I’m definitely more pro-life. The only time I would support an a.bortion is in the case that birth would threaten the life of either the mother or the child. Otherwise, it’s murder, and cold-blooded at that. Life is the most precious thing we have in this world. With all the talk about not fighting wars or getting involved in foreign situations because of the possible loss of life, we as Americans seem perfectly fine to kill a million of our own children every year.
I agree with pickypicky. People totally abandon the idea of adoption. There are so many loving and caring people out there unable to have a child of their own, and who would gladly take a baby as opposed to seeing it aborted. If the US didn’t have such stringent adoption laws maybe potential parents wouldn’t have to travel to China or Russia to adopt children, and as such rescue millions of kids that are either to be murdered or bounced around in the foster care system until they turn 18.
Pro-Life. Abor.tion=murder. How can you force an innocent child give up his/her life in order to make yours "more convenient"?
Ronald Reagan once said: "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
Even in cases or ra.pe or in cases which the child has a deformity, abor.tion is still murder. In cases of ra.pe, you are essentially taking a child's life away in order to make your own life better. It's like killing someone to save your own life. In cases of deformity, abor.tion is no better than Hitler ordering all the deformed and weak to be exterminated. Abor.tion is never right.
@writersblock64 Regarding your pro-choice argument, you are saying no one should have control over what you decide over your body and your health. Okay, then do you believe the government should legalize all drugs and cancel the drinking age? After all, who has the right to tell me I can't drink at age 17? Who can tell me what to do with my body?
@FaeNotMyName, so you think a woman's choice is more important than a child's life? Let me make it clear to you that NOTHING is more important than life.
I'm pro-choice. I believe that if a woman gets ra.pe.d, she should not be forced to undergo pregnancy, take care of a child, and ultimately, give up any dreams she has for her future. There is a time, during which most abortions happen, when the embryo has not developed a brain. When the embryo gets aborted at this stage it isn't even human yet. I don't think that a woman should have to suffer for an embryo that isn't even human.
My friend and neighboor was ra.pe.d. She had to go through emotional trauma, worrying about STDs, but thank goodness not pregnancy. Thanks to abortion.
It should be noted that many pro-lifers are perfectly understanding of exceptions for when a woman is r.a.p.ed. Yeah, fringe guys (some of whom are running for President for the Republicans so maybe that doesn't make them all that fringe but whatever) want to make it illegal for every circumstance, but most anti-aborti.on laws have exceptions for r.a.p.e and often inc.est.
Right, but those people (obviously not all of them) tend to doubt ra.pe. They have their 'legitimate' ra.pe and their 'false' ra.pe. It's all ridiculous, really.
If you're referring to Todd Akin's comments about pre.gnancy being impossible as a result of "legitimate ra.pe", that's a fringe minority opinion even within conservative circles. The Republican Party stopped funding for his campaign after those comments. There are almost 300 Republicans in Congress, so yeah a couple junior representatives from extremely conservative districts supported him. I'm not excusing the id.iots who agree with him, but the vast majority don't.
Of course (and I hope I didn't offend you), but there are also those who think abo.rtion should only be available for 'forcible ra.pe'.
There are always people trying to make abo.rtion not available for more and more people.
For example, Caesar seems to be a perfectly logical person. However, they (staying away from gendered pronouns just to be safe) think abo.rtion should be available only when someone's life is in danger.
What if you find out your child will have some kind of problem or a very short life span? For example, a couple recently had an abo.rtion because they found out their child would have 'mermaid syndrome', where the child's legs are connected.
My point is that abo.rtion needs to be readily available to everyone because you can't possibly check off all of the reasons.
See, the thing is that you see a f.etus as an extension of a woman's body, and make your decisions on ab.ortion based on that. Your opinions are completely rational with that view. Pro-lifers see a f.etus as a seperate human being, or at the very least believe that it might be one. Their goal is exactly what you accuse them of: making abo.rtion not available for more and more people (with a few exceptions like r.ape, health of mother, in.cest, or whatever). They see it as an evil; not a necessary evil for mothers who don't want/ can't afford children, but a literal evil that is at least almost equivalent to m.urder. Their entire view of a.bortion is based on seeing the f.etus as a separate human being, so of course they oppose it. I'm not saying they're right, but I think the reason there's a lot of contention on this particular issue is that both sides look at the problem with a completely different perspective.
Correct. I absolutely agree we have different views. Thank you very much for that, Reds.