Not trolling, a legit Anti-Abortion Thread.

"She asks the very poignant question: "If abortion is about women's rights, then what were my rights?" I for one believe that is a very legitimate question, and I would love to hear some thoughtful answers from those who believe that abortion is OK."

This was not a rhetorical question. I would like to hear from some who support abortion rights. What is the answer to this question?

"Spot on John, I am confused.

I would like somebody to explain it to me.

A man breaks into a house and kills a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant. Charge - double homicide.

Or... the above scenario never takes place but the same woman goes to an abortion clinic and terminates the pregnancy.

If he has murdered the child,why hasn't she? And if she hasn't, what has she actually done? What is the correct euphemism?"


Excellent question Chris! It seems the only thing that makes it not murder is whether or not the baby is wanted by the one who can nurture it. How big of a stretch is it to say that it is OK to terminate the life of an older person once they are no longer wanted? Again- not a rhetorical question. If you have a thoughtful answer, I would like to hear it. If there are no good answers, maybe we as a society need to re-evaluate what we are doing.

(Message edited by deltawake on January 25, 2010)

What if Mary aborted Jesus because she was afraid her parents would think that she had pre-marital sex?

Maybe we would not be in the financial situation we are in today since people would still have their hard earned money that the have given to the church all these years.

Wes, "thriving" is moving in the right direction. Can we agree that giving gender and racial equality was a positive move? These rights are not present in many countries to this day.

"Decaying" would be moving backwards, like instituting slavery after all men have been freed, making dangerous substances legal even after knowing their dangers to the people, legally killing our offspring after protecting them for so long, etc.

I'm not for or against any of these practices, just commenting that its a sad state of society that the collective even sees these things as debatable.

Gotcha... in that case we agree! Taking away civil rights like marriage from gays after they were given to them is definitely moving backwards. Hopefully this backwards trend can be stopped in CA and elsewhere.

I guess the end of prohibition was also a step towards decay.

GD, if the story read that she tried but by a miracle it didnt take, would you be more compelled to believe it?

"its a sad state of society that the collective even sees these things as debatable."

It's debatable because not everyone agrees with your OPINION.

If you can see that a child has less rights than their parents, then can you also not see that a zygote has less rights than a child?

I murder is murder is murder, then I assume that if we are discussing an ectopic pregnancy then there must be no abortion and thus we lose the life of both the mother and baby?

Hey Manzo, she made her choice.

John, I am not really comparing the two. I just think depoint raised a really interesting point and if I was pro abortion I wouldn't really have an answer. Unless I was pro abortion AND be honest enough to admit that it is outright murder.But it is not illegal so..........

But who could live with that? So we dress it up to make it tolerable.

I understand that the murder is horrific and when you factor in that an unborn child died it makes it even worse .

But if you want to be really honest, when the woman gets killed, the unborn child is a casualty of that murder ie. deprived of it's host it dies. Whereas when a woman intentionally terminates a pregnancy the child gets hacked to pieces and sucked out.With everyones consent!!

Both are equally horrific.

As a matter of interest if somebody kills a woman and he is completely unaware that she is pregnant is he still guilty of 2 homicides?

By the way I know 3 women who have had abortions. Most of them decades ago and none of them have ever been able to forget it. We make it all too easy and the consequences are far reaching.

That's right Wes, i forgot about that part...

No, everyone agrees with my opinion that killing children is wrong. None of us know when during the process we should consider a child living. So, we have two choices, we can either admit that we do not know when a child is "alive" and ban there execution, or we can arbitrarily draw a line in the sand to help us sleep at night. We have decided it is much more important for us to have an "out" than it is for us to err on the side of caution and take the high road.

We really dont know but sure is a nice convienence. We dont want it to feel like murder so we draw our line and tell ourselves its ok. Enough people believe it, then its just another procedure.

Peter, I don't think you will get your answer. Those that feel abortion is OK can not answer without putting a spin on it.
I would like Melissa to explain how she can come back at Delta by saying sarcastically, "Wow I am glad delta's problems would be solved by killing me! That's awesome" Can't someone like Gianna Jessen say the same thing? Wow I'm glad my biological mother's problems would be solved by killing me.

"we can either admit that we do not know when a child is "alive" and ban there execution"

"We dont want it to feel like murder so we draw our line and tell ourselves its ok"

Well I guess that's one angle to slant things and make yourself believe that everyone shares your opinion and that there should be no debate.

