"Don't like abortion? Just ignore it like you do children in foster care".
Topic: Abortion should be banned. - page 2. (Read 2003 times)
"Don't like abortion? Just ignore it like you do children in foster care".
Giving someone the choice to get an abortion is one thing. It is very different when people encourage others to get an abortion, to end a life that would not otherwise have ended.
A mother should have all the relevant facts when deciding if she wants an abortion.
An abortion is ending a human life for the convince of another. To encourage an abortion is comparable to ending a human life for no reason, or perhaps for fun.
A mother should have all the relevant facts when deciding if she wants an abortion.
An abortion is ending a human life for the convince of another. To encourage an abortion is comparable to ending a human life for no reason, or perhaps for fun.
For fun? I think you might be exaggerating a bit.
It is a tough decision. No doubt. Most women don't want to do it because it is very taxing on the body, or the pregnancies might interfere
with their school or work. Can you blame them? It is not just for convenience like you say. They want to get ahead in life.
Get a better education or get a promotion at work. That is why they might not want to have a baby at that time in their life.
I think women should be the ones deciding it, at least until the fetus becomes viable. At that point, I agree, it is kind of cruel to kill that life.
There is nothing special about terminating a non-viable human (or any other) life; you can make another one in no time. No big deal.
Humans are not some special or endangered species. We are just slightly smarter than chimpanzees.
I doubt that any living being that depends on you for support would appreciate it if you suggested that you could just "make another one" if their lives were to end. This would apply to your dog just as much as it would apply to your child.
Ok, captain obvious. If you break a fertilized chicken egg, it is the same thing as performing a human abortion. Put a fertilized egg in the incubator and you'll get a chicken, no hen required. If you buy farmer's eggs and eat them, you are not only performing abortions but also eating the chicken embryos.
As for comparing plants and animals to humans, well, do you know anything about biology? We evolved from plants and animals.
All life on Earth has some human DNA in it. Bananas have 60% of human DNA in them. Chimpanzees have 99% of human DNA.
But you are right, comparison of a human fetus to a self-sustaining, alive plant or animal is not quite right, a human fetus is much less structured and is a non-functional, developing life form. You pro-life guys brought the 'fetus is a life' argument, I just followed it to its conclusion.
If your argument is 'protect life', then you have to stop eating and protect all life.
If your argument is 'protect human life only' then, where is your empathy for other animals, including humans?
Why are you supporting tribalism (religions/nationalism) that leads to wars? Why are you supporting the death penalty (for humans)?
If your argument is 'protect human life only because humans are special', I would say prove it to me that we are.
From what we observed in nature, we are just another species, fundamentally no different than 5,400 other mammal species out there, and we are almost identical to about 350+ species of primates.
From what we see, the human population is growing exponentially, doubling every 70 years or so. We don't really need more humans.
We should probably keep the human population growth at zero percent so that we can figure out a way out of this rock.
As for comparing plants and animals to humans, well, do you know anything about biology? We evolved from plants and animals.
All life on Earth has some human DNA in it. Bananas have 60% of human DNA in them. Chimpanzees have 99% of human DNA.
But you are right, comparison of a human fetus to a self-sustaining, alive plant or animal is not quite right, a human fetus is much less structured and is a non-functional, developing life form. You pro-life guys brought the 'fetus is a life' argument, I just followed it to its conclusion.
If your argument is 'protect life', then you have to stop eating and protect all life.
If your argument is 'protect human life only' then, where is your empathy for other animals, including humans?
Why are you supporting tribalism (religions/nationalism) that leads to wars? Why are you supporting the death penalty (for humans)?
If your argument is 'protect human life only because humans are special', I would say prove it to me that we are.
From what we observed in nature, we are just another species, fundamentally no different than 5,400 other mammal species out there, and we are almost identical to about 350+ species of primates.
From what we see, the human population is growing exponentially, doubling every 70 years or so. We don't really need more humans.
We should probably keep the human population growth at zero percent so that we can figure out a way out of this rock.
