|Reviews for exploited by choice|
| moongazer7 9/4/09 . chapter 1
The theory concerning that the man as selfish if he had sex and didn’t want the baby is mostly correct… but I’d not call it selfish, because it’s precisely not selfishness, but irresponsibility. He would need to take responsibility unless the woman doesn’t want the child either. The mother tends to have more choices. It’s kind of a rights thing. The men has their special rights, so do women. These are very few, but it makes some sense.
Women has to bare child, and never the men because he does not have the resources to bare child in his body. Now, abortion should be performed only because of trouble that can be rationally backed up. The family can not financially support the child, the mother would suffer or even be killed because of baring children, or if the family can find no way to support the child and everyone’s rights might be better off without an extra life. A child is not a child unless he is born, and is still part of the woman and a group of cells until the birth of the child. Therefore there is no official right for him until his birth. The rights belongs to the woman, primarily since she is the carrier since men never carry a child themselves.
You are wrong about the bit about convenience. The convenience factor would be wrong, but if there is a valid reason, I don’t see why not. You must not mix A and a. Killing a baby that is already born is wrong.
Killing a life form in a womb that can not yet live on his own because of the rights and/or circumstance of the mother is justifiable. The mother is doing the right thing to help herself, as the life form and child to be in her takes up her resources and will later cost her much more. It’s much more moral to finish a clump of cells then wait for the baby’s birth and then giving him up.
The baby has never been wrong. He doesn’t know what is right or wrong yet. All he has done is cry, need to be fed, needs to be changed, and needs a lot of attention. Killing a child that is out of the mother is quite wrong. It’s killing a human that can not as of yet decide for themselves, has never done anything wrong technically, and has never asked to be killed.
Killing people or children that can and will make choices, being able to think and advocate for themselves is wrong and immoral. The child or adult most likely do not want to die. He has no reason to die, unless two circumstances. One if the person in question requests to be dead or if the person in question has done so much harm that it is better for him to not be alive and harm more people.
Concerning if he is actually a baby or not…
Answer me, this then. Why can a baby not be born at the second trimester and live independently without extra help from hospital care and incubators.
The difference is that a baby that is born can live on it’s own means, and determine his own end, but the life form in the mother can not. It can not work outside the mother, and thus, has not been out of the body yet.
It might have feelings, but so does most life forms. There is also evidence that a baby is also part of the mother. If it weren’t in the mother, the baby wouldn’t survive without extra help that is equal to it’s mother. It does not eat on it’s own, the food and nutriences from the mother is transferred to the baby. Blood and other things is passed on to the developing child by way of the mother’s system. When out, the premature baby is kept in NICU which people have to tend to. There is different machines that keep them alive and well.
The one thing that concerns me is, is women notified of these consequences. If they are, they should be able to do it if they approve. If they disapprove, then they can choose to give birth normally. However, it’s a serious problem, if they aren’t.
| LittleLoser.AndRoloLamperouge 8/10/09 . chapter 1
way-too-awesome. Such an eye opener. Two thumbs up.