If the risk of abuse is so high, how can the woman decide for her baby to adopt? You said the baby could be molested. But you're okay with the woman sending that baby to a place where you say it could be molested. Sounds a little like strained logic, like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
FreshAir said: ↑ only the women can decide to risk life and limb to have a baby No, you're just dancing and squirming and imagining things again.....that poster never said all that, YOU DID....
that elephant in the room is a big one. it's a wonder you weren't crushed to death by it. though I can see why you had to invent a position. I mean ... "the Right condemn parents for having kids they can't afford, and also condemn those who choose to have kids but then rethink it and kill their babies" makes the Right seem sound, reasonable, decent, and consistent. we can't have that!
Yes, far better to kill your kid than take that one in a million chance that that nice couple from Des Moines who've been through years of assessments and scrutiny while waiting for a child to adopt, are themselves child killers. Makes perfect sense.
There are some here who go to great lengths to pretend that unwanted babies are a result of immaculate conception. Apparently, in this strange land, a woman can't choose to avoid pregnancies. She MUST conceive. She has NO choice. I guess we can assume that men are forcing them? Must be some kinda Rapeland, where no consensual sex exists.
You can only see it as 'damned either way' if you furiously ignore the choice made at the outset. Pretending that didn't happen is the only way a reasonable person can be okay with abortion resulting from consensual sex (ie, 99% of abortions).
yep, and she can decide to abort afterwords too if that method fails and not all women decide, some are rape victims I mean whats next? force rape victims to marry their rapist? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22:28-29&version=NIV
I make very clear we're discussing CONSENSUAL sex (which, importantly, accounts for 99% of abortions), and yet you're still trotting out the 'but rape!' device. When your argument can only dream of standing on its own legs if you invoke an exception - and worse, an exception which is excluded from the premise - it's time to rethink your position. You've lost, comprehensively.
forcing rape victims to have their rapists baby is wrong, abortion should be a legal option for those not wanting to have children
What a mess. Can you say it again with some kind of logical flow? And remember, we're not discussing rape victims. Ta
I'm discussing the 99% of abortions, those resulting from CONSENSUAL sex. Once again ... if your argument can only (appear to) have legs when you invoke the 1% exception, you're hilariously lost.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Breeders take great comfort in breeding and living their lives through their children because they have nothing else. Others find great happiness and fulfillment in their own lives and the world around them..... Oh, I'm sure YOU found it funny.....the very idea that people can be happy and fulfilled without breeding and living through someone else probably is very strange to you....
FreshAir said: ↑ many parents could not give up a child to an unknown person Who knows? So what if it justifies it in the eyes of the pregnant one? It IS her decision....NOT yours...
There are kids who are NEVER adopted and "age out" of the system having never been adopted......how do you account for them? IF "all life is precious" as Anti-Choicers claim, then why do they ONLY pick WHITE INFANTS ?????????
not only that, some already have children and know they can't care properly for the ones they have if they have another or their health is at risk of they have another or this just isn't the time for them and they plan to have children later all valid reasons to have an abortion
None of those are valid reasons to kill a child. But they are VERY GOOD reasons not to risk a pregnancy.