Becky, I am not sure what you want me to explain. I am Mexican, delta said kill the Mexican's they were unwanted. How do I not take offense to that. Then because in a thread a few months back where I stated I was pro-choie, he made reference to me not being about children, yet I am a mother of two very amazing people and I would do anything in the world for them. Please tell me how or why I would not take offense to either of those statements?

I understand that the murder is horrific and when you factor in that an unborn child died it makes it even worse .

This is where we differ. I think that the death of a person who is cognisant of their existence and has relationships and family who perhaps need them is far more horrific than the death of an unwanted fetus. A wanted fetus fits part of the above description and therefore is seen as deserving of protection from being killed. An unwanted fetus fits none of the above description and therefore society is divided over how much protection is appropriate.

Only people who refer to their religion have a concise answer, as the considerations listed above aren't applicable. It's real simple for people who believe life begins at conception. But this definition is not meaningful to others because it discounts the meaning of life as you've indicated in your claim that the death of a fetus is more horrific than the death of a person who's already born.

Melissa. You obviously are not capable of reading for context. I am not for killing mexican's. Interesting side note. If you are born here, then you are not mexican so I think on the first order you are confused. I was stating something so outlandish that it was obviously undebatable as something no one would do. Just like the arguments that the people of your political following would argue that you could have sat their in the delivery room hours from having your child, but, you (because it is a womans right) could have the doctors cut your babies head off and suck out the rest of the parts. Right there and that easy. That is why I think people who argue for or have argued for that right are horrible people. My argument about mexicans is put in the same words that pro abortion people use. THat is why it was "fixed". I would love to know how you can be pro abortion but yet pro child when the very basis for all the people who are pro abortion is that it is about the woman. Look at all the arguments. It is all about what the woman wants and not once is it about the child. How is that a pro-child stance?

(Message edited by deltahoosier on January 25, 2010)

Peter, I don't think you will get your answer. Those that feel abortion is OK can not answer without putting a spin on it.

Becky, the situation that Peter gave is a tragedy, and obviously isn't acceptable as the result of an abortion. People who support the right for a woman to get an abortion don't need to put a spin on it. There is a lot of controversy surrounding when it is or isn't acceptable to have an abortion. Not everyone believes it ok to abort a fetus without regard to term or reason.

Melissa, I am sure that Delta used a poor example by referencing "Mexicans"' I am also sure you new the point he was trying to make. He was comparing the Mexicans to the unwanted babies. I believe he too, was being sarcastic and actually meant it is not alright to kill unwanted babies, just as it is not alright to kill mexicans. We can't kill anyone just because they are unwanted by some.

As for you not being "about children." Having not read that post I can not comment. I am sure you are a wonderful mother, and congratulate you on your new little one.

My point was that just as you said "I'm glad Delta's problems would be solved by killing me."
Gianna Jesson who was a unwanted baby that survived an abortion attempt, might feel the same way. Thinking her mother's problems might be solved by killing her. I hope I did not offend you in any way. I was just trying to make the point that, just as you wouldn't want someone to think you should be killed, neither should an innocent baby.

It's a sin to judge. Therefore, you're all going to hell. That's right, I said it.

Gianna's 17 year old mother was in her 3rd trimester when she had her abortion. There are two known cases of live births from this saline procedure which I guess is rarely used now (Gianna was born in 1977 - a very good year if I do say so myself).

It is up to the states to decide what constitutes a "late term abortion" - 36 states ban them. The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow. 13 states ban abortions after the 24th week (Gianna was born at 30 weeks). 10 states require a 2nd physician to approve.

In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.

Wow now I can't comprehend. It was a lame attempt to compare apples to oranges on your part. I am sorry I even attempted to post in this thread. I am not going to let you make me out to be evil because of something I believe in that you don't. I don't claim to be pro-abortion. I claim to be pro-choice, try as you might make them the same, they aren't. It is pure evil for you to equate the birth of my children as the same as me sitting in some clinic willing to abort.

Becky, whether or not he was being sarcastic, it was a sick attempt to prove a point.

there are people who are pro-abortion? interesting.

congrats on the new one melissa! email me some pics! I got news as well.

