Is Abortion Immoral?

[Guest end3]

The woman is not the sole creator in this case. Taking the creation in "her" own hands is similar to dismissing God as irrelevant. You admonish God for death, but then "create" death through abortion. Dude, you are seriously challenged.

 

Umm your god does not enter into this decision any more than Thor or Zeus or Loki or Makemake does.

 

Controlling women is more what anti-abortion is about.

 

Please explain, because from a man's perspective, how is it not "controlling men"?

 

Kinda takes two to make a baby, unless you have a turkey baster.

[mymistake]

Please explain, because from a man's perspective, how is it not "controlling men"?

 

Kinda takes two to make a baby, unless you have a turkey baster.

 

Right because if a man were to bang a girl and then run off and never see her again we wouldn't want to diminish his contribution to the child nor hinder his freedom while we force her to have and raise the child.

 

Let's see, he has one fun evening. She invests 356.25 days x 18.8 years.

 

That is over 6000 to one. Yeah let's not forget the father's rights because he made a "contribution" as well. Let's just ignore the fact that the father was just following his testosterone.

 

Real dads change diapers.

[Guest Xtech]

The woman is not the sole creator in this case. Taking the creation in "her" own hands is similar to dismissing God as irrelevant. You admonish God for death, but then "create" death through abortion. Dude, you are seriously challenged.

 

Umm your god does not enter into this decision any more than Thor or Zeus or Loki or Makemake does.

 

Controlling women is more what anti-abortion is about.

 

Please explain, because from a man's perspective, how is it not "controlling men"?

 

Kinda takes two to make a baby, unless you have a turkey baster.

 

Will gladly explain. A woman's body hosts the embryo which becomes a fetus and etc etc. The woman's body continues to nourish an infant. The woman goes on to raise the child, sometimes with or without the man involved. The woman pays a hugely disproportionate price, from soup to nuts wrt childbearing.

 

BTW look at the numbers for women and children living in poverty, men who do not pay child care etc. Where is your god (or Loki or Makemake etc) when these often unwanted children and women need care. Oh and where are the men.

 

 

http://www.unifem.or...erty_economics/

 

Women, Poverty & Economics

 

Women bear a disproportionate burden of the world’s poverty. Statistics indicate that women are more likely than men to be poor and at risk of hunger because of the systematic discrimination they face in education, health care, employment and control of assets. Poverty implications are widespread for women, leaving many without even basic rights such as access to clean drinking water, sanitation, medical care and decent employment. Being poor can also mean they have little protection from violence and have no role in decision making.

 

According to some estimates, women represent 70 percent of the world’s poor. They are often paid less than men for their work, with the average wage gap in 2008 being 17 percent. Women face persistent discrimination when they apply for credit for business or self-employment and are often concentrated in insecure, unsafe and low-wage work...

[Guest end3]

So y'all are arguing for a loving, trustfilled, committed relationship? This is not Biblical?

[Guest Xtech]

Biblical? Is that the same book that advocates stoning a woman if she is not a virgin or is raped or whatever, Timothy 2:12 blah blah blah.

 

Try to step out of your provincial world view and realize there are loving, trustfilled, committed relationships that have nothing to do with being Christian or following some fetishized confused book.

[mymistake]

So y'all are arguing for a loving, trustfilled, committed relationship? This is not Biblical?

 

 

why do you keep doing that? why? why? why?

 

Nobody said loving. Nobody said trustfilled. Nobody said committed. Nobody said Biblical. Why do you keep running everything through your personal filter? If you want to know what people mean then read what they write.

[Guest end3]

Biblical? Is that the same book that advocates stoning a woman if she is not a virgin or is raped or whatever, Timothy 2:12 blah blah blah.

 

Try to step out of your provincial world view and realize there are loving, trustfilled, committed relationships that have nothing to do with being Christian or following some fetishized confused book.

 

 

Look, this is so painfully obvious, it's worth noting.