Lieutenant, I do not know what your beliefs are but your argument about man coming from plants and animals does not match with mine. Man was created by God. That's all I have to say to this. Another thing concerning the egg example you kept using is that I want you to realize that there is something called 'table eggs'. Eggs like that will not hatch even if you leave them in the incubator for a year on a hen sits on it for that long. What that means is that an egg is just an ordinary egg until a hen sits on it or it is put in an incubator but a foetus is a growing baby in the womb already.
I called you lieutenant because you called me captain. Now you can salute!
Oh, boy. You said plenty. No need to discuss it any further if you think Homo sapiens were created by God.
Ok, captain obvious. If you break a fertilized chicken egg, it is the same thing as performing a human abortion. Put a fertilized egg in the incubator and you'll get a chicken, no hen required. If you buy farmer's eggs and eat them, you are not only performing abortions but also eating the chicken embryos.
As for comparing plants and animals to humans, well, do you know anything about biology? We evolved from plants and animals.
All life on Earth has some human DNA in it. Bananas have 60% of human DNA in them. Chimpanzees have 99% of human DNA.
But you are right, comparison of a human fetus to a self-sustaining, alive plant or animal is not quite right, a human fetus is much less structured and is a non-functional, developing life form. You pro-life guys brought the 'fetus is a life' argument, I just followed it to its conclusion.
If your argument is 'protect life', then you have to stop eating and protect all life.
If your argument is 'protect human life only' then, where is your empathy for other animals, including humans?
Why are you supporting tribalism (religions/nationalism) that leads to wars? Why are you supporting the death penalty (for humans)?
If your argument is 'protect human life only because humans are special', I would say prove it to me that we are.
From what we observed in nature, we are just another species, fundamentally no different than 5,400 other mammal species out there, and we are almost identical to about 350+ species of primates.
From what we see, the human population is growing exponentially, doubling every 70 years or so. We don't really need more humans.
We should probably keep the human population growth at zero percent so that we can figure out a way out of this rock.
As for comparing plants and animals to humans, well, do you know anything about biology? We evolved from plants and animals.
All life on Earth has some human DNA in it. Bananas have 60% of human DNA in them. Chimpanzees have 99% of human DNA.
But you are right, comparison of a human fetus to a self-sustaining, alive plant or animal is not quite right, a human fetus is much less structured and is a non-functional, developing life form. You pro-life guys brought the 'fetus is a life' argument, I just followed it to its conclusion.
If your argument is 'protect life', then you have to stop eating and protect all life.
If your argument is 'protect human life only' then, where is your empathy for other animals, including humans?
Why are you supporting tribalism (religions/nationalism) that leads to wars? Why are you supporting the death penalty (for humans)?
If your argument is 'protect human life only because humans are special', I would say prove it to me that we are.
From what we observed in nature, we are just another species, fundamentally no different than 5,400 other mammal species out there, and we are almost identical to about 350+ species of primates.
From what we see, the human population is growing exponentially, doubling every 70 years or so. We don't really need more humans.
We should probably keep the human population growth at zero percent so that we can figure out a way out of this rock.
Lieutenant, I do not know what your beliefs are but your argument about man coming from plants and animals does not match with mine. Man was created by God. That's all I have to say to this. Another thing concerning the egg example you kept using is that I want you to realize that there is something called 'table eggs'. Eggs like that will not hatch even if you leave them in the incubator for a year on a hen sits on it for that long. What that means is that an egg is just an ordinary egg until a hen sits on it or it is put in an incubator but a foetus is a growing baby in the womb already.
I called you lieutenant because you called me captain. Now you can salute!
If your argument is 'protect human life only'
I've always found this argument particularly disingenuous, since the majority of pro-lifers (in the US at least) are also pro-death penalty and don't seem to care at all about all the children we already have living in poverty. Most were also fine with immigrant children being locked in cages.It was never about protecting human life or innocent children. It's always been about controlling women.
That is a logical fallacy. False equivalence. A fetus is not a person.
A chicken egg is not a chicken.
BTW, we are killing life all the time.
All the food you eat is life killed; plants and animals.
I am not sure why you find it distasteful what others do with their bodies. It should be none of your business.
A chicken egg is not a chicken.
BTW, we are killing life all the time.
All the food you eat is life killed; plants and animals.
I am not sure why you find it distasteful what others do with their bodies. It should be none of your business.
While it is nobody's business what another person does with their bodies, we also have to know that what others do also has a way of affecting us. Why do you think there are traffic lights and regulations for drivers? It is to prevent reckless drivers from harming others. Look at your comparisons you will find out that they are wrong too. A chicken egg that has not be sat on by a hen is a plain egg without life inside the shell but a foetus is a life growing in a womb. It is a baby unborn. Comparing plants and animals to humans is a wrong analysis.
Ok, captain obvious. If you break a fertilized chicken egg, it is the same thing as performing a human abortion. Put a fertilized egg in the incubator and you'll get a chicken, no hen required. If you buy farmer's eggs and eat them, you are not only performing abortions but also eating the chicken embryos.
As for comparing plants and animals to humans, well, do you know anything about biology? We evolved from plants and animals.
All life on Earth has some human DNA in it. Bananas have 60% of human DNA in them. Chimpanzees have 99% of human DNA.
But you are right, comparison of a human fetus to a self-sustaining, alive plant or animal is not quite right, a human fetus is much less structured and is a non-functional, developing life form. You pro-life guys brought the 'fetus is a life' argument, I just followed it to its conclusion.
If your argument is 'protect life', then you have to stop eating and protect all life.
If your argument is 'protect human life only' then, where is your empathy for other animals, including humans?
Why are you supporting tribalism (religions/nationalism) that leads to wars? Why are you supporting the death penalty (for humans)?
If your argument is 'protect human life only because humans are special', I would say prove it to me that we are.
From what we observed in nature, we are just another species, fundamentally no different than 5,400 other mammal species out there, and we are almost identical to about 350+ species of primates.
From what we see, the human population is growing exponentially, doubling every 70 years or so. We don't really need more humans.
We should probably keep the human population growth at zero percent so that we can figure out a way out of this rock.
That is a logical fallacy. False equivalence. A fetus is not a person.
A chicken egg is not a chicken.
BTW, we are killing life all the time.
All the food you eat is life killed; plants and animals.
I am not sure why you find it distasteful what others do with their bodies. It should be none of your business.
A chicken egg is not a chicken.
BTW, we are killing life all the time.
All the food you eat is life killed; plants and animals.
I am not sure why you find it distasteful what others do with their bodies. It should be none of your business.
While it is nobody's business what another person does with their bodies, we also have to know that what others do also has a way of affecting us. Why do you think there are traffic lights and regulations for drivers? It is to prevent reckless drivers from harming others. Look at your comparisons you will find out that they are wrong too. A chicken egg that has not be sat on by a hen is a plain egg without life inside the shell but a foetus is a life growing in a womb. It is a baby unborn. Comparing plants and animals to humans is a wrong analysis.
Giving someone the choice to get an abortion is one thing. It is very different when people encourage others to get an abortion, to end a life that would not otherwise have ended.
A mother should have all the relevant facts when deciding if she wants an abortion.
An abortion is ending a human life for the convince of another. To encourage an abortion is comparable to ending a human life for no reason, or perhaps for fun.
A mother should have all the relevant facts when deciding if she wants an abortion.
An abortion is ending a human life for the convince of another. To encourage an abortion is comparable to ending a human life for no reason, or perhaps for fun.
For fun? I think you might be exaggerating a bit.
It is a tough decision. No doubt. Most women don't want to do it because it is very taxing on the body, or the pregnancies might interfere
with their school or work. Can you blame them? It is not just for convenience like you say. They want to get ahead in life.