Wes- you seem to be saying that abortion is wrong past a certain point, although you are not specific as to what that point is. I will again ask the question that Gianna Jensen asked, "If abortion is about women's rights, then what were my rights?" What are the rights of an unborn woman? Do they have the right to choose? What is it that makes an abortion OK or tolerable for some at 9 weeks but not at 24 weeks?
Why not allow abortion up to say 18 years? Then if the kid isn't working out too well or becomes inconvenient- no problem. Just get rid it. Anyone who has had teenagers knows that they can be detrimental to the health of the parents.

"I think that the death of a person who is cognisant of their existence and has relationships and family who perhaps need them is far more horrific than the death of an unwanted fetus".

WOW. Just Wow. thats as cold and calculating as any killer could be. Who is to say someone else wouldnt want to raise that child? Why do you speak for everyone? Maybe the Father wants to see a Son grow up, or a Daughter live to be p President. Who are YOU to deny this? It just shows that when you have no emotion, you can rationalize anything.

It's hard to say at what point in a pregnancy abortion is okay. It's definitely not if the child is at a point where he/should is even close to where they could survive outside the womb. Personally I think the line should be drawn after the 1st trimester.

Think about this though, if your wife had a miscarriage at 4 weeks, would you be having a full on funeral? What about if the child died during child birth? Both are tragic, but there's a huge difference for just about everyone, I think.

Brett I have known many women, five personally that did have funerals for miscarried children. It is very common.

I consider myself to be pretty conservative, but on two of the biggest issues (abortion and gay marriage) I couldn't care less! I DO NOT support gay marriage and I would NEVER support my wife (even years ago when we were just dating in high school) to get an abortion...BUT if people want to do these things, it doesn't effect me, therefore I don't care.

Think of how many more people would be on government (tax payer) assistance if all the high school and college age girls who got pregnant, could abort their baby! Granted the number is probably nothing compared to all the illegals sucking the system dry, but do we really need anymore doing that? I don't think so!

Patrick doesn't it suck that if you wife decides to have an abortion (not saying she would) there isn't a damn thing you can do about it? It is her right.

What if one of your children, future children, was gay. Would you support their gay marriage?

(Message edited by depoint50ae on January 25, 2010)

Brett, THAT is exactly my point!! It is impossible to say when its ok.

If a gave you a liquid and said it is the best tasting substance in the world. However if you drink too much of it, it will kill you, but nobody knows what ammount that is. It could be a drop, it could be a gallon. it could be a different ammount for different people. How much would you drink?

A decaying people will be eager to taste regardless of consequence and will try it. Then they will document others who try it and try to find a trend on how much kills the majority and back it off a hair. (just like we do cocaine, steroids, etc)

Thriving people will refuse to taste any ammount because the risk of being wrong is too great. The personal benefit doesnt outweigh the risk.

What is it that makes an abortion OK or tolerable for some at 9 weeks but not at 24 weeks?

People decide this. Despite the reluctance to believe it, morals are democratic.

Why not allow abortion up to say 18 years?

Are you trying to say you can't think of any reasons? If so then thank you, because it means that we can discount anything you say as you don't appear to be a thinking person.

"Why not allow abortion up to say 18 years?"

John- it was obviously a sarcastic question designed to point the arbitrary sort of thinking that makes it OK in some minds (apparently yours) to abort a baby at 9 weeks but not at 24 weeks. In the not too distant past, (some in government still want this to be legal) it has been legal and accepted by some to deliver the head of a baby, shove a pair of scissors down its spine, and then suck its brains out before delivering the baby dead. This is the horror of partial birth abortion.
Where do we draw the line and why? I have asked some very sincere questions which have gone unanswered. I think the reason is that there are no good answers.
If you care to give it a try John, I'll ask them again. First, repeating the question of Gianna Jensen, "If abortion is about women's rights, then what were my rights?" What are the rights of an unborn woman?
Quoting you, "Becky, the situation that Peter gave is a tragedy, and obviously isn't acceptable as the result of an abortion." What would have been the acceptable result of an abortion in this case? That she would not have survived her abortion? It certainly would have been more convenient. After all, it makes us so uncomfortable to have to deal with the reality of what happened to her. But it has also happened to so many others who did not survive. They have no voice.

Peter T, the line *is* arbitrary. I'm not arguing that point. It's decided by public will. From the point of conception to live birth there are differing opinions. The rights of the unborn are decided by law. So you can stop asking that question.