 

You argue that the result of an absentee, distrustful relationship should equal death to the fetus.

 

Here is the Biblical parallel: That Christ being the Groom in this case, and the church being the bride forms a union producing an offspring that lives enternally.

 

And conversely, a distrustfilled, non-exsistant relationship produces death aka, hell.

 

So you are arguing about absentee, deadbeat, non-committal controling men producing a need for abortion.

 

And if the father were present you would not want to abort the child, but have it live as a sign of the union.

 

Come on folks.....and you MM....wake up or use your head for something other than a hatrack.

[mymistake]

 

<to Xtech>

Look, this is so painfully obvious, it's worth noting.

 

You argue that the result of an absentee, distrustful relationship should equal death to the fetus.

 

Is your filter on reality really that far out of whack?

 

Here is the Biblical parallel: That Christ being the Groom in this case, and the church being the bride forms a union producing an offspring that lives enternally.

 

Okay, you have your fantasy about Jesus getting you pregnant. Sing "Come Jesus Come!". I'm not into that anymore. Not that there is anything wrong with it. Just don't bash gays because that would be hypocrisy.

 

And conversely, a distrustfilled, non-exsistant relationship produces death aka, hell.

 

So you are arguing about absentee, deadbeat, non-committal controling men producing a need for abortion.

 

Dude, we are not forcing women to get abortions. Nobody is advocating that. We are just recognizing their right to abortions. You are being dishonest. We didn't say that a woman's right flows from deadbeat relationships. We were countering your lame claims that a man contributes too. Sure the man contributes but he does so in an insignificant way.

 

And if the father were present you would not want to abort the child, but have it live as a sign of the union.

 

You are going to have to do something about that filter you have on reality. Who said anything at all like that?

 

Come on folks.....and you MM....wake up or use your head for something other than a hatrack.

 

Pure projection on your part. You ignore what we wrote and fabricated an elaborate Strawman argument. It's a classic fallacy. How does your creation make us stupid? It doesn't. You are the one taking everything and running it through your beliefs about the Bible.

[Guest end3]

Insignificant like it can't happen without sperm?

 

And the resulting "punishment"? You mean kind of like Adam and Eve...that there are great labor pains for Eve and a life time of work for Adam? You dismiss these at worst, figurative stories, as non-truth in that you can't see the relationships?

 

Seriously, pull your stubborn head and look around man. The bottom line fact is the story describes verbatim the sentiment you are describing.

[mymistake]

Insignificant like it can't happen without sperm?

 

I've already been over this. Sure it can't happen without the .0000000001% of the father's contribution in time and material. It also can't happen without the 99.99999999% of the mother's contribution. Put them side by side an notice that one is much bigger than the other?

 

And the resulting "punishment"? You mean kind of like Adam and Eve...that there are great labor pains for Eve and a life time of work for Adam?

 

I didn't mean anything by the stuff I didn't write. If your filter on reality makes you imagine it then I can't help you about what all that means.

 

You dismiss these at worst, figurative stories, as non-truth in that you can't see the relationships?

 

If you want to treat it as true then demonstrate it happened. You can't because Adam and Eve are myth. Now people can use myth for meaning. However the connections you are trying to make do not exist in what I wrote nor what I have seen from other authors in this thread except of course your posts.

 

Seriously, pull your stubborn head and look around man. The bottom line fact is the story describes verbatim the sentiment you are describing.

 

Then explain it in detail. Don't just fling insults. Demonstrate that what you are saying is true.

[VacuumFlux]

And the resulting "punishment"? You mean kind of like Adam and Eve...that there are great labor pains for Eve and a life time of work for Adam? You dismiss these at worst, figurative stories, as non-truth in that you can't see the relationships?

 

Humans have great labor pains because we're bipedal, which requires narrow hips/pelvis, which make it hard for the baby to fit through. It has nothing to do with the entire race of not-yet-even-conceived humans being cursed by god for a crime they didn't commit. It's why human babies are born earlier in devolpement than other great apes; we have to get them out of our bodies while they're still small and squishy enough to fit. It makes sense that humans noticed that our birth is much more difficult than in the other animals, so they made up stories to try to understand why.

 

"A downside of the evolution of efficient bipedalism in humans is that it resulted in changes in the pelvis which unfortunately included a narrower birth canal in females. As a consequence, giving birth is a more difficult and riskier process for us than for most other mammal species... Other primates give birth without assistance. A partial evolutionary solution to this birth difficulty for humans was fetuses being born at a less mature stage, when their bodies are smaller. The trade off is that human newborn babies are more vulnerable."

 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

[Guest Xtech]

Biblical? Is that the same book that advocates stoning a woman if she is not a virgin or is raped or whatever, Timothy 2:12 blah blah blah.

 

Try to step out of your provincial world view and realize there are loving, trustfilled, committed relationships that have nothing to do with being Christian or following some fetishized confused book.

 

 

Look, this is so painfully obvious, it's worth noting.

 

You argue that the result of an absentee, distrustful relationship should equal death to the fetus.

 

Here is the Biblical parallel: That Christ being the Groom in this case, and the church being the bride forms a union producing an offspring that lives enternally.

 

And conversely, a distrustfilled, non-exsistant relationship produces death aka, hell.

 

So you are arguing about absentee, deadbeat, non-committal controling men producing a need for abortion.

 

And if the father were present you would not want to abort the child, but have it live as a sign of the union.

 

Come on folks.....and you MM....wake up or use your head for something other than a hatrack.

 

Did I say that? Hmmm. Please do not twist my words. And, thank you mymistake for taking up where I had to go to work for a bit before I could return to the conversation.

 

I live in the real world. Sorry your Biblical whatever-you-said does not mean much to me or to others outside the cult and has no impact on reality.

 

If you want to prevent abortion, support birth control's use and availability. Support law enforcement against deadbeat Dads. and support equal wages for women. Work to alleviate poverty for children. You go out there and solve some problems.

 

Appreciate the luxury you have of being able to sit there with your book and judge others' difficulties.

[Jessie]

I mean, unless I can just be a woman, which would be nice. I mean, if you would allow it... sir.

 

Sure, if you will remember your place.

 

Well, I guess that all depends. If my place is reigning over all humanity with an iron fist and a penchant for forcing others to love and enjoy the music of Lady Gaga (she's so awesome <3 ), then I will be sure to remember my place. Otherwise, I suppose I choose being a Bugatti Veyron. It's a LOT easier to kill fetuses when you're a very fast automobile. I can see it now. It'd be just like the 1977 movie The Car!! But better.

 

 

My 1,200 horsepower brings all the boys to the yard.

[Guest end3]

If you want to prevent abortion, support birth control's use and availability. Support law enforcement against deadbeat Dads. and support equal wages for women. Work to alleviate poverty for children. You go out there and solve some problems.

 

Sounds like some good advice X.

Appreciate the luxury you have of being able to sit there with your book and judge others' difficulties.

 

Probably some more good advice.

[Guest end3]

I mean, unless I can just be a woman, which would be nice. I mean, if you would allow it... sir.

 

Sure, if you will remember your place.

 

Well, I guess that all depends. If my place is reigning over all humanity with an iron fist and a penchant for forcing others to love and enjoy the music of Lady Gaga (she's so awesome <3 ), then I will be sure to remember my place. Otherwise, I suppose I choose being a Bugatti Veyron. It's a LOT easier to kill fetuses when you're a very fast automobile. I can see it now. It'd be just like the 1977 movie The Car!! But better.

 

 

My 1,200 horsepower brings all the boys to the yard.

 

You seem a bit tilted Jesse....but wonderfully unique. Even I can appreciate that. I'm more of a truck man...

[mymistake]

End3,

 

I'm still not seeing how my statements of

 

"Christians believe that the vast majority of the children born will make the wrong choices (they take the broad road) and as a result will burn in hell for all eternity. From that point of view it is better that the children to never be born."

 

and

 

" . . . the woman creates the fetus so the same principle applies. If it is right for God to strike an innocent person with any disease or disorder known then the same applies. <that the mother as the main contributer in creation has the right to kill her creation>"

 

translates into your statements

 

"That Christ being the Groom in this case, and the church being the bride forms a union producing an offspring that lives enternally."

"And conversely, a distrustfilled, non-exsistant relationship produces death aka, hell."

"So you are arguing about absentee, deadbeat, non-committal controling men producing a need for abortion."

"And if the father were present you would not want to abort the child, but have it live as a sign of the union."

 

Are you going to demonstrate the connection or give up on it as hopeless?

 

I was using your myths to show that even if they were right it would allow a woman to abort. That I think a woman should have the right to abort doesn't mean your myths are right.

[Guest end3]

Let's suppose the "children born" don't make the right decisions as you say. They opt for a one night stand as a woman that produces a pregnancy from a guy that will run and not fulfill his fatherly duties. For one, you seem to dismiss the responsibility of the woman to not put herself in this type relationship....that her only responsibility is to carry the burden of raising the conceived child. So your statement:

 

"Christians believe that the vast majority of the children born will make the wrong choices (they take the broad road) and as a result will burn in hell for all eternity. From that point of view it is better that the children to never be born."

 

leads to the woman opting for an abortion because she made poor choices....which you say gives her the right to decide to opt for an abortion.

The Bible presents a "type" or analogous example in that the bride, the church, we as human, choose a faithful groom, Christ, and remains in a committed relationship. The union of the two is understood as the entity that makes it to Heaven when they are "changed". This presents a picture of making choices that facilitate life rather than death.

 

As I said, the converse, would be that the bride chooses a non-faithful, deadbeat, non-committed relationship for a one night stand, "Satan" perhaps. I hear you saying that it is unfair for the woman to have to pay for the CHOICES SHE MAKES, that is is all the man's fault, and then this forces her, or she again, selfishly chooses to kill the pregnancy.....not producing life, but producing death. This is why I emphasized equal responsibility.

 

You then go on an say that the woman is like the creator in that she can opt for creating life or death. If I am not mistaken, the Bible promotes the life choice.

 

Let me know if you don't understand....but that's about as clear as I can make it. You might try a preacher/minister that his job is explaining that you might understand better.

 

Edit: She could opt for abortion, but I don't think it is supported as the holy choice.

[mymistake]

Let's suppose the "children born" don't make the right decisions as you say.

 

Actually I didn't say that. I pointed out that the Bible says that. I didn't write the Bible you see.

 

They opt for a one night stand as a woman that produces a pregnancy from a guy that will run and not fulfill his fatherly duties.

 

Wow, you have some serious sexism issues to work out. For the vast majority of the 5 million plus years that humans have existed we had no formal marriage as it is known today. When you project your sexism onto me that doesn't mean I actually believe the same thing. So right at the start your foundation is all wrong. That is why your conclusion that I'm an idiot and stubborn for thinking <things I don't actually think> is also wrong. There is no presumption of marriage here.

 

For one, you seem to dismiss the responsibility of the woman to not put herself in this type relationship....that her only responsibility is to carry the burden of raising the conceived child.

 

Uh, actually no and no and no.

 

So your statement:

 

"Christians believe that the vast majority of the children born will make the wrong choices (they take the broad road) and as a result will burn in hell for all eternity. From that point of view it is better that the children to never be born."

 

leads to the woman opting for an abortion because she made poor choices....which you say gives her the right to decide to opt for an abortion.

