3 Messages de forum

• Le statut de l’action politique chez Hannah Arendt 24 mai 2012 11:08, par rqLRdAePvkQvg

  I was struck by the honesty of your piosntg

  • Le statut de l’action politique chez Hannah Arendt 3 juillet 2012 07:57, par deaOtQiOUShyXMTsG

    Abortion should be alelowd if the existence of a fetus/embryo/zygote is going to cause the death of the mother, or if she has been raped.However, if it is not any of these, then both lives should be considered. It will generally be the woman’s choice to have unprotected sex. Again, abortion could possibly be an option if protection failed, but if she chose to have unprotected sex, she should go through with giving birth. Obviously, there will be cases where she was under the influence of certain drugs or alcohol, and that of course will need to be taken into account.However, aborting simply because the mother does not want to give birth is wrong.Essentially, a zygote is a human that is not yet fully grown. A baby is human that is not yet fully grown. What’s the difference, besides how much growing has happened ? It is still a human life, and should not be taken away unless it is absolutely essential.

    • Le statut de l’action politique chez Hannah Arendt 2 août 2012 21:49, par wRiBlclUltNiKTHB

      Yes, but now then we must say one’s right to their own body is not inalienable. You are sainyg we can strip the rights of women if they choose to have sex. This is fundamentally wrong.What’s more, you’re now also sainyg the fetus derives its right from the choices its host makes. So we are no longer sainyg rights derive from one’s ability to value, to reason, or from one’s nature, but from the choices others make.In my opinion, it’s much simpler (and rational) to say one’s right to their body is inalienable. As far as I am concerned, there exists no right to live inside another against their will. We should be pro-life for the actual human being involved, and that means legalizing abortion.