does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman?
917051
That's a very difficult question.The fetus hasn't asked to be there,so it's not like its forcing,it has no will at that stage of development.\nIn general I believe the government doesn't have the right to demand of a woman to be forced to have a baby.Her body,her choice although open minded and real education could prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
1169061
Do a search on murder rates of pregnant women.I'm pretty sure there is a seperate charge for the death of a fetus when the mother is murdered.Abortion is murder and should be treated the same.
914437
Abortion\n\nsome people feel it is wrong to terminate the life of a baby because the mother was not ready to have children.\n\nTo some extent abortion can be right especially if the woman was brutally raped and as an consequence she is pregnant. Or she has suffered for child abuse and as a result she is pregnant and she could be really young like 12 years old. Sometimes the baby could have a serve disability and will have 24 hour care when born and would cost alot of money that the parents don't have.\n\nReasons why people are against it is for many reasons. The most obvious is religion. The Bible/ Quran clearly state that it is wrong to take another human life NO MATTER what the events are leading to the pregnancy, it is a sin. People say that there are other options other than abortion e.g. adoption/ fostering. Most people are infertile and if you don't want your child then give the child to a family that will love the child as any parent would. Another reason is that sometimes the mother will later form a bond with the child if she keeps the pregnancy and gives birth.\n\nHope this helps xx
797906
I would say no.. and I've heard an argument (zealots don't attack me, I've not looked it up, only heard it) that in the bible a man kills a pregnant woman and his sin is killing the woman.. that is his only sin.. not for the death of the child inside her.. which would suggest that in the eyes of God a pregnant woman is one person.
621538
Really depends if you  consider an aborted baby a person on not.\n\nIf you consider an aborted baby a person then different rights should come into the question eg Father, state and child. The power of each of the rights depends on the majority views of the society\n\nIf you consider it to be like sperm then you can do whatever you want with it.
902301
None, it is legal in all 50 states.  For more information on abortion, see http://Abort73.com
297303
The question was whether a city could withhold public funds from paying for abortions or prohibit public employees from performing or assisting in abortions.\n\nA fractured court held that there was no consitutional right to public funds for abortions. It also pretty much threw out the 3-trimester argument of Roe v Wade in upholding another part of the law that required a doctor performing an abortion to first determine if the fetus was viable, and deliver the baby if it was.\n\nSee the opinion here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=492&invol=490
56267
Do you mean do I think a person should have the right to a choice?  Yes, I do.\n\nThe biggest reason - in the case of rape.  Why should a woman who was raped be forced to carry the monster baby for 9 months, have to put up with questions from well-meaning people who do not know the whole story (are you excited?  what does the daddy think?  what are you hoping for? etc) and then, after giving the baby up for adoption, have to spend the rest of her life wondering if she will one day have a "blast from the past", the child, now an adult, tracking her down, not caring what horrible memories they are digging up, just because they are "curious".\n\nThen, there's the factor - who would take care of all the unwanted babies?  Would the taxpayers have to foot the bill for them?  \n\nThen there would be the ones that keep the child even though they never wanted them, and then proceed to abuse and/or neglect them their entire lives.
740662
The UK is once again debating over its abortion laws. It is allowed in this country currently up 24 weeks providing 2 doctors give their consent that to not abort would be of detrrement to the womans physical or mental health, that it would harm the child or their family. \nseems about right to me.
428074
An embryo or fetus is dependent upon its mother's body for survival. A woman has the right to have absolute dominion over her own person, and since the fetus or embryo is part of her person, no one has the right to force her to carry it to term.\n\nKilling an unborn child in a war is wrong, because you are murdering a separate life form whose existence is not dependent upon yours. And not only that, but the right of the mother of the unborn child to autonomy over her own body has been violated. It's forced abortion, pure and simple.\n\nI have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On the one hand, since murderers have deprived others of their right to live, they should also be robbed of theirs. On the other hand, since so many people have been wrongly convicted of murder, the death penalty should be abolished, because executions are irreversible.
1126957
I'm pro-choice. A woman's rights come before that of the clump of cells and tissues that have invaded her uterus.