 

Can you even read? It does nothing of the kind. It makes fun of Christian mythology that says aborted babies go to heaven but most born babies will go to hell so let babies get born out of love so God can torture those people forever. Even if your beliefs are right abortion would still be the best choice.

 

The Bible presents a "type" or analogous example in that the bride, the church, we as human, choose a faithful groom, Christ, and remains in a committed relationship. The union of the two is understood as the entity that makes it to Heaven when they are "changed". This presents a picture of making choices that facilitate life rather than death.

 

As I said, the converse, would be that the bride chooses a non-faithful, deadbeat, non-committed relationship for a one night stand, "Satan" perhaps. I hear you saying that it is unfair for the woman to have to pay for the CHOICES SHE MAKES, that is is all the man's fault, and then this forces her, or she again, selfishly chooses to kill the pregnancy.....not producing life, but producing death. This is why I emphasized equal responsibility.

 

Then something is very wrong with your hearing. Really, how can you get the message this screwed up? Your Bride of Christ theology does not relate to my comments in any meaningful way.

 

You then go on an say that the woman is like the creator in that she can opt for creating life or death. If I am not mistaken, the Bible promotes the life choice.

 

The woman is not "like the creator" of her fetus. We can actually measure her investment in the creation for mass, volume and time. The father's contribution is just a trace. The father's contribution is measured in parts per million. The woman is the creator of her fetus.

 

And you are wrong about the Bible. The God who is the same yesterday, today and forever was pro-abortion in the old testament. However it was the husband, as the owner of both the wife and the child, who had the right to choose. Of course, back then a Biblical marriage was between one man, his three hundred wives and his seven hundred sex slaves so go figure.

 

Let me know if you don't understand....but that's about as clear as I can make it. You might try a preacher/minister that his job is explaining that you might understand better.

 

Or better yet you could enroll in a class that teaches reading comprehension. In order to tie what you wrote to what I wrote you had to make up stuff and pretend I was saying that as well.

[Guest end3]

Let's suppose the "children born" don't make the right decisions as you say.

 

Actually I didn't say that. I pointed out that the Bible says that. I didn't write the Bible you see.

 

They opt for a one night stand as a woman that produces a pregnancy from a guy that will run and not fulfill his fatherly duties.

 

Wow, you have some serious sexism issues to work out. For the vast majority of the 5 million plus years that humans have existed we had no formal marriage as it is known today. When you project your sexism onto me that doesn't mean I actually believe the same thing. So right at the start your foundation is all wrong. That is why your conclusion that I'm an idiot and stubborn for thinking <things I don't actually think> is also wrong. There is no presumption of marriage here.

 

For one, you seem to dismiss the responsibility of the woman to not put herself in this type relationship....that her only responsibility is to carry the burden of raising the conceived child.

 

Uh, actually no and no and no.

 

So your statement:

 

"Christians believe that the vast majority of the children born will make the wrong choices (they take the broad road) and as a result will burn in hell for all eternity. From that point of view it is better that the children to never be born."

 

leads to the woman opting for an abortion because she made poor choices....which you say gives her the right to decide to opt for an abortion.

 

Can you even read? It does nothing of the kind. It makes fun of Christian mythology that says aborted babies go to heaven but most born babies will go to hell so let babies get born out of love so God can torture those people forever. Even if your beliefs are right abortion would still be the best choice.

 

The Bible presents a "type" or analogous example in that the bride, the church, we as human, choose a faithful groom, Christ, and remains in a committed relationship. The union of the two is understood as the entity that makes it to Heaven when they are "changed". This presents a picture of making choices that facilitate life rather than death.

 

As I said, the converse, would be that the bride chooses a non-faithful, deadbeat, non-committed relationship for a one night stand, "Satan" perhaps. I hear you saying that it is unfair for the woman to have to pay for the CHOICES SHE MAKES, that is is all the man's fault, and then this forces her, or she again, selfishly chooses to kill the pregnancy.....not producing life, but producing death. This is why I emphasized equal responsibility.