The question is what does society find acceptable vs. unacceptable. I doubt that many would find acceptable abortions laws that would result in cases like Gianna Jensen, yet it's apparently still possible in some cases that it could happen.

My observation is that most people would be happy to make late term abortions for frivolous reasons illegal. Unfortunately the activists have polarized the arguments to the point that cases like this aren't the issue. This means if most people believe that abortion should be a legal option, they don't have anyone fighting for a middle ground that represents the majority of public opinion. So the answer is that given what's been said about Jensen is (again IMO) that late term abortions would not be available for people who simply decided they didn't want a baby after carrying it for 30 weeks if there was a middle ground being argued.

"I murder is murder is murder, then I assume that if we are discussing an ectopic pregnancy then there must be no abortion and thus we lose the life of both the mother and baby?"

That is a completely different issue as the child will not survive to term and will, in all liklihood,kill the mother as well.
My wife had an ectopic pregnancy. The child was dead and my wife would have died if they didn't operate.

I still don't know when it it considered a child/baby or when it is just a fetus.

I think from what I am reading that if an outsider takes the life it is a baby but when the mom does it is a fetus.

To be honest if people called abortion exactly what it was I would at least respect them for it.Instead we dress it up as a way of appeasing the national conscience.

Imagine what people would say about a shoplifter calling himself an affirmative shopper??
"I am not a thief"

That is a completely different issue as the child will not survive to term and will, in all liklihood,kill the mother as well.

Oh so it is different to kill the embryo/fetus in that scenario but not in others?

I am just pointing out that nothing is black and white nor absolute even though there are many on here who swear that everything is black or white.

Manzo - The child cannot survive outside the womb!! And it will kill the mother.
I know. It happened to my wife. The child cannot survive beyond a few weeks and after that the mothers life is in danger.Normally by the time you are aware you have an ectopic pregnancy the child is dead. And even if it isn't, death is imminent.

To be honest if people called abortion exactly what it was I would at least respect them for it.

OK, now we know that you will respect people who see things your way even if they don't do things how you would. If you could put aside momentarily the idea that morals were manifest by supernatural being(s), then you could contemplate what murder is and how people decided to create a moral code regarding murder. There are things that you might consider (some I said previously).

1) A person is cognisant of his existence.
2) A person may have relationships and dependencies with others.
3) A person is aware of fate.

- Number 3 is why we take care of old people.
- Number 2 is why we don't allow people to take a fetus from a mother w/o consent.
- An unwanted fetus meets none of the criteria.

Thanks John. Gottit.

I know it's not murder. The government has told us. Ad infinitum.

"An unwanted fetus meets none of the criteria"

John, how do you know? How can awareness, or cognition be measured with any certainty? Obviously a dependent relationship is formed at conception.

I think we can all agree that nobody knows when a child becomes a "person". The pursuit to find the line, to absolve ourselves, is a sad indicator. We know at some point it is wrong but no way of knowing where that point is. Are we so desparate to dodge accountability that we are willing to guess?

Jason, I take it you are against emergency contraception?

John, how do you know? How can awareness, or cognition be measured with any certainty? Obviously a dependent relationship is formed at conception.

The same question could be asked about all the animals we warehouse and "murder" for consumption. The human race is sad, but it's the best that God or evolution could come up with.

And Chris, we are the govt.

Just the fact that so many men feel strongly on both sides of this issue, tells me this should not be just a "Women's rights issue."

Pretty amazing what is present at 8 weeks. I assume the pro-abortion folks don't want to acknowledge this side of the story.

woah woah woah. Sorry dirt, I wasn't saying women are better than men on the parental front, I was saying women are currently recognized as being the primary caregivers so until that changes it is pretty much our choice.

This my be a little to harsh but maybe everyone who is anti-abortion NO MATTER what, will have a sister/daughter/wife raped by a family member causing a total mutant baby... then let me know what you think.

Nick - So you only support abortion in those cases then and not ones performed out of convenience for the mother? I am just trying to understand your reason for the question because it sounds to me like you wish to have them legalized for all cases due to the less than 1% that are performed for the reasons you stated above.

Innocent people are convicted at times for crimes they did not commit right? Should we let all criminals go so that we don't run the chance of wrongfully punishing the less than 1% we falsely convict? I'm just asking the question.

