets it apart, you must also accept that, just as justifiied and it that, carrying just as far, any and every arbitrary distinction between any two groups of animals, including humans, is to be considered ethically sound and, therefore, just as obligatory in being followed by everyone as any other. Be it that a human embryo is a life worth protecting, be it that only white anglo saxon protestants bear any value, or be it that redheads should receive a free Maserati on the 23rd birthday. Basically, by the statement that there's obligatory, binding ethical concerns about the treatment of an embryo, in order to be at least internally consistent, any and every arbitrarity, you must consider sound and valid ... and that's translatable to "there's no such thing as ethics whatsoever". And that's one of the reasons that antichoicers should not be listened to, nor they taken serious. Have a great random weekday everybody!

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

That's a bit of a generalisation, and not really accurate. You said that antiabortionists don't care what happens to the baby as a fetus. Actually, they are trying to prevent fetuses from getting Terminated. So they seem to care more about the fetuses than the mothers.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Interesting point. But the baby can't survive without the mother just after birth either so is still tied in one sense. And that puts a person in the position of having to say, a day before birth its not a living human being who needs to be taken care of and protected. There's no problem if it dies at that point?

Anyone can care for a baby once born, anyone can take on that burden if they choose. Doesn't need to be the person who birthed them. Once outside a a persons body it becomes an active choice you need to participate in rather than passively allowing the use of your body - at that point you can choose whether you want to care for the baby or let someone else who wants to care for them to take over.

A baby can survive without it's birth mother. It cannot survive without an adult to care for it but it doesn't actually require a birth mother. One needn't force anyone to take care of a baby because a person who is willing can care for the baby at that point. Before birth, there is no choice. That's the difference. I see this point brought up quite often, and I find it strange that no one considers this. If a baby needed a specific adult human, willing or unwilling, to care for them then many adoptions wouldn't work. Women die in childbirth and those babies don't have to die with them.

You're ignoring the fact that nobody -does- abortions that late unless the fetus is proven to be non-viable and she wasn't able to access an abortion earlier than that...