Abortion

Unfortunately, most of Con's wall of text is irrelevant to the discussion. Instead of writing 3 paragraphs, those 3 paragraphs could have been summarized as: "It is logical to assume from keli's profile that he lives in the usa. The usa has rights that other countries don't have; in other countries they aren't free to choose the clothes they wear, for example. Over time the US has evolved from its archaic thinking and has accepted the practice of killing of humans for various reasons: genocide, where he cites an article by ruth which is actually true: poor people SHOULD have abortions over children because they cannot afford to support children. Rather than focusing on just the negatives as con likes to, ruth considers both the positves AND the negatives. In other words, ruth is smart enough to realize that poor people have enough struggles as is; the last thing they need is another life to take care of. Then con goes on to say: "What brings into question is the morality factor concerning the tyranny of government to enslave a segment of society to support the convenience of others to do what they want with their "body."" No, just the opposite is true, actually. You want the tyranny government to force YOUR beliefs onto women and TELL them what to do with their own body. If YOU want to not have an abortion, you have that right, unlike in China where you are only allowed 1 kid per family. (It's now kids per family, but same concept.) https://en.wikipedia.org... "Because money encourages freedom, the bio-program of our "unalienable Rights" provides reason to desire its accumulation. It is hard to deny the powerful effects of money on the perception of freedom; and even harder to deny its potential effects on morality and power, including social manipulation by the institution of government through taxation. In other words, taxing me to support abortion clinics is tyrannically taking a part of my freedom (money) away, effectively enslaving me to support the killing of humans, which I find immorally disgusting. " Ah, but on the contrary, making ME pay for babies that YOU cannot afford to support is disgusting. Maybe you should be having more abortions instead? And furthermore, you keep citing the cost of "having to pay for other people to choose..." yes...and don't you think that I'm paying FAR MORE for POOR PEOPLE to choose to have babies when they should be having abortions instead? Yet, YOU and POOR people are STILL free to have babies and force ME to pay part of the 250-350k to support them. As stated above, abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.