(Message edited by eubanks01 on January 26, 2010)

"This my be a little to harsh but maybe everyone who is anti-abortion NO MATTER what, will have a sister/daughter/wife raped by a family member causing a total mutant baby... then let me know what you think."


Or worse, bitten by reverse vampires and forced to have their undead babies. Then we will see what everyone thinks.

Eubanks you would be hard pressed to find anyone in this community who supports abortions for convenience. Most pro-CHOICE (not pro-ABORTION) people feel it should be legal for victims of rape or when it is presents a physical harm to the woman or the child. Pro-life people like to put an evil spin on it, but I don't honestly know a person who condones abortion for the purpose of convenience.

Jason G is exactly correct... I didn't want to type that since it is such a sensitive subject... but yeah, undead vampire babies is potentially a real epidemic.

Twilight coming to real life, I think we can all agree that is a future no one wants.

Melissa, the same is true for pro-life people. you would be hard pressed to find a pro-life person who believes someone should risk death or be willing to die to give birth.

Pro- choice campaign to save the tragic allows for convienence. Pro-life campaign to save the victims of convienence, allow no room for exceptions for the tragic. Both believe the same things. Would seem that with this kind of common ground that a resolution would be easy.

HAHA, Nick, its a SIMPSONS reference if you didnt know, lol.

Really? Don't you support the woman's ability to choose as she wishes? I guess I was confused by thinking that being pro-choice means you SUPPORT the woman's "right" to do with her body as she desires. So tell me how you are pro-choice but do not support abortion at the same time? You know that 93% of all abortions are out of convenience right?

Hahaha, I do now with a little help... abortion is funny stuff

rape is a horrible "mistake". do you think rape victims forgot to ask there assailants to use a condom. don't you think these women should have a choice it was not their "mistake".my .02

Nick, women who get abortions due to rape or incest make up 1% of all abortions. In 2005 alone, there were 820,151 reported abortions. A poll done by CBS in 2007 showed that only 42% of the poll takers supported abortions, only 26% of which voted it should be permitted at all times. Out of the 58% that did not vote pro choice, only 4% voted that abortions should occur under no circumstances. 4% were unsure and the other 50% agreed that abortions should not be allowed unless the woman's life is in jeopardy or if she was subject to rape or incest. This pretty much shuts down your idea. Rape, incest or life saving reasons are accepted exceptions by the majority of pro-lifers.

From the top, "Abortion is murder. How dare you murder another human for a mistake you have made?"

Not that prolifer.

(Message edited by sidekicknicholas on January 26, 2010)

.... oh and in return to "What if Jesus was aborted?" argument... I would like to ask, What if Hitler was aborted?


You're asking a question if a man (who not everyone in the world believes they exsited, and those who do believe cannot 100% prove it) who did great things... or maybe the single worst human being ever live (who DID 100% exsist)

I would roll the dice and say that a dead baby Hitler would have been for the best.

Eubanks, That awful picture you posted is actually very tame. My sister had a miscarriage at the end of her first trimester. 11 weeks to be exact. The baby was very identifiable. In fact it was a little boy. It was 28 years ago, but I will never forget that terrible image of having to scoop that baby boy out of the toilet with a soup ladle.

HAHA, Nick, its a SIMPSONS reference if you didnt know, lol.

Shoulda known... The Simpsons did it.

Becky - For sure. I was amazed (sickened) at some pictures of the 8 week old aborted babies and how much they already have the structure of a full-term baby. I was trying to keep it tame so the pro-abortionists wouldn't jump on my case for being a shock jock pro-lifer. I guess the reality is indeed shocking.

The AbortionNo site has abortion procedure pictures which are beyond disturbing...both for the baby and just as much for what is done to the mother.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html

I hesitate to post in this thread, especially since it's gotten to the point of posting gore again, but what's the pro-life position on this? You learn thru genetic testing that your baby has serious genetic defects (unknown reasons / non-incest). Do you support forcing people to parent a child that will never grow up? Should they have to carry the baby full term even though the odds are 99.99% that the baby will be stillborn?

forcing people to parent a child

Well, you've stated your question inaccurately in this rare sample scenario. Nobody is ruling out the choice of adoption so I don't thinking anybody is forcing one to "parent" an unwanted child.

If you think that an 8 week old baby's foot is gore, then you have no idea. Abortion is definitely one of the most gruesome procedures out there so definitely don't click on the link.

We all know what's in the link. A few red pixels aren't going to change anyone's mind.

