If you're going to be pro-life, then you're allowed to be pro-life for yourself, but you don't have the right to enforce a pro-life status for everyone. I think that's a key point here.
Pro-lifers can fight and rally all they want for the rights of the unborn, but at the end of the day, they cannot and should not be able to have their beliefs forced upon those who do not share those beliefs. The same then goes for those who place conditions on their pro-choice (which really isn't a choice if you place conditions) stance, if you want to fight and rally that abortions should be illegal after 12/16/whatever weeks, then that's fine, but those moral codes that you set for yourself shouldn't then be applied to those who feel differently. You don't have to agree with or even like the choices of others, but ultimately, it is their choice to make, not yours.
What is good for the goose, isn't always good for the gander.
Which is why I said that they cannot and should not be ABLE to, because yes, currently they do.Originally Posted by Janesmum123
So does that mean if you're staunchly pro-choice that there is no time during a pregnancy where you feel a baby's life and right to life should be considered? Even if it is at a gestation that is viable outside the mother?
I am understanding everyone's argument now and very unsure where I now stand. But curious about this part. Does it never reach a point where the baby has a right to life? (I'm not talking about if the mother's life is in danger).
In a country like Australia we value human life above all else and we protect it fiercely. Many people see late term pregnancies as a human life.
In this country we pride ourselves on protecting children and babies so to some degree our laws need to reflect that.
Of course when a human life beings to exist is up for discussion but that's where our government comes in, to some extent that is its job.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!