Pun intended

...I'm not seeing a pun in anything you said.

if the supreme court says abortion is okay, then it must be

Just because something is law doesn't make it right on that justification.

...I'm not seeing a pun in anything you said.

Flush down the toilet = Crude abortion stereotype. Also the more common meaning of completely wasting something. Kind of morose pun that one.

sombody who was just to stupid to take the pill, or put on a condom

Even with this; there is still a chance a woman can get pregnant.
And, there is no way to "prove" that, so, they should still be punished because their pills/condoms didn't work?

Besides; if the child is unwanted, is it really fair on the mother or the child?

Flush down the toilet = Crude abortion stereotype

More of a metaphor than a pun..a pun would be like "We need to get rid of this thread! Abort abort!"

In my country abortion is only legal when forcing birth would endanger the life of child or mother, the embryo is horribly damage or the pregnancy is the result of ****. And I'd say that's ok. We're not taking away a would-be childs chance for life because of its parents carelessness or just nature/deities forcing its course. On the other hand can we kill something that's already dead or just as good as? The latter case could be disputed, but I don't favor forcing in cruel parodies of life.

On the other hand can we kill something that's already dead or just as good as? The latter case could be disputed, but I don't favor forcing in cruel parodies of life.

A mother died recently because she was refused abortion under the pretext that her child had still a heartbeat. But the child was gonna die, the doctors knew it wouldn't survive. So yes, they should have aborted it, it would have saved a life.

In my country abortion is only legal when forcing birth would endanger the life of child or mother, the embryo is horribly damage or the pregnancy is the result of ****. And I'd say that's ok. We're not taking away a would-be childs chance for life because of its parents carelessness or just nature/deities forcing its course. On the other hand can we kill something that's already dead or just as good as? The latter case could be disputed, but I don't favor forcing in cruel parodies of life.

then you will get people why destroy their own body to get a abortion anyway. using drugs for example in the hope it kills the kid. but instead gets born whit allot of disfunctions. so in they end destroying 2 lifes instead of non.

There are some cases in which I believe it is impossible to argue that abortion should not be availible. VERY FEW CASES.
For example, a relative of mine who is a nurse and works with mothers, and newborns told me of something that happened in her hospital. There was a couple, and both of them were albinos. We all know albinos are very pale and have red eyes, but there is also a multitude of health problems like vision problems and high susceptibility to skin cancer. And if two albino people have a baby, the child would have almost zero chance of survival. They would be even worse off than their parents, and would live a horrible life (if they survived very long.) So before the couple... you know... they consulted with a doctor at the hospital to ask about potential risks to the child. When they learned this, they would have used protection if not for the fact that their doctor informed them that two albino people usually cannot have a baby, they just usually aren't fertile, and the chances the couple getting pregnant were extremely low. Of course they were that unlucky one in a million. She got pregnant. They didn't make the decision lightly, and it caused them A LOT of grief, but they decided to abort the fetus. That is one of the only very extreme cases in which I believe abortion should be legal.

Just because something is law doesn't make it right on that justification.

No, but seeing as how right and wrong are subjective and the Supreme court is an arbiter of sorts, I'd say it has some sway.

No, but seeing as how right and wrong are subjective and the Supreme court is an arbiter of sorts, I'd say it has some sway.

So something being subjective means an appeal to authority is acceptable?