Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logical Argument against Abortion

GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 2:13:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Saw this on Carm.org...
A little lazy on my part, but if someone has said it better....ya know.
From Mr. Matthew Slick:

A logical argument against abortion
by Matt Slick

Many people will refuse to accept God's word as a standard by which they should live and make decisions. That is their right to reject it. Nevertheless, I offer the following as reasons for not having abortions.
1.What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
A.Even one-celled creatures are alive.
B.What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.

2.The nature of the life in the woman is human.
A.It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human.
B.Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.
C.Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.
D. i.A person born without arms and legs is still human.
ii.A person who cannot speak is still human.
iii.A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.

E.What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, bird, or fish. It has human nature.
i.If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?
ii.If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human? a.If so, then from where did it get this different nature, since the only sources of its nature are human egg and human sperm?

F.Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it's okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus. i.Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.

3.To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
4.Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature. A.Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?

A question for those who believe in abortion, and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?
"If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?
"If you say no because it will become a human, then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.
"If you say it is alright, why is it okay?
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 2:41:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Eh, I honestly don't buy arguments like that one too much.

My reasoning bases off rights. I think rights themselves are fairly easy to justify. I don't care whether the fetus is human or not. I believe in animal rights and fetus's are nearer to human than animals, so it's not an issue with me. The fetus has the right to life and I have yet to see an outweighing right of the mother except in the more rare scenarios.

That being said, I don't hold any strong position.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 1:50:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course it's a human. If you don't draw the line at conception, then anything further than that is purely arbitrary. The thing is that it presupposes that it's bad to kill humans, which is a crappy axiom.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 2:09:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 1:50:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Of course it's a human. If you don't draw the line at conception, then anything further than that is purely arbitrary. The thing is that it presupposes that it's bad to kill humans, which is a crappy axiom.

Okay, so If a zygote splits into two so that identical twins are formed, would these identical twins be considered the same person at one point? There's also reports of people having chimera, which is having the genetics of their twin living inside them. When did conception occur for these people?

Why isn't sperm or an egg considered part of human life?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 7:12:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 2:09:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/2/2012 1:50:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Of course it's a human. If you don't draw the line at conception, then anything further than that is purely arbitrary. The thing is that it presupposes that it's bad to kill humans, which is a crappy axiom.

Okay, so If a zygote splits into two so that identical twins are formed, would these identical twins be considered the same person at one point?

Yes.

There's also reports of people having chimera, which is having the genetics of their twin living inside them. When did conception occur for these people?

Not exactly sure how the biological process works, so I don't know.

Why isn't sperm or an egg considered part of human life?

It's one of the necessary prerequisites for human life, but not human life itself. A sperm or ovum cannot mature into humans, while a zygote can.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 9:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 7:12:03 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/2/2012 2:09:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/2/2012 1:50:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Of course it's a human. If you don't draw the line at conception, then anything further than that is purely arbitrary. The thing is that it presupposes that it's bad to kill humans, which is a crappy axiom.

Okay, so If a zygote splits into two so that identical twins are formed, would these identical twins be considered the same person at one point?

Yes.

There's also reports of people having chimera, which is having the genetics of their twin living inside them. When did conception occur for these people?

Not exactly sure how the biological process works, so I don't know.

Why isn't sperm or an egg considered part of human life?

It's one of the necessary prerequisites for human life, but not human life itself. A sperm or ovum cannot mature into humans, while a zygote can.

There have been documented reports of "virgin" births in snakes and other critters. I wonder if it could be possible for an unfertilized egg to grow into a human. They know it happens in other animals, but have no idea of the mechanisms.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 10:01:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 2:13:20 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this on Carm.org...
A little lazy on my part, but if someone has said it better....ya know.
From Mr. Matthew Slick:



A question for those who believe in abortion, and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?
"If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?
"If you say no because it will become a human, then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.
"If you say it is alright, why is it okay?

If there was a legitimate medical reason to implant a fertilized human egg in a dog, why not? It is the same as using a pig heart valve to replace a human heart valve.

Now there are clearly ethical issues once the child is born (if it were possible. I don't believe a human zygote will implant in a dog's uterus, but there might be a way to make it happen) One just does not have human children born from dogs because it is possible. If there was a good family that had this done because it is the only medical way to give birth to a child they want, why the h not?

I believe the vessel which holds a developing fetus to be completely irrelevant to the question of ethics of abortion.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 3:37:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Guess I'll post to religion forums exclusively. Yikes..(crickets)
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 4:07:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Quick rebuttal to Slick:

Take a skin cell which he has no problem destroying. Put it in certain chemical baths for an extended period of time, and the cell can regress into a pluripotent stem cell. That is, it can gain the ability to become a fully formed human being if implanted in a womb. Assume no one implants the treated skin cell.

According to Slick's argument, the treated skin cell was murdered because it has in its "nature" the ability to become a full grown human if simply put in a natural environment.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 4:09:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 4:07:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
Quick rebuttal to Slick:

Take a skin cell which he has no problem destroying. Put it in certain chemical baths for an extended period of time, and the cell can regress into a pluripotent stem cell. That is, it can gain the ability to become a fully formed human being if implanted in a womb. Assume no one implants the treated skin cell.

According to Slick's argument, the treated skin cell was murdered because it has in its "nature" the ability to become a full grown human if simply put in a natural environment.

Are these certain chemical baths natural?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 1:07:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 4:07:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
Quick rebuttal to Slick:

Take a skin cell which he has no problem destroying. Put it in certain chemical baths for an extended period of time, and the cell can regress into a pluripotent stem cell. That is, it can gain the ability to become a fully formed human being if implanted in a womb. Assume no one implants the treated skin cell.

According to Slick's argument, the treated skin cell was murdered because it has in its "nature" the ability to become a full grown human if simply put in a natural environment.

Please elaborate on that.
eastcoastsamuel
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 7:01:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To me it comes simply down to rights. The mother should be able to have control over her own body and anything inside that body. Period. No excuses.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 7:43:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 7:01:28 PM, eastcoastsamuel wrote:
To me it comes simply down to rights. The mother should be able to have control over her own body and anything inside that body. Period. No excuses.

What about the developing body of the baby inside her? Does that baby not have rights of its own body also?
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 7:46:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 1:50:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Of course it's a human. If you don't draw the line at conception, then anything further than that is purely arbitrary. The thing is that it presupposes that it's bad to kill humans, which is a crappy axiom.

So, killing humans is not wrong? Please explain.
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 7:48:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/2/2012 2:09:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/2/2012 1:50:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Of course it's a human. If you don't draw the line at conception, then anything further than that is purely arbitrary. The thing is that it presupposes that it's bad to kill humans, which is a crappy axiom.

Okay, so If a zygote splits into two so that identical twins are formed, would these identical twins be considered the same person at one point?:
Yes, until they split.
There's also reports of people having chimera, which is having the genetics of their twin living inside them. When did conception occur for these people?:
Same as anyone else.

Why isn't sperm or an egg considered part of human life?:
When does it become life?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 8:55:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 7:01:28 PM, eastcoastsamuel wrote:
To me it comes simply down to rights. The mother should be able to have control over her own body and anything inside that body. