Who should have more rights: Animals or Human unborn babies?
93469
Here's the problem, and why that's not the question to ask.\n\nWhat constitutes an "human unborn baby"? Ask different people and you'll get different answers. What constitutes an "animal"? Pretty straightforward.\n\nThe problem isn't with liberals or conservatives, or democrats vs. republicans, or doctors vs. priests. \n\nThe issue that we really should be asking is -- do we EVER want someone else to be making those kind of definitions for us? Do we EVER want the majority to be able to define what is and is not life, for everyone, just because there are more people who have that different opinion?\n\nExample: How would conservatives (who, for sake of this hypothetical believe that life starts at conception) feel if the majority happened to believe that: (1) life starts at birth; (2) we have too many people on the planet; and (3) abortion should be mandatory for families with two or more children (like they do in China currently)? And because they are the majority, they pass those laws, imposing that viewpoint on everyone else.\n\nAt that point, pro-lifers would be screaming for the Supreme Court to say that the government cannot make laws that contradict their personal beliefs, and to hold that any laws which try to take away their choice to HAVE a child are invalidated as unconstitutional.\n\nThat's what people don't get get. Pro-choice advocates are not pro-abortion -- they are anti-government-interference. They don't believe that just because 51% come to one conclusion that majority should be able to decide for everyone.\n\nIt's not about who has more rights. It's about who gets to force who.
912793
There is no difference other than the one you pointed out--if the baby is not wanted, it is not considered murder.  Imagine if we applied this same logic to others who are "unwanted" in our society.
464282
Actually, I think both should be illegal!!!! \nAt what point these days does society think that life begins? It seems that answer is directly related to the value the mother puts on the child. \n\nIf it's not a baby....you're not pregnant!
63226
It is an interesting dichotomy wherein pro-choicers want abortions on demand, and they question/argue about when a fetus is considered a human being.\n\nHowever, if a pregnant woman is attacked in some manner by someone, and the fetus dies, then the pro-choicers want the attacker charged with murder for killing the fetus they are all too willing to kill in the first place.  \nThe difference?...they'll state that the woman wanted to keep the baby, now they call it a baby because it's wanted, but unwanted, they'll call it a fetus.  Interesting
390764
While I am not in favor of either (Pro-life,own a pitbull), I do know that mankind has a tendency to use things such as extreme animal rights activism as a dumpimg ground for the suppressed guilt they feel because of having mistreated humanity in some way or other. \n\nDeep down inside, our society feels that animals are equal to (in some cases,like PETA) or are superior to humans. \n\nThis notion is clearly evident in legislation, where killing a child is okay and a matter of "choice" and where you end up fined/jailed for killing a pet. This a complete reversal of nature. We are to love one another above ourselves and have rulership/dominion over animals. This is the true natural order.
1122207
Whaaaaaa ?? I think people should have a license to breed; perhaps they'd be less indiscriminate. Love is not, however, something that can necessarily be controlled or mandated.
10534
The endagered species.... Probably because I am an animal lover but also because while they both are precious this world is much worse off with the link of a species missing and if the species is endangered that means every one really really counts. (Not that the childs life doesnt count)...\n\nIts really a hard pick and if put in the situation my answer could totally change...
414571
You give a good argument for pro choice, and to me, it's a refreshing one.  I am in agreement with a woman's right to choose but become less committed when the babe becomes a viable age.  I have worked in neo-natal units and clearly see that they are more than a "fetus" at 24 weeks (or less) of gestation. I would like to trust the woman to make a decision that is best for her own well-being, but with consideration of the unborn potential person she has created.  Unfortunately, not all women are so unselfish and generous, and even go so far as to use abortion as a frequent form of birth control, which disgusts me.  I have also had the experience of these same "mothers" not being fit to take care of themselves, let alone a baby, and one with the multiple health concerns that many premature babies must deal with throughout their lives.  This too, consumes the same, or more, of the natural resources you speak of and is also commonly a drain on society's welfare system.  \n\nSo, the debate continues.  Yours is a fresh perspective.  Thank you.
