[Jikanu]

Right. First off, hey Jik. Been a long, long time. Secondly, I shouldn't really be making this post because I likely won't be able to respond to any rebuttals or counter-arguments.

I'm continually surprised at how many things we disagree with each other on, but whatever. I think abortion should be completely at the discretion of the mother FOR AS LONG AS THE BABY IS DIRECTLY DEPENDENT ON THE MOTHER FOR SURVIVAL. That is to say, if the baby was to be aborted now and would survive, then the mother has no business prematurely aborting it because it is now a life form by itself now. On the other hand, at an early stage, (however callous it may sound to say so) the foetus is simply a parasite within the mother's womb at she is at perfect liberty to remove it.

Now I am not talking about depending on the mother for financial or other such reasons. For example, one might argue that even after birth a baby is dependent on the mother for nourishment, shelter, clothing etc. But these can be provided by anybody else just as well as by the mother. I am talking about direct dependence on the mother for survival.

Bye.

Complete necro-post, but whatever, this part of the forum's dead as a doornail anyways.

Yeah, it depends on the mother. But doesnt it NATURALLY do that in infancy too? I mean, without many of the modern things we have today, wouldnt the baby have to directly depend on the mother's body for milk, etc.? And if such is true, what's the real difference between within and without the womb?

My point is, hypothetically, would you feel the same if it was an infant and the only way to feed was through mother's milk? Because the problem im seeing is mainly the dehumanization of the fetuses. They're still humans, and as age doesnt factor into our decisions in post-natal care, why should we ignore the human rights of the infant while it's still in the mother's womb?

I suppose what im saying is, what gives anyone any right to say it's less human within the womb than it is outside of it?