Get a better education or get a promotion at work. That is why they might not want to have a baby at that time in their life.
I think women should be the ones deciding it, at least until the fetus becomes viable. At that point, I agree, it is kind of cruel to kill that life.
There is nothing special about terminating a non-viable human (or any other) life; you can make another one in no time. No big deal.
Humans are not some special or endangered species. We are just slightly smarter than chimpanzees.
I do not like this take at all. I think it is an essential part of healthcare and should be available to everyone who requests it.
Giving someone the choice to get an abortion is one thing. It is very different when people encourage others to get an abortion, to end a life that would not otherwise have ended.
A mother should have all the relevant facts when deciding if she wants an abortion.
An abortion is ending a human life for the convince of another. To encourage an abortion is comparable to ending a human life for no reason, or perhaps for fun.
A mother should have all the relevant facts when deciding if she wants an abortion.
An abortion is ending a human life for the convince of another. To encourage an abortion is comparable to ending a human life for no reason, or perhaps for fun.
Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex. Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.
Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.
Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking. Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.
If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.
Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.
Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate. Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches. Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state. The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.
There is perhaps a valid argument regarding viability. However if you make this argument. However anyone who makes this argument has their credibility go away when they advocate for abortions up until the baby is delivered. I would counter however that it is illegal to take actions that induce someone to harm or kill themselves.
I will admit that 6 weeks pregnant is probably earlier than appropriate to limit abortions due to the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant. However, viability is well past the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant and make the decision to get an abortion (or not).
I would also say that it is not uncommon for men to pressure women to get an abortion of an unwanted baby. I don’t have data, but I think an outsized percentage of abortions in late stages of pregnancy are the result of this pressure.
Does it matter if the procedure is medically necessary?
How would you feel if the government passed a law to ban hair transplantations for men or breast augmentations for women?
BTW, I did not try to imply that babies are cancer (although many parents would probably agree that they can suck the life out of you, especially during the first five years, lol). The point of the example was that both growing fetus and cancer cells multiply rapidly inside one's body. One should have a choice to be able to get the necessary medical procedure done to stop that growth.
I would be ok with an abortion ban after 16 weeks, but until then women should have a choice of what to do with their medical issues.
I am not a fan of breast implants, and really don’t understand why people get them. I am sure there restrictions on hair implants. Both are cosmetic procedures and I would be okay, and even support restrictions on extreme procedures of either.
When restricting a medically necessary and life saving procedure, especially those that do not harm other lives, you are potentially killing a person. An abortion is something that ends a life, while providing convenience to another. Arguments about viability are fair as are the morals of abortion before and after viability.
This is not an argument you are making personally, however I find it particularly distasteful when some pro abortion advocates almost encourage mothers to get abortions.
That is a logical fallacy. False equivalence. A fetus is not a person.
A chicken egg is not a chicken.
BTW, we are killing life all the time.
All the food you eat is life killed; plants and animals.
I am not sure why you find it distasteful what others do with their bodies. It should be none of your business.
Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex. Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.
Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.
Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking. Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.
If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.
Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.
Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate. Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches. Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state. The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.
There is perhaps a valid argument regarding viability. However if you make this argument. However anyone who makes this argument has their credibility go away when they advocate for abortions up until the baby is delivered. I would counter however that it is illegal to take actions that induce someone to harm or kill themselves.
I will admit that 6 weeks pregnant is probably earlier than appropriate to limit abortions due to the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant. However, viability is well past the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant and make the decision to get an abortion (or not).
I would also say that it is not uncommon for men to pressure women to get an abortion of an unwanted baby. I don’t have data, but I think an outsized percentage of abortions in late stages of pregnancy are the result of this pressure.
Does it matter if the procedure is medically necessary?
How would you feel if the government passed a law to ban hair transplantations for men or breast augmentations for women?
BTW, I did not try to imply that babies are cancer (although many parents would probably agree that they can suck the life out of you, especially during the first five years, lol). The point of the example was that both growing fetus and cancer cells multiply rapidly inside one's body. One should have a choice to be able to get the necessary medical procedure done to stop that growth.
