As the title suggests im a pro life advocat. i believe abortion is a right to which all women should be able to obtain. if a woman decides after finding out that she is pregnant that having a child is something that would not be beneficial she should be able to excercise her better judgement to terminate a pregnancy. while many will argue that this is an infringement on a childs right to life what has to be questioned is whether a life has the right to impair another. child birth is an inherintly dangerous act. and also the right to life argument is self contradicting.a right to life means not to have someone elses will inflicted on your body, this is pregnancy in a nutshell. what also needs to be stressed is that arguing that its a womans fault she got pregnant especially if she had access to contraceptive is a ridiculous excuse to refuse abortion. it may have been admittedly poor judgement but this has everything to do with judging a womans behavior rather than the life of the child
Haha, your lack of knowledge and research humors me. First of all, pro-life means you are for the living of the unborn child. Science indicates that right after conception, a fetus is alive. Unfortunately a lot of humans are irresponsible, selfish egotists that know the only way to eliminate responsibility for another life and legal consequences when choosing to abort their child is by taking advantage of their situation by calling it their "right" to decide the fate of their own child. This drives me insane due to the fact that a lot **(not all)** of the parents that decide to terminate their pregnancy are fully capable of delivering and raising a healthy child, yet they decide not to. I understand abortion in extreme situations but only in extreme situations. Therefore, I am simply stating, if the mother is at no harm to herself when giving birth to the child and the child will not have major issues once born that will only cause pain and agony, then there is no reason to abort.
What humors me is your lack of etiquette (for someone accusing me of little research you had no sources) Firstly I recognize I made an error in my opener, I'm pro-choice. Alive to me means an organism capable of self sustainability, that has consciousness, that is recognizable as an organism, or that has a heartbeat or brain activity none of these characteristics are present until well after 3 months. Your final statement is naive and flawed. It would be true if the only reason a woman wants an abortion is so they dont have to raise a child. This is false. Labor always carries risks (6th most common death in young women cdc.gov) I'd argue that anything that anything that could result in death is " a serious situation". It can cost up to 30k in medical fees, be extremely emotionally taxing to carry a child who isnt wanted and can impair a career. I'd argue being an unwanted child will result in pain and agony. Lastly by having right to do something you have a legitimate reason to do it.
I respect your opinion. I"d argue it"s not sensible of you to make presumptions as to how an unwanted child would feel, I"ve met plenty of people who were born unwanted including myself and none of them live lives of "pain and agony" and I can assure you they feel lucky to have been given the chance to live. My stance as to when a fetus is alive still stands (http://liveactionnews.org...-... ). I never stated that a woman would only want an abortion as to not raise a child, I acknowledged that there were other reasonable motives as to why a woman would terminate a pregnancy. As far as killing an unborn child just because it will cost too much or will be a distraction from their occupation is pathetic, If someone really believes that the finances and attention will become too much of a burden, there is always adoption and child support. I agree, having the right to do something is a legitimate reason as far as it being legal. But is it morally right?
Your stance on when a fetus is alive is sourced from a completely biased source. To be "scientific fact " it should come from an unbiased website eg. abortionmedicalethics which says that a fetus isn't implanted until the 3rd month atleast, let alone have enough features to be defined as alive, thus it is unstanding.
You acknowledge raising a child isn't the only reason you would want an abortion but offer adoption as an alternative? My previous argument should have shown you that the reasons are much more numerous, adoption nor splashing out cash doesn't solve the problems of for example shunning.
I hate how you bring up "morality" . Morality is subjective and you are wrong to assume that we can argue about an opinion http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
You also call a fetus an unborn child. It is a fetus. We don't call an acorn an unborn tree.
Occupational destruction is a reason to abort. It is a huge element of your life and loss of it isn't supplemented by "child support".