Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dheretic
No, if she has the option of abortion she has no grounds to make that argument on.

Im not sure if you understood. The argument I was mentioning is against making abortion illegal, because if "a woman is forced to cary the baby to term, then she is a ward of the state". I think the argument is illogical and silly, because one is forced to care for the child for 18 years(in most cases), and that too, under the same logic, would make the woman(and the man) a "ward of the state".

22 posted on 06/19/2002 1:18:46 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: FreeTally
My point is that abortion gives her the option of not having the child therefore she has no basis on which to claim she is a ward of the state for having to support her child until it's 18. Legalized abortion gives her the option of not having the child and if she does it gives society the right to obligate her to look after it.
25 posted on 06/19/2002 1:22:33 PM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson