If you are against Abortion, why are there......

[SVMc]

I do think that the number of children living below the poverty line (which includes some children living with biological parents and some children not living with biological parents) is a serious issue that deserves real attention. However I have serious reservations about comparing how many "unwanted" children would be adopted into supportive families to the abortion rate.

1. There is no indication that women are choosing to abort their children rather than have them adopted. Source: Freundlich, M. (1998). Supply and demand: the forces shaping the future of infant adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 2(1), 13-42. This indicates that a woman who is likely to have an abortion will have one whereas a woman who is likely to adopt a child out will not consider abortion an option.

2. The women who do typically voluntarily give children up to adoption as babies are usually higher income and have higher career or education goals for themselves. Source: Stolley, K.S. (1993). Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of Children: Adoption, 3(1), 26-42.

3. Number 2. is only important since the majority of teens and women of lower income do not give up children to adoption at birth. Source;Trends in Pregnancies and Pregnancy Rates: Estimates for the United States, 1980-92. (1995). Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control. In fact fewer than 1% of teenagers give their children up for adoption.

This all means that the majority of children in the United States who enter the child care system enter at an older age because the mother (and / or father) were unwilling and / or unable to care for the child, and either gave the child up volunairly, or were forced to remand the child to foster care.

It is also important to note that children who are in foster care are not always available for adoption. In an system where you typically need the biological parent's permission or extremely extenuating circumstances for children to be given over for legal adoption many children who are in foster care are not even eligable for legal adoption until they are an older age since while the birth parent may have lost temporary custody of the child it will take the system some time to prove that they no longer have parental rights to that child.

For me it is not an issue of "if abortion is legal there will be less unwanted children" since statistics show that women wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy will do so regardless of the legalities. Providing abortion simply ensures that less women end up dying as a result of unclean or inept abortions.

There is however a solution to both problems. Sex education. The majority of children who end up in care and the majority of abortions both originate from the same group.

The majority of abortions are a direct result of teen pregnancy, usually among teenage women who are of lower income Alan Guttmacher Institute 54% of women (in the 2002 report) 53% of women (in the 2004 report) used birth control and still got pregnant. The reason the statistic is so high is the lack of knowledge on proper birth control methods among teenagers in the United States.

The lack of sex education in the United States puts it at a marked disadvandage to most other developed nations. Preaching abstinance above sex-education is the reason that the United States not only has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed nation, but in fact had double the teen pregnancy and teen birth rate of any other industrialized nation (Victor C. Strasburg, MD, New Mexico School of Medicine).

Teenagers in the United States are NOT more sexually acitve and are NOT sexually active at a younger age than teenagers in Canada, Sweeden or Britain (some of the lower teen pregnancy rates), the difference is that in the United States, sex and birth control are not talked about openly in schools resulting in a high amount of teens who do not know how to effectively use birth control. This greatly contributes to the 54% of women who have abortions, stating that they used birth control (Alan Guttmacher Institute).

Reducing the abortion rate is directly linked to sex-education. Education teenagers about contraception does NOT lower the age at which teenagers become sexually active, or increase the amount of teens who choose to become sexually active. Over 250 studies agree on this point (National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, CNN.com, ETR Associates in Scotts Valley, California, National Center for Health Statistics - and there are more).

So helping children who will potentially have children become more aware of what they can to do protect themselves sexually as well as what parenting an infant will be like, in short investing in those areas of society where the majority of children are being neglected by society will help to reduce both the number of children who enter care and the number of abortions.

[syracusa]

SVMc,

Your post was great and I, for one appreciate the effort you put in to provide all those scientifically-based arguments.

The sad part is that such efforts are worth zero in convincing some people that it is not OK to outlaw abortions. I continue to believe that anti-abortionists cannot be convinced witha arguments supported by studies rooted in reality.

They just love blabbering about a dogma and they will give you endless equations along the lines of:

fetus=life=human=rigth hence abortions=murder.

