Search results

I am not Christian and yet I do not support abortions.

i knew someone would take me out of context so ive edited my last post.

omg serius is like the smartest person here!! I agree completely with his aforementioned statements.

Exactly. Sure some people get their tubes tied and still fall pregnant BUT the percentage of such ppl is relatively small surely.

I answered this already! As for the "IF", even if it isn't a living being, it is a potential life. According to the law it is a living thing anyway.

If the foetus was a living being, then we are comparing the LIFE of a living being with the economic position of another. Ofcourse the former should be above the latter! A life (or potential life) is priceless. Btw. I am NOT religious. I dont think abortion is wrong because Jesus or Allah said...

what kind of sick person told you that? On one hand you have someone's financial position, and on the other hand you have someone's life.

and you are placing someone's economic status before another person's life...

Erawamai, You are a funny person. Instead of just repeating something from a textbook you should show us how the information you are giving is relevant to the topic of abortion. Anyway, you STILL dont get what im saying. You are saying that economic factors are important in determining the...

Erawamai, you are missing the point. Its not the economic factor so much that is critical. Sure, that is a secondary condition, but the main thing is that the woman has paid the doctor to perform a service and he or she has been negligent.

applying your logic of pro lifers and pro choices, one could argue that murder should not be illegal, but rather a choice. since most people won't kill others anyway, we should give people a choice whether they want to murder others. Sometimes enemies can ruin someone more than any baby could.

She is being compensated because she gave birth to a child AFTER paying a doctor a lot of money to sterilise her.

This is just ridiculous - using this logic one can say that anyone who doesn't own a gun has no right to make laws pertaining to guns.

what are you talking about? The court will look for 2 things: intent and/or negligence. A doctor who performs a defective hysterectomy is guilty of the second. But as for the poor woman, who has wronged her? This is why she is not entitled to compensation.

Isn't it obvious?? The woman in a bad economic position hasn't been wronged by someone per se - therefore she doesn't deserve compensation. The woman who has been subject to a defective hysterectomy procedure HAS been wronged by someone - therefore she is entitled to compensation.

She is compensated because she has been wronged by someone. In this case, it is the doctor who didn't perform the hysterectomy properly. If a poor woman has sex and becomes pregnant, who has she been wronged by?

because she paid good money to the doctors to get the hysterectomy done...we are punishing the doctors here...

Yes exactly! Especially when it is so easy to avoid unwanted pregnancies in a majority of cases.

the inconvenience of using multiple forms of contraception

no? you can use more than one form of contraception. Most people who will disagree with this measure will do so because they think its "inconvenient". But is it right to terminate a potential life just for convenience sake? i dont think so