[kingjust]

Simple!!! It doesn't.

Then why don't you see ProLifers with picket signs saying save the starving children, put a roof over the heads of homeless children. Why, because it's not apart of their belief system, imo. It's hypocritical to say you want to save an unborn child but turn your back to all those that are already here. BS!!!

Merlin replies….Its not a question of helping those who are already alive vs. a woman’s choice, the question is, what is the “choice” in pro choice!

Actually Merlin, it is. The government nor you or I have to right to say to a women what she has to do with her body. Wouldn't you agree. Don't you think it would be unfair for the government to legislate a ban on tattoos? It's your body, you can do what ever you want with it right?

Is it as some would have us believe its just an issue of removing some benign tissue.

I wouldn't think comparing it to some cancerous tissue is appropriate, but my question to you is, why is it any of your business?

Pro life would say to abort is murdering a human. This is what all the fuss is about.

With that frame of thought of prolifers, masturbation would be murder, so would PMS,... right? I mean, according to prolifers, when the sperm enters the egg and mitosis begins, it's a human. Do you agree with that? If that were true in their frame of thought, the good book has made them more ignorant then ever, ok I won't say ignorant i'll say miguided. (I say that because prolife is religiously based.)

When its convenient its just tissue. When the “tissue is wanted it’s a “baby”. Damn, that sure would be convenient for criminals! “ No judge it wasn’t murder cause no one wanted her so that made er’ just a lump of tissue, so I killed it.”

It's not tissue, just cells (no pun intended). Your last analogy pertaining to tissue is half baked. Your comparing an already living being, seperated from it's mother to cells that are dependent on the mother. The difference is....living being...cells, get it. The cells have not yet made a self sustaining being. Also with you saying that, it's like saying you accidentally scratched a girl and you get tried and convicted because the tissue you destroyed could have been a baby if she were to get pregnant or use some outrageous scientific method. Hmmmmm, I think that would fly in court today how things are fucked up. LOL

The main and only question that must be answered should be when is the baby ,cell, zygote etc “human”? After that difficult, but profoundly simple query is answered, all the other questions that follow will be answered in logical progression.

Agreed, but don't you think that after they label a certain action or thing in the reproductive process, new ways of taking away simple rights you have to yourself will be undermined? Because if they decide that when the egg and sperm split for the first time, it's a human, then the 48 hour pill will be premeditated murder, right? I think that would happen, ignorant as hell, but it would.

As it stands now the issue is clouded in emotional smoke screens , self serving interests, and moral implications. First, answer the most important question. Human or not human? I prefer to err on the life side, and be sure that I don’t murder a living sentient being. You may like to play Russian roulette with developing human life. This sets a dangerous precedent, as to what is next? Euthanasia of the old and unwanted? Then the disabled who burden society so, after that , well anyone who doesn’t agree with state policy. No thanks Bozo.

I respect your choice, and how your percieve the reproduction process. But like in my first sentence, you make my point obvious. The poor and destitue are forgotten when the splitting of cells take precedent over the "ALREADY EXISTENT SOCIETAL ISSUE" that we have today. Let that choice be the woman (or couples) choice (abortion) an not yours.

There may be one and only one exception. In cases of dire harm coming to the mother if the child is brought to term, then it should be the fathers and the mothers call, with more credence given to the mother i.e. the mother would have the last say.

Acceptable late term abortion, I thought that was illegal. Wouldn't a C-section suffice? I would try to at least save the baby, in terms of c-section then incubation chamber to see if the baby survives.

This would not erase the moral implications but there should not be legal issues involved at this stage. Hopefully science will do something right, and in the near future we may be able to raise the unwanted child in Vitro and adopt it out.

Who's morals yours, and if it is, is it right to push them down onto others who don't agree with you. That to me is the infinite argument prochoice makes that prolifers cannot accept. They are pushing their own beliefs into the homes of those who don't agree and onto the government. And that is completely wrong. Just like I stated before, after the child is born, they could care less. It's evident with all the homeless and starving children we have today. I have not seen or heard one good thing that prolifers have done to help those that are already starving or homeless. Fucking hypocrites I say.

MB, I would like to thank you for your opinion, thanks!!

Merlin, it gets back to using abortion as a means of birth control. The responsible way is to avoid conception, not to eliminate its result. People who don't want babies need not conceive one. Contraception is lower tech than abortion and lower in cost, too.

Patrick, that would good in a utopian world, but you and I bot know that shit will never happen. People are going to do what they want regardless of consequences. And it sucks because dumb asses like that should be punished, but that would be pushing my belief onto to those that make mistakes, and that's not right.

We should do everything possible as a society to eliminate the need for abortion as birthcontrol. Women who don't want to become pregnant can use various means, but still the abortion juggernaut rolls on. Why? Because people are behaving irresponsibly...

Why? Because you don't agree with the process, fine then you adopted all the unwanted children that you (or society) forced women to have because you (society) to away their "choice" to decide what to do. It's none of your (societies) damn business. How about trying to prevent unwanted preganancies instead, that wouldn't take away a womans choice because the issue would never come up, don't you think?

Fertile women of childbearing age, USE PRECAUTIONS, why don't you!

100000000000000000 (bagillion) % agree with you,... yeah, hey, why don't you take precautions damn it. Stop relying on us males to always carry a ..... oops sorry off topic.

Murdering an unborn child because the woman decides she doesn't want responibility for her actions is not the right answer.

And letting the child be born to a world where the mother regrets it and doesn't want it is the answer?

Simple question: The woman wants the baby, the father doesn't the father is stuck with 18 year of hild support. How is that fair when in the reverse, Father wants the child, mother doesn't.. end of story.

Is this really a question or a statement? But it's never going to be fair for the mother, because when everything is said and done, the choice will always remain with the woman. And that shouldn't be touched. It sucks, but that's the way life is.

The whole issue is replete with contridictions and BS, but the fact remains, it could have been avoided to begin with.

Damn skippy!!