 

Then something is very wrong with your hearing. Really, how can you get the message this screwed up? Your Bride of Christ theology does not relate to my comments in any meaningful way.

 

You then go on an say that the woman is like the creator in that she can opt for creating life or death. If I am not mistaken, the Bible promotes the life choice.

 

The woman is not "like the creator" of her fetus. We can actually measure her investment in the creation for mass, volume and time. The father's contribution is just a trace. The father's contribution is measured in parts per million. The woman is the creator of her fetus.

 

And you are wrong about the Bible. The God who is the same yesterday, today and forever was pro-abortion in the old testament. However it was the husband, as the owner of both the wife and the child, who had the right to choose. Of course, back then a Biblical marriage was between one man, his three hundred wives and his seven hundred sex slaves so go figure.

 

Let me know if you don't understand....but that's about as clear as I can make it. You might try a preacher/minister that his job is explaining that you might understand better.

 

Or better yet you could enroll in a class that teaches reading comprehension. In order to tie what you wrote to what I wrote you had to make up stuff and pretend I was saying that as well.

 

I was wrong in attempting to carry on a real conversation. My previous assessment of you was correct. Someone has done a huge snow job on you guy, and you have taken it that somehow you are also capable of supporting some crap someone else has told you. You might just consider quiet as an alternative.,

[mymistake]

I was wrong in attempting to carry on a real conversation.

 

Don't be so hard on yourself. You just need to work on your skills. Try not to blow things out of proportion. Try not to filter what other people say through your own beliefs. Try to listen. If you don't understand others then ask them to clarify rather than presume. Don't be afraid to admit it when you are wrong. And when you get frustrated resist the urge to call people stupid or stubborn. Don't give up on real conversations. When you fall off the horse get right back up there and try again. You will get better at it with practice.

[Legion]

The woman is not the sole creator in this case.

I agree. The woman and her fetus, the life of her life, participate in a near miralculous symphony in the development of the fetus. It grows and she feeds it. She protects it. It requires intricate hormanal interaction. It's amazing.

 

 

Taking the creation in "her" own hands is similar to dismissing God as irrelevant. You admonish God for death, but then "create" death through abortion. Dude, you are seriously challenged.

I believe this is the Mother's Right of Brutality. If she thinks that childbirth in present and expected future circumstances would be overly suboptimal then I believe she has the natural right to kill the fetus up until the point of viability, or about 6 months.

 

Look on the bright side End. Many women will choose life. And those who choose to kill will become under represented in the gene pool. Perhaps in another million years (if we survive as a species) the inclination to abort will be nearly wiped out.

[VacuumFlux]

Look on the bright side End. Many women will choose life. And those who choose to kill will become under represented in the gene pool. Perhaps in another million years (if we survive as a species) the inclination to abort will be nearly wiped out.

 

My hope for the future is that we'll have much better contraceptives, health care, women's rights, and sex ed. That way women would only get pregnant when they want to (with the political/social power over their own bodies to choose to use contraception and the medical technology to make such measures nearly foolproof) and that pregnancy and childbirth become much less painful, damaging, dangerous, and expensive so that carrying a baby to term isn't such a risk to the mother's health, job, and long term finances. Oh, and better support for born children too, so that becoming a mother doesn't have such long-term risks. I really think that all the anti-abortion activists are fighting the wrong fights. Women who get abortions aren't subhuman or evil; they're just forced by circumstances to make a choice that most of them would prefer not to be making. Change those circumstances, and the number of abortions will drop.

[SilentLoner]

The woman is not the sole creator in this case.

 

 

I agree. The woman and her fetus, the life of her life, participate in a near miralculous symphony in the development of the fetus. It grows and she feeds it. She protects it. It requires intricate hormanal interaction. It's amazing.

 

That "amazing" factor is stripped away, the experince cheapened and reduced to pure horror when forced upon an unwilling woman.