It is a shame posts like yours don't penetrate the anti-abortionist mind but it is the truth.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: prettyredhead I am living in the now, and the kids that are already here, are far more important than those not yet able to live outside their hosts body. It really is a personal decision. It isnt for everyone, but we MUST offer a solution to those living, rather than those still to be born.

I agree. Those alive are more important than those who haven't been born yet. I can't help but think that the fashion of placing more importance on the unborn rather than the born, is a cause for why there's so little disregard for the suffering and helpless, for example, the homeless.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio So what you are saying is that because these children are unwanted, why not end the begging of the unwanted's little lives by just getting rid of them. Another person used to feel the same way, Hitler would be proud his ideals live on in his enemies home land.

Mr V, you cannot compair abortion to Nazism, and I for one find your implication rather offensive. But anyway the anti abortion arguments are totally illogical, and are far more damaging than the actual practise its self. Or do you think that a woman should not have the right to be in control over her body? Or do you think that young girls are better off in a back street with a coat hanger than in a operating theatre with a trained professional?

We all know who the real totalitarians are, the people who want to restrict the personal liberty of others.

Look here, your making me sound like a liberterian.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Logjam The Left today thinks that the world would so how self distruct if abortion was illegal. When we didn't have abortion things were just fine. I'll argue they were better.

Well...when WE didn't have legal abortions, things were NOT fine!
Dying from illegal abortions was one of the top killers for women. It was a nightmare. Check countries where abortion was outlawed for a long time and then finally allowed...see how many women who went through that time of tyrany would tell you "yeah...OK, let's make it illegal again, what the heck"...

And these were women who were married and having sex within marriage - not "bad, bad" teenagers!

All I can say is that when it comes to voting, enough people would have the sense to not allow such an abomination to happen again and have abortions outlawed again!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: syracusa It is not about whether the fetus is "human" or not. And no, you can't kill an already BORN person because it is NO LONGER wanted. Obviously , it was wanted AT SOME POINT, by SOMEONE, in the past. Unwanted fetuses are not WANTED in the first place, BEFORE they come out of the womb and before they are biologically self-supporting. Why? Because parents would not be able to cope with that responsibility and that "responsibility" is currently living off of the mother's body. It is DIFFERENT and you know it. But if you are having fun distorting, extrapolating ad inferring in this ridiculous way, just for the sake of a dry "logical" debate - then enjoy hearing yourself talk.

Of course it is about whether a "HUMAN" fetus is human or not. We in this country have killed nearly 40 million humans for the most part, because they were inconvenient. Or are you just ok with killing innocents because they are inconvenient?

You say that unwanted unborn kids are not wanted. But not wanted by whom? There are waiting lists years long for the adoption of babies. So they are wanted, not that it matters, you have already demonstrated that you aren't willing to kill all unwanted humans, just the most innocent and defenseless of them. The ones that you won't have to see being killed on the news. Such a hypocrite.

I see no difference between killing innocent unborns and killing any other human that has not been tried and convicted of a crime. I have been a bonified member of species h. sapiens since the moment of my conception. Prior to that moment I did not exist. Since that moment, I have been a living, growing, developing human being right up until now. I am exactly as human today as I was at the moment that I was concieved. If any one here is distorting, and extrapolating, and inferring, it is you. It is you who is placing value on some lives that are unwanted, and no value on others and doing a rediculous dance in an attempt to justify the position.

The abortion issue is a human rights issue. Human beings are being killed when an abortion is performed, and the question is whether we have human rights by because we are human or based on some criteria such as wealth, experience, age, etc. If human rights are based on some factor other than our humanity itself, then human rights is just a buzz word and has no actual meaning, or reality and our right to live is based on nothing more than the criteria that someone establishes.

and that "responsibility" is currently living off of the mother's body.

By the way, can you demonstrate any other circumstance when dependence is a valid reason to kill?