721657
It takes a while to get to the animal rights part...\n\nFirstly, one thing is I think most liberals (and most people in general) do care what happens to unborn babies, even if they support women's rights to abortion.\nIt's just that an abortion supporter is also considering the negative impacts of a mother giving birth to a child she isn't ready for, or doesn't want. When this is taken into consideration, a decision (of whether to have the child or abort) is a weigh up between the good and bad outcomes on each side. Someone's opinion on this then depends on what sort of being they perceive an unborn child to be at different stages of development - how aware it is, etc. It also depends on how they feel the mother and child's lives will be if the child is born. To me it is morally fair for a mother to abort, if she has given the matter enough thought. I certainly feel compassion for an aborted child (and a little for a wasted sperm or egg when I think about it), but I also think lives would come out worse in general if mothers weren't allowed to abort.\nIt seems there are certain positive things we do in terms of  actively caring for unborn babies: medical things, dealing physically and mentally with pregnant mothers, and educational things, improving how everyone acts, like promoting safe sex, etc. (I think abortion actually falls under the first category. Although it doesn't immediately "care" for the child being aborted, I think it brings more positive benefit for mothers and children in general.) So I suppose one's perception of how we treat unborn babies depends on whether they think we are doing well in these areas. No doubt they could be improved...\nAnimal rights activists clealy believe we are not doing well in our treatment of animals, so spend time and energy trying to change this. However, this doesn't mean that they don't care for unborn babies. But they may well spend more effort in promoting animal rights than promoting unborn babies' rights (which they might have done by promoting safe sex for instance). So an observer might think the activist cares *more* about animal rights than unborn babies, however this might be false. The activist might simply think we are already treating unborn babies fairly well, but animals very badly, so feel it's more important to act on the animals issue. So I don't think it's twisted that someone does this, it depends on subtle perception differences. In fact it's probably important that there are people specifically involved in each of these (and of course other) issues. That way they can do a lot to promote that one issue, and someone else can deal with other issues. All of these things do need improvement.
171855
Very good question.  Ask Scott Peterson (worthless piece of garbage) about that one.  This is just one hole in the beliefs of the right to choose people that they wish we wouldn't see.  The fact is that a fetus IS a human life and abortion IS murder.\n\nAnother scenario that escapes me is that you will see the same people at a "Fur Is Murder" rally as you will see at a "Freedom of Choice" rally.  I wonder if they see the irony of their actions?
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
946591
A woman has the right over her own body, regardless of whether there is a zygote, embryo, or fetus present.  It is not a "baby," regardless of the necessity of that word for emotional appeal.\n\nLook, here's my take on things: if you are so opposed to abortions, then stop trying to make them illegal and make them unnecessary.  Work to provide better free or at least affordable health care.  Work to improve sex education for our youth.  Make birth control easily accessible and cheap.  Establish better support for women who wish to give up a child for adoption.  Provide better assistance to people of low incomes who have children.\n\nTHOSE are the major contributing factors to abortion procedures, and if you and all other anti-choice protestors are so caught up in fixing things, then FIX THOSE THINGS.  \n\nI'm pro-choice, because in our society women need to have that option.  I'd love for elective abortions to be completely unnecessary--and so I am trying to fix the problems that lead to them, rather than trying to punish women already in difficult situations by removing their rights.
861494
Uh humans are animals!
991865
What sad answers.  Do you realize how unfeeling and cold your answers are.  How can you pass a law and make it OK for some doctor to puncture a hole in your babies head, suck its brains out and kill him or her and then pull the dead child out and tell me that is acceptable.  You are the same people that want to put someone in jail for being inhumane to animals.  Now I think they are both wrong but I do think the first is a sin.  That same child once it is born alive if you smothered it because you did not want it you would go to jail.  Now tell me what is the difference.  Either way it is a living human being.  A child in the womb cannot live if the mother does not take care of herself and eat properly in other wards you have to take care of it, a baby has to be taking care of by the mother or someone who cares.  They are both still life, why should it be legal to throw an unborn child away.  The funny thing is there was a man here in NC that took an animal,cut the unborn pups out and killed them the out cry was loud.  But those same people who were appalled at this would not blink when the same thing is done to a human being.  \nPlease people wake up, you should not have the RIGHT to kill a child any child.  If you do not want children use a condon, the pill, abstanance & if you get pregnant take care of that child and when it is born give it up for adoption, they at least deserve that.
462892
I am wise enough to know that I am not smart enough to say whether abortion is right or wrong. However I feel very strongly that If abortion is outlawed then  it should still be legal in cases of rape, incest and a mothers health. Also I believe a father should be able to stop a  abortion if he will take complete responsibility for the child. Lastly if it is legal then a man should be able to give his rights away to a child if he does not wish to have one. In that case he would not be required to support it. That may sound harsh but if woman whats choice than they cannot Deni it to the father.
95018
Abortion - This is debatable, but I don't believe the fetus has what can truly be considered consciousness. I don't think it has any concept of life, and does not care, or even have the ability to care, whether or not it lives. And ending its life before it is born may very well be better for it than the life it might end up living, especially considering that if the woman is having an abortion, she doesn't want the kid.\n\nGay Marriage - Because IT IS NOT HURTING ANYONE, IN ANY WAY! It's that simple.
940429
The Supreme Court has ruled on this already and as long as the first Amendment is not altered, abortion should be legal.\n\nThe S.Court ruled abortion should be legal based on a person's 1st Amd right to privacy over what happens to their body. It has nothing to do with when life begins,etc... as some would like it to. It is all about this great country's freedoms and constitution giving us protections over our personal self.