So adoption for special-needs children is just a phonecall away in your world, huh?

Trace, If the baby is definitely going to be stillborn then there is no reason to carry full term. The baby is already dead. On your other question, if it is known that the baby will have a serious genetic defect. The choice to abort would be a choice of convenience.( which I am totally against) No one is forcing the parent to keep the child. There is the choice of adoption. I believe it would be a better alternative than death.

Wes, that tech has come out since my days of being an unrestricted seed donor, so I honestly dont know a thing about it. I will say that logically if you are smart enough to understand the significance of contraceptives then your smart enough not to need an emergency one.

A few red pixels aren't going to change anyone's mind.

Actually, there are tons of stories out there you can read where a mother contemplating abortion had a change of heart once she became visually aware of what her baby looked like and what was involved with the procedure. You support it though so I assume those types of pictures don't bother you at all right? What do you even call it "gore" as if it has negative implications in your mind?

"So adoption for special-needs children is just a phone call away in your world, huh?"
No one said it would be as easy as a phone call away. But, death just to make it easier because you don't have time in your world for a special needs kid is just a very cold and selfish attitude in my book.

Jason, emergency contraception prevents a zygote from implanting (first 48 hours-ish I think). Where does a careful couple staring at a broken condom fall in your scale of "smart enough?"

Your desire to enforce your morals on others is a very cold and selfish attitude.

I am not trying to force my morals on you at all. I realize that this topic will always be a subject for debate. I do not expect everyone to feel the same as I do. I do however have as much right as you do to state my opinion.

The problem with the adoption issue, is that it is extremely hard to find homes for severely retarded children. This leads to an explosion of them becoming a burden of the government, and I can assume we would see a HUGE increase in cases of abuse, and mis-treatment due to the fact that we don't have enough money and properly trained people to take minimum money to take care of those children. If they are never adopted, they will remain a burden of the state until the day they die nearly, as they can't work or fend for themselves. It would be nice to imagine them all having loving homes, but it's financially impossible.

The whole point is whether or not it should b legal, so opinions are loaded.

Wes, I really dont know. My point on this thread is that its a sad commentary on our society that we need to find the line of MURDER so we can toe it. One would think that an ascending civilization would distance themselves from that line. It's also sad that we have to tollerate 99% abuse to help the 1% who need it. But that can be said for alot of things these days...

Yes, opinions are loaded, and we are both entitled to ours. Mine, are not based on only morals or religion, but on life experiences and the experiences of other people I know. Your statement about special needs kids hit me personally. I have cared for two special needs kids in my life. One was autistic, the other was deformed, and had heart problems. She had these problems because early in her mother's pregnancy she had a miscarriage. A D&C (scraping of the uterus) was performed. A few weeks later she found out she was still pregnant. There had been twins. It was not Known if the second child would survive because of the D&C which is also done to perform some abortions. Some how Jessica survived but not without these problems. She had several surgeries and it was not likely that she would live past 8 years old. Today Jessica is a 22 year old college graduate. She was one of the brightest kids that I had cared for in my years of day care. The thought of her mother aborting her because she might need special care or be a burden of some sort just breaks my heart. Both of these children were no harder to care for than an infant, a two year old or even a teenager. They can all be trying at times. These kids loved so much and deserved to be loved back.

I've faced very difficult choices in this realm as well, and it is not something to be taken lightly.

People make stupid mistakes all the time... making it illegal to correct a mistake is a bigger mistake. It's a fetus not a child.

Sorry I ran across this thread, I hate discussing this topic, seems to bring out all the self-righteous religious nutjobs. My family included.

AGreed, if it was a child the word fetus wouldn't be around.

I understand abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control, but I think in the best interest of some people in some situations it should be an option

I understand abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control

Why not? If you don't see anything morally wrong with it (let's put religion aside and use our brains), then why would you be against it in any scenario? Who would you be to tell somebody they can't use it as their form of birth control?


Becky - Touching story.


For those citing the "deformed" examples for reasons to allow abortion...Shouldn't you allow for that child to eventually decide on its own whether it wants to live or die? Look up the name Nick Vujicic. What a travesty it would have been for his parents to abort him because they discovered he was going to be born without arms and legs. He is now in his late 20's and has given his story personally to over 3 million people...a story of faith, life, and hope. What a sad story it would have been to take that life and opportunity away from him.