[SVMc]

Quote by: Syracusa Your post was great and I, for one appreciate the effort you put in to provide all those scientifically-based arguments. The sad part is that such efforts are worth zero in convincing some people that it is not OK to outlaw abortions. I continue to believe that anti-abortionists cannot be convinced witha arguments supported by studies rooted in reality.

On here, you're right that post won't really make a bit of difference. It's easy to sit behind a computer and accuse scared girls of being homocidal maniacs equivlent to Hitler, and not realize how ridiculous the argument is. People here who are against abortion will vent about the moral decay of society and how this would all be solved if such-and-such low brow woman would have just said no. But the benefit of these posts are not for the people who reply to them. Let's face it there are very few anti-abortionists who will even address my post. This board has at least 6 such threads going back tot he beginning of this board, all of which I have posted similar thoughts on, and rarely does any anti-abortionist even bother to answer me.

These posts are good for the person on google who is wondering how to really stop abortion. Lets face it, no one who is picketing an abortion clinic or has a mind to really has thought through how to stop abortions, since we know that that the only way to stop them would be to prevent the necessity for them.

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri I can't help but think that the fashion of placing more importance on the unborn rather than the born, is a cause for why there's so little disregard for the suffering and helpless, for example, the homeless.

The easiest crusade is the one where you can represent something that has no chance of representing itself, let alone embarrasing the people who are trying to represent it.

Homeless people are not pretty, it's hard to put a cute homeless person on a placard, pregnant girls are too easily labeled sluts and they may in fact speak up for themsleves.

[syracusa]

SVMc,

I hear you and I agree. I mean ...look at Pale Rider's reply above - they never address logical, real-life related arguments, they just continue to spit a dogma, that pro-abortion people are criminals.

I, for one, am sick of listening to their irrational, dogmatic blabbering so I will say this:

Yes, I am "criminal" - if hearing this from my keyboard makes you feel any better.
I will fight to mainatain my "criminal" rights with my last breath. Just because you are using a nasty word to insult me and to distort who I am,doesn't mean that I am willing to fall into your dogmatic web of non-sense.

Have we solved it?

You'll go to the polls and vote and I'll go to the post and vote; then the law we'll decide who gets to be called a criminal and who doesn't.

And yes, SVMc you're right - maybe text such as the one you posted DOES serve a purpose: reminding all people with some sense and heart that they need to go to the poll and vote when time comes.
Thanks for making the effort and not getting as easily frustrated as I do.

Quote by: SVMc Homeless people are not pretty, it's hard to put a cute homeless person on a placard, pregnant girls are too easily labeled sluts and they may in fact speak up for themsleves.

By the way, this one was awsome. After all, humans who speak, have opinions and live life in practical terms do not deserve any mercy for their horrible "mistakes" or "bad choices".
Let's be as unmerciful as we can with conscient humans, let's put all our "humanity" and "softness" into unconscious, unaware fetuses...towards whom, by the way, we'll become as harsh and unforgiving as soon as THEY become conscient people as well!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: syracusa SVMc, I hear you and I agree. I mean ...look at Pale Rider's reply above - they never address logical, real-life related arguments, they just continue to spit a dogma, that pro-abortion people are criminals.

Dogma - n. - An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

Tell me syracusa, how is your position any less "dogmatic" than mine? I believe that a living, growing, innocent human being dies every time an abortion is performed, and very often, that human dies simply because it is not convenient. Can you demonstrate in any real way that a human is not being killed when an abortion is performed? If you can, I will be happy to abandon my pro life stance as I only hold this position because I believe that all human life has value and that value is not for another human to determine.

And it doesn't make me feel better to hear you admit that you are a criminal. The admission means nothing. Willingness to accept punishment for criminal behavior would be a more sincere gesture.

