Abortion is like almost making it to the finish line

I heard an analogy comparing abortion to almost making it to the finish line only to be tripped an inch away.

That's when you consider the astronomical odds it takes for a sperm to make it to the egg to fertilize it.

 

When the fetus starts kicking, it has already passed the finish line—many weeks ago.

 

In your opinion, which has so often been proven wrong

 

It's like winning the marathon and the lottery and getting shot to death and your wallet stolen after passing the finish line.

 

A much more accurate analogy:

Abortion is like lining up for the Boston Marathon and noticing you forgot to wear shoes.

 

Abortion is exactly like having never existed at all, never running the race, never having a body to run with, never having any idea what a race is or what having feet is....

 

The odds for each single sperm to reach the egg and fertilize it may be high, but the odds that a sperm from a batch of ejaculate containing millions of them reaching the egg aren't so steep. It is hardly astronomical. The 7 billion or so people on this planet right now and the billions that have already been born and died are a testament to that. I don't know what the estimated number of total cumulative human population throughout history is, but even at 7 billion, that's still more than 1 and a half humans for every year that the Earth and the sun have even existed.

Also, since most abortions occur during the early to mid stages of a pregnancy, nobody is getting tripped an inch away from the finish line. They still have plenty of laps to go.

 

The surprising thing is here we are 40 plus years after Roe v. Wade still debating abortion and still trying to overturn the SCOTUS on it. We are no where near the finish line. I think the reason is that abortion was court ordered. The people didn't decide whether abortion was right or wrong, the court did it for them.

I wonder since 26 of the states which now have legal SSM which were ordered by the courts is we are not going to enter another 50 to 100 year debate on this which it will be forever fought regardless of how the SCOTUS rules in June.

On some issues there is no finish line.

 

In your opinion, which has so often been proven wrong

 

Many pro-choicers are pushing for postpartum abortion. They'll kill you as you are crossing the finish line, or even after you have already crossed, in some cases.

The "finish line" doesn't necessarily have a clear demarcation.

 

What a vicious inflammatory LIE! I guess it's true that Anti-Choicers havce to resort to dishonesty in their vain attempt to do anything about taking away women's rights...


LIST exactly how "many" people , and their NAMES, who believe in killing a born child......from a source that isn't Anti-Choice...

 

Virtually 100% of pro-choicers here would support killing an unborn baby in the sixth month of pregnancy if it happened to be a product of rape.

 

Yes, even Obama, who hardly ever worked as a senator (mostly just voting 'present'), argued passionately to let babies who survived an abortion die in trash bins. That's the only vote he ever exerted any energy into arguing for.

But it seems race trumps everything else because why else would Christian blacks support someone with Obama's principles.

 

ANOTHER lie doesn't make you correct.


LIST exactly how "many" people , and their NAMES, who believe in killing a born child......from a source that isn't Anti-Choice...



Surely you have "proof"....no, I guess you don't.

 

Politifact says false.

"Illinois already had a law on its books from 1975 that said if a doctor suspected an abortion was scheduled for a viable fetus — meaning able to survive outside of the mother's body — then the child must receive medical care if it survives the abortion. The new laws didn't distinguish between viable and nonviable, meaning that an infant of any age that survived an abortion should receive care."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...on-survivor-would-have-been-protected-under-/

 

And Obama argued in favor of it.

 

He argued against an unnecessary law; "abortion survivors" were already protected by law. He did not "argue(d) passionately to let babies who survived an abortion die in trash bins." It's a shameless lie.

 

Wrong. He argued to prevent medical aide to babies who survived an abortion and argued against a law that would render aide to babies who survived an abortion, which is tantamount to arguing to let them die.

 

Why do we need two laws that do the same thing? Abortion survivors were ALREADY protected by law, another law was not needed.

 

That's not what he wanted. He wanted aid to NOT be rendered to save babies.

 

That's not true. When babies already have a law to protect them, why should we have a duplicate law?

 

Why argue against rendering aid to babies who survive an abortion?

 

Because a second law is not needed when there is already a law for that.

 

Then why was there a vote in the first place if there was already a law for it? The law he argued against would have enforced it and made it more far-reaching, but he didn't want aid rendered to babies who survived an abortion.

 

A second law was written with the same provisions for protecting abortion survivors, but in addition, it also defined any fetus as a human being with rights and was intended to undermine Roe v. Wade.

"Obama also felt that the legislation would have taken decision-making out of the hands of doctors, giving anti-abortion activists an opening to sue abortion providers by alleging that they chose to terminate the life of a viable fetus on purpose. He did not, however, express any support for “infanticide” or for ending the life of a viable fetus, as Huckabee and Gingrich claim.

"http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/27/747511/gingrich-huckabee-obama-abortion/