Overall, I want to see whoever is my politician work on ways to increase adoption and speed up the adoption time frame

You would then punish a child for the mistakes of other people – punish with DEATH, DEATH! In what world is that right? The child did nothing wrong, the child's not even old enough to think of sinning! Two wrongs don't make a right. once you're a mother you're a mother forever.

Even grown adult people do not have the right to use another person's body without their consent, so why exactly do you think a fetus should be entitled to do the same, whether you consider it "a person" or not..?

I mean, you totally could sleep around and just get abortions if you get pregnant, because that's just a personal lifestyle/medical choice between an individual and their partner(s)/doctor(s). As for walking out on your child, I assume you mean after they're born? In which case, single parents definitely exist, yea, both single mothers AND single fathers take care of kids by themselves after another parent is absent for whatever reason. Either parent can walk out of their child's life, as sad as that may be. Men can already walk out on a child before OR after they're born, so I'm not sure what you're asking...

No person, even a fetus, has the right to use another person's body without their consent; if you no longer want the fetus to use your body, then you have every right to stop it from doing so, even if that means it dies. That's just what it means to have bodily autonomy: you have the right to decide who can or cannot use your body, at any time, for any or no reason.

Your argument is well-crafted and certainly provides a strong case for the pro-life stance. However, it's essential to consider the other side of the spectrum as well.

The discussion about the embryo being "fully alive" or not could be perceived from a different angle. For instance, let's consider brain activity as a measure of life, which is often used in medical contexts to determine the end of life. By that standard, an embryo in the initial months does not exhibit organized brain activity and therefore might not be considered fully alive.

Also, the argument about the…  Read more fetus's dependency on the mother for survival is critical. Yes, all living beings need nutrients, but the extent of the fetus's dependence on the mother is unique. It's not just about nutrients; the fetus cannot survive without the mother's body, at least until a certain stage of development.

You've made some interesting points, particularly about the value of a mother's life. This is indeed a complex issue. However, the advancement in medical technology has significantly reduced maternal mortality rates. For example, in the United States, the maternal mortality rate is 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births. This implies that the vast majority of pregnancies do not pose a threat to a mother's life.

Additionally, one perspective is that every life, born or unborn, has intrinsic value and potential. The unborn child, given the chance, may grow up to make significant con…  Read moretributions to society. Therefore, some argue that the potential life of the unborn child should be taken into account.

It amazes me how you liberals are so passionate about the defending the lives of murders, rapists, thieves, and drug kingpins from the death penalty while you uphold the murder of the unborn not only as acceptable but as a positive good – even a right. I can’t help but wonder why when the lives of the very worst renegades of society are worth defending, what exempts innocent, faultless children from the same mercy and compassion. When helpless, defenseless, and voiceless babies are butchered by evil “doctors” in the womb, sometimes being torn limb from limb, you’…  Read morell look the other way. But when mass-murderers, arsonists, and filthy criminals receive their just desserts you’ll be demonstrating in the streets, decrying it as “racist,” “bigoted,” “Nazi.” That’s a logical contradiction – one of the most dangerous logical contradictions of all time, one that is putting to death hundreds of thousands of innocent children every single year.

I'm confused as to why your argument relies so heavily on the right to life of the fetus..? Even a fully grown and conscious adult person does not have the right to use any other person's body without their consent, even if their life is at stake, right? Because no person's right to life can overrule another person's bodily autonomy, so whether or not the fetus has the right to life in the first place would still be completely irrelevant, since even fully grown adults cannot use a person's body if they don't consent...so why should a fetus be any different, espec…  Read moreially when its personhood is not even objective?

If you can violate someone's right to life via the use of another right, then that right has fundamentally taken a higher priority than the right to life. That's the entire point: the right to life is NOT absolute, as other rights can supersede it under certain circumstances. If the right to life was always the most important to uphold under any circumstances, then killing someone would ALWAYS be illegal, but it is not. That is the conclusion I am getting at. It feels like we are agreeing on the same point but miscommunicating in between somehow..?

In this context, it's not about prioritizing one life over the other, but rather recognizing the inherent value in both. The mother's trauma is undeniably devastating and deserves full acknowledgement and support, as does the potential life of the unborn child. A specific example could be the case of Beethoven's mother. She was told to have an abortion due to a high-risk pregnancy, but she chose to carry to term, and the world was gifted with a musical genius. What if Beethoven had been aborted?

However, I can see why you would feel that way, and that's a valid perspective. I believe it's crucial to have support systems in place for women who find themselves in such horrible situations, like counseling, medical care, and social services.

Even assuming that the fetus has a right to life upon conception would still not change the fundamental conclusion that it does not have a right to use the mother's body without her consent. Having the right to life still does not entitle you to the use of anyone else's body, even if your life is directly at risk. Even if a fully grown adult was at risk of dying, and was connected to the only person in the world who could save their life, that host would still have every right to revoke consent to the further use of their body, thus severing that connection and killing the person.…  Read more You simply cannot be forced to overrule consent for your own body, even if it means someone else dies; it does not matter whether that person is a fetus or a fully grown adult. That's exactly why the status of life of the fetus, or any other person, is irrelevant to the argument. You are free to consent to having someone else use your body to save their life, but you cannot be forced to hand over that consent.