Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Abortion is an act of violence.
Why perpetrate violence on women?

Even more violent is pushing a full term child out of your vagina. Have you ever done it?

My child’s birth actually wasn’t violent. She literally came out smiling, according to our midwife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

Why should you carry a pregnancy and risk death of you do not want to?

Isn’t having your freedom impeded considered a punishment in this country?

There are lots of things we are not free to do in this country...doesn't mean we are being punished.

Would death qualify as a punishment to you? Do you understand that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

No. If I die from cancer, I am not being punished.

If someone prevented you from removing cancer or whatever was causing you pain or suffering, isn’t that a punishment?

My mother is a physician from a country where abortions were illegal. She watched a mother of 3 bleed out and die from a botched abortion and supported choice thereafter. Do we need to have that happen in the US?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

If you get rid of laws allowing abortion, a lot more mothers’ lives will be in danger.

Why doesn’t the aborted baby even get a chance to live on?

Because it is inside someone else’s body. That person’s life and health are more important.

A baby doesn’t need its mother for a full 9 months.
Allow her to live. Why not???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

NP. Really? The only way you can defend abortion is to demand that people who believe it is killing a baby adopt 5 or more children? Get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Abortion is an act of violence.
Why perpetrate violence on women?

Even more violent is pushing a full term child out of your vagina. Have you ever done it?

My child’s birth actually wasn’t violent. She literally came out smiling, according to our midwife.

My friend died giving birth, at age 28.

My pelvis cracked giving birth and I’m still feeling the effects of it 10 year later.

Another friend almost bled to death.

You're awfully smug aren’t you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're missing the part where the woman was a slut and therefore HAS to take care of the baby as punishment.

Pro-life = babies are the punishment for sex.

FOR WOMEN, not men. Remember it’s about punishing WOMEN for having sex.

Au contraire....the person that does not want the baby seems to be viewing it as a punishment....

Why should you carry a pregnancy and risk death of you do not want to?

Isn’t having your freedom impeded considered a punishment in this country?

There are lots of things we are not free to do in this country...doesn't mean we are being punished.

Would death qualify as a punishment to you? Do you understand that the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

No. If I die from cancer, I am not being punished.

If someone prevented you from removing cancer or whatever was causing you pain or suffering, isn’t that a punishment?

My mother is a physician from a country where abortions were illegal. She watched a mother of 3 bleed out and die from a botched abortion and supported choice thereafter. Do we need to have that happen in the US?

Our laws allow for abortions where the life of mother is in danger.

If you get rid of laws allowing abortion, a lot more mothers’ lives will be in danger.

Why doesn’t the aborted baby even get a chance to live on?

Because it is inside someone else’s body. That person’s life and health are more important.

A baby doesn’t need its mother for a full 9 months.
Allow her to live. Why not???

Are you volunteering to carry the fetus for the woman who doesn’t wish to grow it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Great. Until that day then STFU. You can force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

^ can’t force

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Great. Until that day then STFU. You can force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not forcing women. According to the law, they can make certain choices. I just don't have to agree with some of them, and I have a right to express my opinion...just like you have a right to a choice. Therefore, I won't STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.