Talk:Slogan:A woman's right to choose

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deemed unnecessary:

Woman, here, includes minors, even those who do not have their parents' consent.

I disagree with HelpJazz about whether this amplification is necessary. The concept of adult rights is not the same as children's rights. Adults have political rights which are different from those of minors. For example, children cannot drive cars on public roads. --Ed Poor Talk 18:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

The way it was written was weird, and obviously trying to push a point instead of explain. I may have been too hasty in simply deleting it entirely. Is it better now? HelpJazz 18:28, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

No, the amplification is necessary but the parenthetical phrase you inserted was no better than the one you took out. I didn't say you were wrong, only that I disagreed with your reasoning.

We need to address the fact that feminists want not only to get the government to allow adult females to have elective abortions, but that they also want that same "right" granted to minors. --Ed Poor Talk 18:34, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I see now. I was treating them as the same issue. Perhaps the position on minors should be treated separately, so as to not be belittled by joining it with the main issue? So something along the lines of:
The argument expressed by the phrase is that the decision to have an elective abortion is always and necessarily a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It implies that the decision is simply "a matter of choice", and that no one else has a high enough stake in the matter to overrule her choice. The phrase is also sometimes extended by feminists to include a "right" for minors to choose an abortion - even without a parent's consent or knowledge.
(I italicized the addition).

Identical twins

Regarding the last edit by Gregkochuconn, (Quote: "One flaw with this argument is that the fetus is a human being with its own soul and unique DNA - barring a scenario where a woman aborts one of two identical twins") This doesn't make sense to me and seems to be implying that twins each have only half a soul. I don't believe this is accurate. I believe that each person has a soul. Just as each twin has its own heart, set of lungs, brain. Just as each twin has his or her own personality. Each child has its own soul, not half a soul. There is debate about whether the soul splits in two or if there are two souls present at conception, one for each child, as God in His infinite wisdom knew there would be two children. Still some believe that the soul enters as the child takes its first breath, but whatever you believe, I don't think it is accurate to say that twins each have only half a soul. Taj 14:07, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

I wasn't saying they only have half a soul, but they don't have unique DNA, since it's identical. I will rephrase it to make that clear. Gregkochuconn 22:00, 13 September 2012 (EDT)