 

And the process you describe is also identical to how a tumor develops. Not a very strong argument.

 

I believe this is the Mother's Right of Brutality. If she thinks that childbirth in present and expected future circumstances would be overly suboptimal then I believe she has the natural right to kill the fetus up until the point of viability, or about 6 months.

 

Look on the bright side End. Many women will choose life. And those who choose to kill will become under represented in the gene pool. Perhaps in another million years (if we survive as a species) the inclination to abort will be nearly wiped out.

 

Brainless xtians have been saying such laughable for years. Let me point out some fallacies you took the liberty to assume:

 

1) And those who choose to kill will become under represented in the gene pool.

 

You fail to take into account that most women who obtain abortions are already mothers (61%) and want to focus their care on the children they already have. And that most childless women who have abortions go on to have children when they are prepared to care for them.

 

So you want to argue there is a genetic factor in choosing abortion? Very funny. I was raised "pro life" but changed my mind and am now fiercely on the pro choice side. I know many others who have done the same. And don't be so confident in so called "pro lifers" always "choosing life":

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti Choice Choose"

http://mypage.direct...anti-tales.html

 

Case in point - I have a friend who is the oldest of four children. His mother had an abortion when she was in college. Years later, she got a job, met and married her husband and had their four children. If she had gone through with the first pregnancy, she would have had to drop out of school to raise it, never meeting her husband or having her four children.

 

2) Perhaps in another million years (if we survive as a species) the inclination to abort will be nearly wiped out.

 

You behave as though abortion is a recent phenomenon while failing to take into account that abortion methods have existed for over 4000 YEARS all over the world. So far, so good, eh? Keep hoping.

http://4000yearsforchoice.com/

 

Though I would hope in a million years there would be fail proof birth control that would eliminate unplanned pregnancies altogether.

[mymistake]

The woman is not the sole creator in this case.

 

 

I agree. The woman and her fetus, the life of her life, participate in a near miralculous symphony in the development of the fetus. It grows and she feeds it. She protects it. It requires intricate hormanal interaction. It's amazing.

 

That "amazing" factor is stripped away, the experince cheapened and reduced to pure horror when forced upon an unwilling woman.

 

And the process you describe is also identical to how a tumor develops. Not a very strong argument.

 

I don't think Legion was using it as an argument against abortion rights. Just saying the actual biology is amazing to the human mind. A tsunami is amazing but that don't make it fun to be in it's path.

 

 

You fail to take into account that most women who obtain abortions are already mothers (61%) and want to focus their care on the children they already have. And that most childless women who have abortions go on to have children when they are prepared to care for them.

 

I agree. It is my hope that reckless drivers will be under represented in our gene pool thousands of years from now.

 

 

Though I would hope in a million years there would be fail proof birth control that would eliminate unplanned pregnancies altogether.

 

Hopefully sooner. We need to work on the factors that cause the need for abortions rather than deny abortion rights. Eliminate rape. Eliminate poverty. Get much better birth control. Eliminate social stigma.

[Abmin9]

I believe it is wrong for one simple fact. The growing fetus/embryo/baby... person, is dependent on its mother's uterus, umbilical cord, blood, etc. to live. Basically, it is a living, separate person who like all others, depend on its environment to live. It is simply in the unique situation where its environment is that of the mother's body. Because it is a human, the mother has no right to kill it. If you say she does, then why can't she kill it the minute it's born? Or a month later?

Now all the arguments will start about how late or early into the whole developmental process it's ok. It doesn't matter to me. All humans have a right to life. Period.

 

Btw, that includes children with birth defects and chromosome abnormalities. Go ask a parent of a Down Syndrome kid.

 

And please don't bring the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother into this because those are extreme exceptions. This is about the topic in general as it relates to 99.9% of cases.

 

I also boldly proclaim that there is no book or anything invisible in the sky telling me I should feel this way. It's just my gut belief.