I don't understand why the woman is granted a choice but not the baby? someone has to speak for the unborn child. If Christians can't or wont speak out then who will? A government hell bent on winning votes from the general public?
The baby isn't granted the right to vote either. They're not granted any rights until they're born. In fact, the Bible tells us that they're not even a living soul until they take their first breath. Which only happens outside the womb when they're born.
I don't understand why a fetus, even at the stage where it is a zygote, is presumed to have more rights at that stage than the woman in who's body that zygote resides.
When does a woman surrender her rights as a woman because she's fertile and carrying a fetus? A fetus that, if they're female and grow to be a fertile woman, will lose their rights at that point should they become pregnant.
At one time birth control was illegal in this country. People that were ultra-right extremists then argued that it was immoral to stop the natural procreation of life. Every ejaculation a man made was believed to have a right to install a baby into a woman. Women were property back then too. They had no rights because they were female.
Now in the 21st century that mind set is still actively pursuing enslaving women as incubators because males are believed to have every right to see their sperm come to term. Whether a woman wants that for herself or not. And the horror that compounds that agenda is those ultra-right extremists argue this in the case of rape and or incest. Be the victim a fertile child or a grown woman.
It is never a moral argument that has true and proper standing when that argument states categorically that a woman is officially second class because she has a womb. And therefore all she can choose to do is bring the sperm that deposits itself in her to term and against her will.
How many babies, in the time it took to read the pages accrued to this point in this thread, have died in Africa because their mothers had no choice but to give birth, while they also had no food to feed that what was born?
How many babies the world over are born because there is no choice but that and yet there is no food, no healthy living conditions, to welcome that baby?
How many cultures deem women second class? Didn't we learn anything from the scriptures where women are just that in the old testament?
We can't argue "the Bible says", and hope to be free independent women today. Because the Bible says that a raped daughter can be sold to her rapist for 40 pieces of silver. Ten more than what Judas received selling Christ to the Jewish authorities in the temple.
Or she can be killed along with her rapist if she "enjoyed" being raped.
Or as scriptures commanded women, to be subservient and obedient unto their husbands. That's quite a wide license there if one chooses to create a fundamental household.
If it is all a matter of respect for life, why aren't women respected to make a personal choice for their life that is absolutely no one elses business? And if they want to make it their business, how many here who are ultra-right pro-life have adopted the unwanted born babies that women chose to deliver to life and then chose to deliver to an adoption agency?
It is very easy to tell women what they should do based on one's personal opinion that tells those women they have no right to decide what resides in their own body.
However, taking personal responsibility to take a baby into one's home and raise that baby that one first demanded had to be born against its mothers will is quite another matter.
So, how many here who are pro-life have demonstrated they are also pro-adoption?