[syracusa]

Changed

[syracusa]

Quote by: Pale RIder Dogma - n. - An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. Tell me syracusa, how is your position any less "dogmatic" than mine? I believe that a living, growing, innocent human being dies every time an abortion is performed, and very often, that human dies simply because it is not convenient. Can you demonstrate in any real way that a human is not being killed when an abortion is performed? If you can, I will be happy to abandon my pro life stance as I only hold this position because I believe that all human life has value and that value is not for another human to determine. And it doesn't make me feel better to hear you admit that you are a criminal. The admission means nothing. Willingness to accept punishment for criminal behavior would be a more sincere gesture.

I have no intention to demonstrate anything to you because I have no illusions about you changing your stance just like you should not have any about mine.
I do however intend to maintain the right to control my own body. If something or someone (I don't even care what loaded word you choose to use) starts growing in there without me wanting this to happen - I maintain the right to make it stop growing.
If you like to call this "convenience" - feel free. If you also like to use the word "kill" - an extremely loaded and ill-willed word - feel free again.
But don't make ME responsbile for your ill-will and irrationality.

You call it "kill", I call it "stoping it from growing in my body".

I have one life and I want to live it without having to account to people like you.
I have one life and I want to give birth to a happy, healthy child with a good future ahead of him/her, at a time that I deem best both for me and for this new human.

Otherwise, please don't push your luck and make such nasty statements about me - "accepting punishment" for my so-called crime.

This is of course completely irrelevant, but FYI, I have never had an abortion because I did not need to. So please watch your mouth - or your keyboard when you make such statements, EVEN in the context of your dogma.

But even if I'd had one, how do you dare threaten me into "accepting punishment" for a crime that doesn't even exist?. It is THE LAW that decides who is a criminal and who is not. Until the law changes to reflect your stance, get a grip on yourself!!!

PS: My stance is NOT a dogma while your IS ONE simply because you have no concrete answers for how society is supposed to save all those un-wanted and un-aborted fetuses from a life of misery and struggle once they are born. So your logic and argumentation stops here.
You have no mercy for human life and no regard for its quality whatsoever, neither for parents nor for the would-be children; and I am talking about the REAL LIFE - the one that is lived in full consciosuness, on a daily basis, here in society (not in someone else's womb!).

In the womb you are completely unaware of yourself and everything else. In society you are PAINFULLY aware of everything.
Society gives individuals a lot of grief all the time, even when they're born under a good star; let alone when they are born under a bad one.

This is why yours is a dogma and mine is NOT! So please stop sounding like a broken record over what is human life and what is killing.

It is IRRELEVANT in my book.CAPISCI?

[Sparkie]

I'm sorry, but to kill something that is so innocent is very wrong. First of all it is nobody's fault but your own if you end up pregnant. (not counting certain situations) You should suffer your own consequences. The growing, innocent child didn't do anything to you. There are plenty of people out there who want children and can't have them, people that can have kids don't realize how luck y they are. (this is sad coming from somebody who hasn't had kids....i'm too young) But it's your fault and you should take your responsibilty. Otherwise- I find abortion immature and very irresponsible.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Sparkie I'm sorry, but to kill something that is so innocent is very wrong.

That "something" is neither "innocent" nor "guilty". These are loaded notions made up by people living in a society. Fetuses don't live in a society. They just are - in someone else's womb. Their existence has nothing to do with either "innocence" or "guilt".

Your statement on the "plenty of people out there" who would want my assumed un-wanted child is not supported by evidence. Maybe if I am blond and blue eyed, some may actually fight over this future child. But if I am something totally different, they will not, I can guarantee you that.

What if I like having A LOT of sex with my husband and only want/can afford one child? Or none? Have any problem with that? No matter the amount of birth control used, lots of sex has the potential of leading to pregnancy.

You cannot tell me what and what is not my fault, and when I should take responsibility for what. Stay out of my sex life, out of other people's sex lives, and please leave the decision as to what we're supposed to do with our own bodies UP TO US!