I would be ok with an abortion ban after 16 weeks, but until then women should have a choice of what to do with their medical issues.
I am not a fan of breast implants, and really don’t understand why people get them. I am sure there restrictions on hair implants. Both are cosmetic procedures and I would be okay, and even support restrictions on extreme procedures of either.
When restricting a medically necessary and life saving procedure, especially those that do not harm other lives, you are potentially killing a person. An abortion is something that ends a life, while providing convenience to another. Arguments about viability are fair as are the morals of abortion before and after viability.
This is not an argument you are making personally, however I find it particularly distasteful when some pro abortion advocates almost encourage mothers to get abortions.
Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex. Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.
Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.
Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking. Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.
If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.
Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.
Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate. Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches. Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state. The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.
There is perhaps a valid argument regarding viability. However if you make this argument. However anyone who makes this argument has their credibility go away when they advocate for abortions up until the baby is delivered. I would counter however that it is illegal to take actions that induce someone to harm or kill themselves.
I will admit that 6 weeks pregnant is probably earlier than appropriate to limit abortions due to the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant. However, viability is well past the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant and make the decision to get an abortion (or not).
I would also say that it is not uncommon for men to pressure women to get an abortion of an unwanted baby. I don’t have data, but I think an outsized percentage of abortions in late stages of pregnancy are the result of this pressure.
Does it matter if the procedure is medically necessary?
How would you feel if the government passed a law to ban hair transplantations for men or breast augmentations for women?
BTW, I did not try to imply that babies are cancer (although many parents would probably agree that they can suck the life out of you, especially during the first five years, lol). The point of the example was that both growing fetus and cancer cells multiply rapidly inside one's body. One should have a choice to be able to get the necessary medical procedure done to stop that growth.
I would be ok with an abortion ban after 16 weeks, but until then women should have a choice of what to do with their medical issues.
Humans say it is a human right not to be excluded from medical procedures based on sex. Not allowing women access to medical procedures is discrimination.
Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
There are many abortions performed when the fetus would have been able to survive if it had been delivered rather than aborted. These abortions are the most clearly wrong. With advancements in medical technology, viability outside the womb has become increasingly earlier in pregnancy over time.Science says when a fetus is viable based on the study of human developmental biology.
Restrictions on abortion are not prohibiting women from receiving abortions based on their sex.
Abortions until viability is a decision only the mother should be taking. Science tells us that viability is around 22-24 weeks.
If you want to be on the side of caution, make the laws allowing all abortions until 16 weeks, or thereabouts.
Restrictions on abortions implicitly discriminate against women.
Imagine if states had different laws against receiving cancer treatments based on the size of your prostate. Some states would allow treatments as soon as the cancer is detected, others will say that your prostate has to be larger than 4 inches. Most men with prostate cancer will be prevented from receiving their treatment in that state. The laws would discriminate against them without explicitly stating that men are prevented from receiving their cancer treatment.
There is perhaps a valid argument regarding viability. However if you make this argument. However anyone who makes this argument has their credibility go away when they advocate for abortions up until the baby is delivered. I would counter however that it is illegal to take actions that induce someone to harm or kill themselves.
I will admit that 6 weeks pregnant is probably earlier than appropriate to limit abortions due to the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant. However, viability is well past the time it takes a women to realize they are pregnant and make the decision to get an abortion (or not).
I would also say that it is not uncommon for men to pressure women to get an abortion of an unwanted baby. I don’t have data, but I think an outsized percentage of abortions in late stages of pregnancy are the result of this pressure.
I have seen a video where the vlogger said that unplanned pregnancy is a satanic lie. There is no unplanned pregnancy, if you are active in sex then you know you can get pregnant. Then resort to abortion because it is unplanned? Abortion is like murder, you kill your own child. I agree that abortion should be ban and criminalized.
