I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
I dont agree with abortion,its like killing a human being,besides the person who had abortion will never be the same again,and so many other people want to have children but cant.
yea... for every child aborted, that is more stem cells to cure incurable diseases such as Alzheimer and heart failure.
no that i don't agree with you just seems kinda funny to read it, thanks for the vid firefly, lol it was hilarious "If the church would let me wear one of those little rubber things on the end of my cock then we wouldn't be in this mess!" LAMO
Nah I was just pointing it out hope you didn't take offense i was joking.
aww poop, if you werent joking we could have a long drawn out argument -.-
anyway, people should look at the bright side, sometimes an abortion could save many lives, as the stem cells collected from dead fetuses (yum) could be used towards research. This research could actually save many people's lives.
@ everyone, yea Python are great. Personally I thought the best bit was the Protestant family at the end of the clip.
On a more serious note, the whole 'denying potential life' argument:
A couple denies potential life every time they have sex using a condom, every time a man masturbates and every time a woman allows a menstrual period to pass without conceiving a child. It's a cluster of developing cells, not a baby.
As for the 'it's not the foetus' fault' argument:
If you have cancer, the tumour is made of living, dividing tissue. After it's removed that living tissue dies. Is it the tumour's fault?
A couple denies potential life every time they have sex using a condom, every time a man masturbates and every time a woman allows a menstrual period to pass without conceiving a child. It's a cluster of developing cells, not a baby.
You also might as well just stop eating eggs, meat, and well, everything. Because that food could be going to producing more animals.
If you have cancer, the tumour is made of living, dividing tissue. After it's removed that living tissue dies. Is it the tumour's fault?
I never thought of it that way, But you could say that the baby is also feeding off of the mother's life force... But babies aren't malignant are they?
Some children are hellspawn. -------- That, firefly, is a point I made earlier. Pro-life people seem to isolate the denial of potential life just to abortion, when it extends to many pther things that they would disregard for God-knows-Why.
I never thought of it that way, But you could say that the baby is also feeding off of the mother's life force... But babies aren't malignant are they?
In the case of the woman, they are still unwanted, and that is what matters.
thats what we technically are doing....is killing an unborn child and if it is illegal to kill another person then this should also..... it's killing a human being... thats wrong religous or not... if you seriously want to look at it as a choice but its killing a human being and thats wrong any way you do it....born or unborn.....
go to abort73 for more info......it is very infomational about what the embryo looks like after an abortion...the baby is mutilated.... and it is wrong...
