Logically, should the government, especially the Federal government, have any right to pass laws controlling abortion?

Question

I can’t help caring for babies even the unborn, nor can I help feeling that humans are special. However, feelings are not logical. Logically, there are three issues. One, are humans special? I doubt that other species believe we are. Two, the logical rule is, “If you make it, you own it. If you take modeling clay, hair, paint, etc. and mold and paint it until it looks like an infant baby, since you made, you should own it. Providing you are not violating the rights of other that may have helped make it, you can keep it, give it away, or destroy it. The same logic applies to a live baby.  Third, you have an obligation to provide first aid. If you see someone bleeding and badly injured, you are legally obligated to provide first aid. You are not a doctor, but you can try and stop the bleeding and provide what comfort you can. You can call an ambulance and remain until the ambulance arrives. Or you can take him or her to a hospital. However, that is the limit of your obligation. You are not required to pay the hospital bill nor provide your time and money for months of treatment. That is the logic that should apply to abortions. When the technology exists, if you become pregnant and don’t wish to keep the parasite that is feeding on you then, like providing first aid, you should be required to go to a clinic or hospital for a short procedure to remove the fetus and transfer it to an artificial womb or, if possible, another person’s womb that wants the fetus or baby. However, just like providing first aid, you are not obligated to feed and carry the fetus or parasite for 10 months, spend your time, money, and effort for that length of time; nor suffer all the discomfort, stretch marks, body changes, and discomfort.

globetrotter22 · Accepted Answer

@kelleynice you are a very bright young woman and I’ve enjoyed reading and responding to many of your questions.

However look at the verbiage you are using when describing a human fetus as a “parasite”:

“if you become pregnant and don’t wish to keep the parasite that is feeding on you then…..”

and then you described the human fetus as a “parasite” again:

“not obligated to feed and carry the fetus or parasite for 10 months”.

When it comes the word “parasite” most people think of insects, bacteria, viruses, fungus, etc. that invades a human body and harms the host. I didn’t realize a woman having her egg (accidentally) fertilized during consensual sex is an invasion to her body and the growing human organism is a foreign “parasite”. Especially when the fetus will grow into a live human being containing half of a woman’s genetic code.

Word choice does matter and I think you have been exposed to some radical feminist propaganda that labels human fetuses “parasites”. Word choice is one of the first psychological warfare tactics utilized by Marxism. It’s a common strategy leftists use is to get masses repeating their terminology. For example gender transition therapy is now called “gender affirmation” surgery as if it’s impossible or something that the person transitioning is making a mistake.

Anyway if you want to make an argument to be pro choice then you need to be careful not to use terminology that poisons the well (e. g. calling human fetuses “parasites). That isn’t going to win over hearts and minds.

hahahmm · Accepted Answer

The legal system has preached for decades that males owe child support simply because the baby exists, regardless of whether he consented to his sperm being used or not. There's actual cases where a woman stole a man's sperm from a used condom & impregnated herself and now the sperm donor owes child support. There's been cases of female babysitters raping boys and getting pregnant... and then the boy owes child support. Given this, there is zero way us men would back letting women off the hook for the baby that they are the mother of.

I've also noticed that in most cases of accidental pregnancies, the woman just happens to only have accidents when she's with a guy she thinks she will benefit from having a baby with. At the time she thinks it's a good idea. Logically that explains why a woman can say she forgot to take her birth control pill even tho the pill is designed so you can forget to take a dose and it still works and makes it harder than winning the lottery to get pregnant.

You want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, simply remove 100% of the incentive for women to get pregnant. No child support. No government cash of any kind. No benefits like free/low school tuition for single moms. Let's give feminists what they want when they say men & women are equal.

Back to your question: yes, the government has a say even when it's not convenient for the side that loses their case. Laws are ultimately determined by culture & politics.. not some objective truth.

Adaeva · Accepted Answer

The government will not leave people alone. They shouldn't be able to interfere with the life and choices of women, their children, or families unless an injured citizen files a complaint. Therefore, neither the state, city, county, nor federal government has any right to pass legislation controlling abortion.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

The federal government needs to stay out of it. But I disagree that you have a legal responsibility do administer first aid, or even drive someone to the hospital.

I drove a woman to the hospital that had just been in a car accident. The state patrol called me and yelled at me for that.

RolandCuthbert · Answer

I created a thread that addresses this very subject. The actual debate in court is not over life vs choice. It is over the actual constitutional rights that women have.

And if you think that women have the same rights as men, then the only logical outcome is that the court would rule that a state blocking a woman's access to abortion is violating her Constitutional rights.

We confer no rights to the unborn or a fetus. Because as your opponents would say, the word abortion is not in the Constitution. But neither are words like fetus or unborn.

DWornock · Answer

I don't have strong opinions about abortions. The issue is not relevant to me. We are not an endangered species and already their are too many people. Therefore, if the government would stay out of the issue, like they should, I don't care what women do to the unborn fetuses that they; not the government, made and rightfully should own to do with as they choose. Although, if married their husband has an interest that should be considered.

Early in the pregnancy, I wouldn't call fetuses babies. However, later in the pregnancy, even if very small, if they look like babies to me they are babies. However, whether or not they are babies, they are killed (not murdered) when aborted. Since it is not murder, rightfully the government should not be involved.

Red_Arrow · Answer

If you consider the fetus a living human, then yes. Governments pass laws regulating when it can be considered okay to take a human life, and when it is not. I am not saying abortion is good or bad, and I am not saying that the fetus is human. Just stating that if one holds the belief that the fetus is a human being, then laws can be passed to protect that life.

Iron_Man · Answer

We are a Christian nation finally something has been done after 50 years

RuthlessAggression · Answer

the supreme court has a right to do what i wants, thats their right but, you have to think about the morality of the decision it's making. they literally took rights away from women

Agape93 · Answer

Fuck no. The government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives.

Faith18letsgo · Answer

I want to say the federal law doesn’t have any laws about abortion. That’s now a state by state decision. But yeah they should legalize it once and for all to save lives.

Anonymous · Answer

It should be banned by all governments. Murdering children is not acceptable. Women don't make babies on their own. And humans aren't parasites. Mammalian reproduction invests more into their offspring; those offspring are not parasites to their mothers.

IsoUser · Answer

NO, I don't think that government has any business delegating a girls rights to her body Period and no pun intended.

Anonymous · Answer

We live in a society of laws. Not a theocracy. When the minority starts pushing the society towards a theocracy, those who wish to remain free must push back harder, resist, and smash them into the ground.

USLegionary · Answer

There should be a nation wide or state wide vote to decide it. Democracy

Whatever2929292 · Answer

Well I am glad you aren't for vaccine mandates at least... Right? My body my choice

demonics · Answer

... which is why SCOTUS left it up to the states to decide.

Guy13 · Answer

Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness
Order of Law
Murder
Civil Society

there's already places in the world where you can live with the worldview you are professing. Leave the continental USA and head out to areas of Asia and Africa.

Guy__ · Answer

I'm against all the technological crap.  Ideally rape should be eliminated.  Various forms of birth control already exist, and if you happen to fail with them, just accept it and raise the child.

WhitneySnow · Answer

You sound like a Vulcan lol

Anonymous · Answer

Constitution clearly states that things not covered in it our up to the states to decided--it should have never left states jurisdiction to start.

gorydetails · Answer

When you call an unborn child a ‘parasite’ you’ve lost your morality as a human being. You are a disgusting individual.

AFretiredTXn · Answer

No...

Preeti161101 · Answer

Government can it

Logically, should the government, especially the Federal government, have any right to pass laws controlling abortion?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said