Tweet
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, it is not. The problems arise from pre-existing conditions apart from pregnancy.
For a healthy woman, pregnancy has many proven medical benefits, just one of them being a reduction in the risk of breast cancer.
[quote]
Pregnancy is a medical condition. Just because one of the "side effects" is a benefit, doesn't change the fact that it is a medical condition.
Yeah... but the law is on my side 
Were laws that allowed slavery valid?
(sorry, couldn't pass up on that one)
And when does it become a living being... conception? Brain waves? Able to survive on it's own outside it's mother?
Your logic runs contrary to the current law. An abortion isn't killing a child in the womb... It's easy to say things won't make sense if you change the basic premise...
Unfortunately for you, the law makes your logic pattern look kind of silly. While it is against the law to beat your child, it is OK for a woman to make her own decision in regards to her body. And that's why the current law is in place and works... it allows for a difference in opinion.
People who don't believe like you do, can make their decision without having your religious beliefs effect their rights. And you don't have to have an abortion in your family if you don't want to. You can stand by your religious beliefs and just say no. Neither side is cramming their opinion down the others throats. Both sides can make their own choice when the decision effects them.
No, it is not. The problems arise from pre-existing conditions apart from pregnancy.
For a healthy woman, pregnancy has many proven medical benefits, just one of them being a reduction in the risk of breast cancer.
[quote]
Pregnancy is a medical condition. Just because one of the "side effects" is a benefit, doesn't change the fact that it is a medical condition.
And your points are based in the opposite position, that the fetus is not a person, and are just as open to debate.
Was this always so, Ming? If so, then does that mean laws that previously banned abortion were valid?
(sorry, couldn't pass up on that one)
And I believe the unborn child to be a person, because I cannot see a division between the unborn child in the womb and the infant that comes forth from the womb. The two are one being, just in different stages of development.
The laws of the land, or the US, since Canada has no such abortion law, are all based on premises that fall apart if you consider the unborn child to be a person. One does not have a right to beat their children in private, so why would they have a right to kill their child in the womb?
Unfortunately for you, the law makes your logic pattern look kind of silly. While it is against the law to beat your child, it is OK for a woman to make her own decision in regards to her body. And that's why the current law is in place and works... it allows for a difference in opinion.
People who don't believe like you do, can make their decision without having your religious beliefs effect their rights. And you don't have to have an abortion in your family if you don't want to. You can stand by your religious beliefs and just say no. Neither side is cramming their opinion down the others throats. Both sides can make their own choice when the decision effects them.
Comment