Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, the images were horrible but banning abortion is wrong and stupid because the government loses control over whatever it bans. So you think a law should be passed requiring a parent's permission if their underaged daughter wants an abortion? It CAN'T be done, because abortion isn't supposed to exist, if banned.
Enough talk, let's see what legalized abortion really does.
And this is good for our nation??
I would agree with you if there was mandatory support and love given to every child, no matter the situation. However, living in the real world, I would rather have a crack head, teenager, poor woman with 4 kids, or anyone else abort an unwanted child rather than subjecting that unwanted child to probable abuse, misery, and lack of love, only to possibly have problems and later be a burden on society.
If you care so much for the children and not just about forcing your religious beliefs on others, then you would consider what the child might face if its mother is forced by the state to give birth, despite the fact that she is not emotionally or financially able to do so.
Then there is the argument that I as a libertarian would make, and that's that you have no right to tell anyone what to do with their body, provided what they do is only to their own body. Until a child is born, there is only a fetus inside a mother. It's the mother's body, life, and the mother's decision.
BTW...the other two items after life are LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
Anyone else want to share their "abortion-kills" scrapbook?
Eidelweiss, thanks for the link but reality creates too many exceptions for your one-size-fits-all abortion stance. There's no need for me to go deeper into explanation because it's understood that when it comes to abortion, we're all just talking to the wall here.
Let's say hypothetically that Roe v. Wade is struck down and abortions are no longer legal. What's the next step? Are those of you who are opposed to abortion going to adopt or foster children whose parents cannot or will not take care of them? Are you going to be in favor of welfare and/or other government-supported social programs?
I understand that people have their own religious/philosophical beliefs. However, you can't look at this issue without examining the bigger picture.
I would agree with you if there was mandatory support and love given to every child, no matter the situation. However, living in the real world, I would rather have a crack head, teenager, poor woman with 4 kids, or anyone else abort an unwanted child rather than subjecting that unwanted child to probable abuse, misery, and lack of love, only to possibly have problems and later be a burden on society.
This is the biggest myth. How can you or anyone know what is in store for a child, even if it is born to a teenager or poor woman? Why is their life less valuable because of the circumstances of their birth? You say I am forcing my beliefs on others, but I'd say the opposite. Who are you to judge?
A reduction in child abuse was one of the arguments used in Roe v. Wade, but once again the pro-choice "logic" falls apart. Child abuse has indeed skyrocketed since 1973. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. It's the culture of death John Paul II talked so much about. We've created a mentality in American society where so often our solutions to big problems involve non-life-giving solutions. Instead of loving, prayerful decisions that end in discipline and responsibility, we have just the opposite. If our laws say it's okay to kill an unborn child, why not abuse a living child? Legalized abortion has created an overwhelming mentality of not needing to take responsibility for one's actions. "Oops, I got pregnant, I'll just do away with this 'problem' and it'll go away." If the same woman decides to give birth after all, there is an underlying resentment toward him/her which is more likely to be taken out in physical or mental abuse.
I don't deny that when Roe is overturned, that all will be well, but our government has a duty to make laws that uphold basic moral principles - "You shall not kill" has been an ideal we have lived by since around 1200 BC.
Grungindly, I am pro-life. I saw grungingly because I do not wish to be lumped with religious psychopaths. The founding principles of our government guarantee what the title of this thread states. We cannot conveniently enjoy the freedoms of the Constitution by wanting to restrict wiretapping and unwanted seizures without acknowledging gun ownership rights, virtually any form of speech (including hate, the n word, etc), religion (optional prayer in schools without pressure to comply), etc.
This is not fair. While the majority of prolifers are religious, it is very unkind to label us as psychopathic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