Thanks.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: syracusa I have no intention to demonstrate anything to you because I have no illusions about you changing your stance just like you should not have any about mine.

The difference between us being that I can indeed demonstrate that my position is true, I can, and have, successfully defended it with sound logic and science against all forms of argument whereas you claim you don't have to defend yours since it is apparent that you are quite unable to. A postion that one doesn't feel there is a need to defend even when reasonable questions are put forward about it is dogma. Whether you like it or not, you are the one espousing dogma.

Quote by: syracusa I do however intend to maintain the right to control my own body. If something or someone (I don't even care what loaded word you choose to use) starts growing in there without me wanting this to happen - I maintain the right to make it stop growing. If you like to call this "convenience" - feel free. If you also like to use the word "kill" - an extremely loaded and ill-willed word - feel free again. But don't make ME responsbile for your ill-will and irrationality.

I agree, you should maintain control of your own body - BEFORE you get pregnant. After you get pregnant it is not just your body anymore.

"Loaded" word. Is that how you believe you dance around fact that you can't argue against? Very shallow, and quite predictable. The "loaded" word that I used was human being. Are you suggesting that if you were pregnant, that the "thing" inside of you would not be human? There is nothing "loaded" about scientific fact. Again, your dogma is showing.

Kill is also not a loaded word. It is alive by every definition, you stop its life process, you have killed it. Your term "make it stop growing" is nothing but a poorly thought out attempt to relieve yourself from the guilt you feel from supporting such a barbaric proceedure. Someone could make you stop growing "older". In a court of law, do you think that they could convince the judge that that is not the same thing as killing?

Quote by: syracusa I have one life and I want to live it without having to account to people like you. I have one life and I want to give birth to a happy, healthy child with a good future ahead of him/her, at a time that I deem best both for me and for this new human.

Then you, and all who hold your view should refrain from sex until that time is at hand. That way, an innocent human being won't have to forfiet its life to cover your irresponsibility. And your "people like you" statement is just another poorly thought out defense mechanism to transfer your guilt. If a person kills his mother, he will go to court and answer to people like me (and you). If he robs a bank, he will answer to people like me (and you). The fact that I value all life does not make me "people like me" any more than the fact that you don't value all life makes you "people like you". It is a stupid and inneffective argument.

Quote by: syracusa This is of course completely irrelevant, but FYI, I have never had an abortion because I did not need to. So please watch your mouth - or your keyboard when you make such statements, EVEN in the context of your dogma. But even if I'd had one, how do you dare threaten me into "accepting punishment" for a crime that doesn't even exist?. It is THE LAW that decides who is a criminal and who is not. Until the law changes to reflect your stance, get a grip on yourself!!!

Did you not admit to being a criminal? Had you not made the statement, I would not have presumed that you had an abortion. I simply responded to your statement. Your dogmatic statement.

And the "law" is no place to hide. The law once said that blacks were not human. Then the law said that blacks were part human and the part that was human could vote. The law once said that women did not have any inherent right to vote. Had you been born before women's sufferage and a man had suggested that until the law said that you could vote that you should "get a grip", what do you suppose your response would have been. You are a very shallow and hypocritical thinker. You argue not from a position of fact and reason, you are all emotion. Not a very effective way to defend your case.

The law is often wrong. And the law is wrong in this case as well. Our knowledge of human development has increased greatly since the days of Roe. The last time Roe was challenged, it upheld by one vote, and that vote was questionable until the 11th hour. The next time, it is heard, it will fall.

Quote by: syracusa PS: My stance is NOT a dogma while your IS ONE simply because you have no concrete answers for how society is supposed to save all those un-wanted and un-aborted fetuses from a life of misery and struggle once they are born. So your logic and argumentation stops here. You have no mercy for human life and no regard for its quality whatsoever, neither for parents nor for the would-be children; and I am talking about the REAL LIFE - the one that is lived in full consciosuness, on a daily basis, here in society (not in someone else's womb!). In the womb you are completely unaware of yourself and everything else. In society you are PAINFULLY aware of everything. Society gives individuals a lot of grief all the time, even when they're born under a good star; let alone when they are born under a bad one. This is why yours is a dogma and mine is NOT! So please stop sounding like a broken record over what is human life and what is killing.