If we agree that abortion should be banned,can this world contain us? Can we be able to handle the problems that will be caused by bastards in our society? There are problems every where that are caused by this fatherless and motherless babies everywhere because they lack home training and fatherly care,yet,we are still talking about banning abortion.The population rate of human being is high now that there is abortion,talk more of when abortion will be banned.We better allow abortion to be,because we won't be able to control the population that will come as a result of not aborting.
Many countries have laws that imprison people who have abortions. Abortion is directly taking the life of a person that he or she deserves even if he or she has not yet been born. If an abortion because a medical test shows the fetus to have a mutation is acceptable for ethical reasons and avoids suffering later on.
To end abortion, it is necessary to educate young people about sex and raise awareness. Birth control pills also need to be widely advertised for everyone to use. Need government intervention with legal documents and social attention. Ban on medical facilities from performing abortions.
To end abortion, it is necessary to educate young people about sex and raise awareness. Birth control pills also need to be widely advertised for everyone to use. Need government intervention with legal documents and social attention. Ban on medical facilities from performing abortions.
Abortion terminates non-viable life, not a person.
Whoever told you that abortion is directly taking the life of a person is a certifiable moron.
It amazes me when the so-called conservatives talk about freedom of choice to vaccinate or not (even when they are directly affecting/endangering the lives of others), but then advocate/legislate to prevent pregnant women to have a choice.
But then the fetus will become a person. Every year, thousands of couples seek infertility treatment. So why are these people having abortions? Anything other than medical screening is unacceptable. They have to take responsibility for what they did.
A fetus is a soul and deserves to enjoy life.
Will does not mean is.
re: A fetus is a soul
Prove it. What is a soul made of?
But lets remove the word "soul" in this topic...
True a fetus deserve to live and enjoy life... not a zygote* who is not alive.
I have seen a video where the vlogger said that unplanned pregnancy is a satanic lie. There is no unplanned pregnancy, if you are active in sex then you know you can get pregnant. Then resort to abortion because it is unplanned? Abortion is like murder, you kill your own child. I agree that abortion should be ban and criminalized.
Maybe op needs to spread the news to the world just like Donald Trump tried as much as possible to reduce or ban it but was unable due to the law that had supported abortion at the first place. Honestly we all need to control be the rate of child birth or else we all gonna face doom day that will happens as a result of the world over population.
re: A fetus is a soul
Prove it. What is a soul made of?
Prove it. What is a soul made of?
Depends. Could a soul refer to a conscious? Which in that case, a zygote doesn't have any capability to be conscious. Do you consider there to be a difference between a fetus at the last trimester compared to a newly born baby? Which one has the soul, and is the difference between the presence of a soul existing in the womb versus postpartum, meaning a soul might magically appear after birth.
Many countries have laws that imprison people who have abortions. Abortion is directly taking the life of a person that he or she deserves even if he or she has not yet been born. If an abortion because a medical test shows the fetus to have a mutation is acceptable for ethical reasons and avoids suffering later on.
To end abortion, it is necessary to educate young people about sex and raise awareness. Birth control pills also need to be widely advertised for everyone to use. Need government intervention with legal documents and social attention. Ban on medical facilities from performing abortions.
To end abortion, it is necessary to educate young people about sex and raise awareness. Birth control pills also need to be widely advertised for everyone to use. Need government intervention with legal documents and social attention. Ban on medical facilities from performing abortions.
Abortion terminates non-viable life, not a person.
Whoever told you that abortion is directly taking the life of a person is a certifiable moron.
It amazes me when the so-called conservatives talk about freedom of choice to vaccinate or not (even when they are directly affecting/endangering the lives of others), but then advocate/legislate to prevent pregnant women to have a choice.
But then the fetus will become a person. Every year, thousands of couples seek infertility treatment. So why are these people having abortions? Anything other than medical screening is unacceptable. They have to take responsibility for what they did.
A fetus is a soul and deserves to enjoy life.
Will does not mean is.
re: A fetus is a soul
Prove it. What is a soul made of?
Jump to: