Right to privacy, rights to life. Weighing one against the other, I think it the most human and obvious to choose life. However, the question remaining, what is life? When does it begin? For me, I believe most fervently that it begins at CONCEPTION, not 3 months down the road, not when the child is born, at Conception. Why? Because right then when that child has been conceived, it has already overcome a monumental task of traveling amongst thousands of other sperm cells into the egg and fertilizing successfully, it is right then, potential life, a potential human being, who is ANYONE, bar your God(s), to take life away once it has been conceived, snuff it out like a bug? Why can I not do the same for someone else? Yet the Mothers still claim it their own right. No, if it does not endanger the child or the mother, their is no humane reason for such an action.
Allow me to say words of emotion from a heavy heart, for such a topic is impossible for one to not feel: If you're ashamed of the child, can't afford the child or was forced to have the child through rape, that doesn't give you the right to snuff out the greatest and most marvelous thing in the world, the right to live the right to be, the right to experience the world and all its majesty. The child did nothing, and never will be able to do anything if not given the chance, some say the child is better off dead, than to be at the mercy of an angry Mother who has contempt for their very being, yet not existing to begin with is a far worse thing than suffering, for one cannot suffer without knowing happiness. Furthermore, It kind of makes me incredibly fucking sick, and No, I don't give a fuck if emotion sways judgment, I'm no robot and I bleed like the lot of us, if there is ever a time when there is no passion, no fervor, no honor for human life, then please stick a gun into my mouth and you can be happy merely "existing" but I'll have no stake in that.
Now allow me to step back into a reasonable state: To say the child is the property of one sole person would be incredibly incorrect, how one comes to that conclusion is beyond me, the Father should have a say, some stake in that child's life, not solely decided by the Judge Jury and Executioner of one. For it takes two to tango, correct? How is half that child not the Father's? How come suddenly because the women is in possession of the child for 9 months, that grants full ownership? This isn't a dog or a CD we're talking about here, having it be in your possession for a long period of time shouldn't grant total ownership.
And a final emotional conclusion:
It's just...I find the entire notion entirely wrong. Why is it that I am the only one that sees that restricting someone's right to be is the most awful, most contemptuous, and heinous crime one can EVER and I do mean EVER commit? You can never tell me one thing, one single thing worse than someone making you non-existent, taking away your life before it can begin, never knowing, love, pain, hate, pride, and the entirety of the human experience. There will never be anything worse, nothing at all. I find it, and I really do mean this, to be the most inhumane of all practices in ALL of history and ever will be. And to think that the legality of this is upheld by something as whimsical and unimportant in comparison as "rights to privacy" its like the worst fucking joke in history right there. For 9 months and a little pain in the long run, you can give someone the greatest thing to ever be, the right to live. And yet this would be denied because of something as petty as money? Something as trivial as privacy? Disgusting, inhumane, insulting to the very core of which humans build all moral foundation. I think I'll end it with a quote from Tolle, "The child's right to live is superior to that Women's right to privacy" End of story.
Can you tell me a single thing worse than Non-existence? No? Didn't think so.