I repeat:

Dogma - n. - An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

Which part of this are you unable to comprehend? Do you suppose that a belief must contain "all the answers" in order to not be dogma? I have news for you, your belief has no answers, otherwise you would be able to tear down my argument as effectively as I have torn down yours.

You say that I have no mercy for human life yet you suggest that if that life might not be happy then it is best to kill it. In that light, hitler was extremely merciful to the Jews, don't you think? And stalin, he showed such mercy to those millions he killed, and pol pot, and mao. I had no idea that they were such merciful tyrants.

To even suggest that killing a healthy innocent because it is the merciful thing to do is sociopathic. We all have hard times. We all struggle. If you killed everyone who has a struggle, there would be very few of us left. And again, following your logic, it would be the merciful thing to round up all the homeless, and unwanted, unloved elderly and simply kill them.

An argument, especially one that is dedicated to killing humans, is only valid if it applies to all humans otherwise you fall into the category of the sort that argued that blacks were not humans, but whites were. Or that jews were less human than ayrans so that it became ok to kill "these" humans because they aren't as good as "those" humans. You are an ageist. Just like a racist only your biggotry is based on age.

You even use words like "something" and fetus to describe an unborn human in the same way that racists us words like ni%%er, and coon to describe blacks. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to dehumanize a human so that it becomes ok to do what you will with them.

So in the end you believe that I have a dogma because I value human life and believe that every human is entitled to live out that life and you don't have a dogma because you believe that if we can't reasonably expect a person to have a life that is jam packed with joy and laughter, it is best, and most merciful to kill them. You have GOT to be kidding.

Human life is what it is. The unborn is most certainly human, its DNA proves it, and by any scientific definition it is alive so it is a living human being. And when you stop a life, you have killed. The fact that you don't like the words is irrelavent. They are accurate. Unless, of course you can demonstrate in any real way that they aren't. Which I am prepared to wager that you can't.

And the law is changing syracusa. Like it or not. Ask scott peterson how many people the law says that he killed. Step by step the law is aligning with what we now know about human development. Perhaps my grandkids will look back on the pro choice movement in the history books with the same contempt that we look back on the pro slavery movement.

By the way, what exactly is your position on slavery?

[Chris the Chees]

The difference between us being that I can indeed demonstrate that my position is true

That is a logical fallacy; you cannot prove an opinion has any superiority over another, unless it is based on fact. The question of abortion is based on personal ethics, not fact, and as such you can demonstrate no such thing.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Chris the Chees The difference between us being that I can indeed demonstrate that my position is true That is a logical fallacy; you cannot prove an opinion has any superiority over another, unless it is based on fact. The question of abortion is based on personal ethics, not fact, and as such you can demonstrate no such thing.

Thank you.

Like I said, Pale Rider, our discussion makes no sense becasue your "impeccable logic" is not logical to me. All we have have is fight for what we believe is right.

At the present moment, the law would NOT define me as a criminal if i had an abortion. It did not define women as criminals for this throughout most known history.
I will fight to maintain the law the way it is and the way it has been for most ages, and to maintain control over my own body. It is not for YOU to decide WHEN I can have control over my own body. Whether before or after I had sex, this is not FOR YOU to decide. It is MY DECISION.

Make no mistake about it: I will fight to my last breath against having some screwed up men ORDER ME to give birth to something or someone I refuse to give birth to.
I will also fight to my last breath against having the same people controlling what is supposed to happen under my sheets.