1076072
Abortion is not a crime. Its a woman's right.
1032308
Because when attempting to decide the case Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court heard from religious, philosophical, and scientific experts on pregnancy, on the life and viability of a fetus, and they realized that no one agrees with one another.  Some people say life begins when a sperm touches an egg, some at implantation into the womb, some at quickening, some at fetal viability (meaning that, if born now, the baby could live outside the woman's body).  They decided that since experts were not in agreement about when a baby's life began, they could also not decide when precisely a baby began to have human rights.  They decided, therefore, that until the third trimester, a woman's definite (read: generally agreed-upon) individual right to self-determination was to be given precedence over a baby's theoretical (read: not agreed-upon) rights to life.  They decided this so that people who believed that life began later in pregnancy would not be forced to live by others' beliefs, especially since these beliefs are usually religious.  So until the third trimester, it is about the mother because the mother is the only one in the equation with definite life and definite, legally established rights.
941078
I'm pro choice and freedom. Nobody has the right to force you to follow their beliefs. If you decide abortion is right for you, that is your choice to make and none of my business.\n\nI don't take the anti abortion crowd seriously because I have not seen one of them go out of their way to help some poor young mother or to care for the many starving and mistreated babies born to mothers incapable of caring for them.
1027900
This is an interesting point because pro-abortion people always ingore the fact that a newborn can't survive on it's own either.\n\nIt's not about a woman's rights, it's about killing babies. That's it. Some people would rather rip a babies body apart with a suction tube than take a birth control pill.\n\n(now watch, some lib will post something about rape and insest as though more than just a few abortions are as a result of rape and insest)
1008585
It is conceivable that the US Congress might try to pass a law outlawing abortion federally. \n\nWomen who have taken their reproductive freedom and personal privacy in this area should be aware that the shrill vocal minority who oppose freedom of choice are doing their best to deprive them of their rights.\n\nThe countervailiing position to the argument that a fetus is a human is that, so is the impregnated female. She is not an incubating machine who should have to bear the seed of a rapist or a relative to term just to satisfy the moral smugness of a minority of the populace.\n\nolderandwiser is right on. I am buying up stock in coat hangar factories right now.
1101422
Three separate points in time, so three separate issues.\n\nFirst, sex and conception. Both parties have the right to make decisions on whether they are being involved. Non-consensual sex is called rape, whether it's male or female. \n\nThird (yes, I'm skipping second for now), there is after birth. Again, both parents are equally involved and have the same rights and obligations. Both are liable for child support, based on what they can afford.\n\nSecond, we have the period during pregnancy, after conception but before live birth. Let's split this into two separate periods.\n\nIn the last few months, called post-viability, the fetus is capable of living on its own (with medical help). So, who has rights during this time. The two lives directly involved -- the fetus and the mother. The father is not directly involved, since he's not contributing anything to helping the fetus grow. So, he has no rights to affect this part of the process.\n\nSo far, during these stages, there's no real argument about who is involved, and whose rights are at issue.\n\nThe argument comes during the first part of the pregnancy, pre-viability where there is just an embryo that cannot survive on its own. Because it cannot survive on its own, it is not an independent life. It's irrelevant for this discussion whether it's a human life at all or not, because whether it is or not, it's not an independent life. Thus, it does not have independent rights. So, the only person directly involved with independent rights is the mother.\n\nNow, many state governments say that even if the embryo does not have independent rights, the state can still assert rights on its behalf. Thus, you have arguably two parties involved -- the mother and the state (on behalf of the potential future baby). \n\nHowever, in no other legal situation anywhere does a possible future potential person or controversy merit legal protection. Maybe this situation is unique, and special rules are in order. Maybe it's not. \n\nBut either way, the sperm-donor is not directly involved during the first few months of the pregnancy (after conception), and so has no rights. Also, no legal obligations during this period.\n\nSo the only question is whether the government should be allowed to assert rights, on behalf of the future potential fetus. And personally, I don't trust the government to make those kind of decisions, so I'd rather leave it up to the mother alone during that time.