I repeat: stay the F out of my sex life and whatever may be growing in my body.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees The difference between us being that I can indeed demonstrate that my position is true That is a logical fallacy; you cannot prove an opinion has any superiority over another, unless it is based on fact. The question of abortion is based on personal ethics, not fact, and as such you can demonstrate no such thing.

The question of abortion is whether it is ok to kill a human because that human is not convenient. If you kill your neighbor and burn down his house because it obstructed your view, ethics do not come in to question. In fact, if you kill anyone for reasons other than self defense, ethics do not come into question. When an abortion is performed, a human being dies. Ethics is not the issue. The issue is whether human life has intrinsic value or instrumental value.

Those on the left are constantly going on about the intrinsic value of human life until it enters into the realm of the real world, then they are quick to put human life in the category of instrumental value.

All known fact demonstrates that an unborn, from the first moment of conception is a member of species h. sapiens. That is, it is a human from the beginning. A human in the early stages of development, but a human none the less. And by any scientific definition, it is also alive. It is a living human being. Killing innocent humans is not an ethical matter, it is a legal matter. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate in any real way that an unborn is neither human nor alive.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Chris the Chees The difference between us being that I can indeed demonstrate that my position is true The question of abortion is based on personal ethics, not fact, and as such you can demonstrate no such thing.

Oe final observation: the statement above is a perfect statement. I find it ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Therefore, here's the deal, Pale Rider: you feel free to follow your own "perfect ethics" by never allowing your wife to have an abortion regardless of the situation, or by marrying someone who shares your views.
On my side, allow me to follow my own "perfect ethics".

But KINDLY stop having the illusion that you've got "ethics" and the other side doesn't.

Just like I do not force you to get rid of a fetus you may not be able to afford or one with a serious birth defect that would be an actual burden to society - you should respect my ethic and allow me to follow it as I see fit, without YOU adopting it.

This is the ultimate difference between "pro-lifers" abd pro-choice people.
The pro-choice crowd would never force YOU to have an abortion, whereas you reserve the right to force us to swallow YOUR ethics and do what YOU WOULD DO!!

I don't think so.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: syracusa Thank you. Like I said, Pale Rider, our discussion makes no sense becasue your "impeccable logic" is not logical to me. All we have have is fight for what we believe is right. At the present moment, the law would NOT define me as a criminal if i had an abortion. It did not define women as criminals for this throughout most known history. I will fight to maintain the law the way it is and the way it has been for most ages, and to maintain control over my own body. It is not for YOU to decide WHEN I can have control over my own body. Whether before or after I had sex, this is not FOR YOU to decide. It is MY DECISION. Make no mistake about it: I will fight to my last breath against having some screwed up men ORDER ME to give birth to something or someone I refuse to give birth to. I will also fight to my last breath against having the same people controlling what is supposed to happen under my sheets. I repeat: stay the F out of my sex life and whatever may be growing in my body.

Your argument is specious. If abortion were the only instance in which government instructed you what you may do with your body, you would have a point, but it is not. There are literally thousands of laws on the books that tell you what you may and may not do with your body and you don't seem to be railing about those. Only this one.

I am not interested in what goes on in your bedroom. I could care less how or when you have sex, or how you live. I have no interest in restricting your choices because I am a biggot, or because I want your life to be miserable. I am simply interested in human rights. No different than those who, in their time, argued against slavery, or argued that women have a right to vote.

To me this is a human rights issue and I don't believe that you have the right to dismiss the intrinsic value of another human life simply because it is inconvenient to you. You are saying that the unborn child is nothing more than a slave to its mother because in order to simply kill it without legal consequence, she must own it and that is simply one more reason that Roe will fall next time it is heard. You didn't answer earlier, what is your stance on slavery? My bet is that it is a hypocritical one at best.

Perhaps when Roe is struck down, there will be economic incentive enough for pharmecutical companies to develop that perfect contraceptive. At that point, the entire conversation becomes moot.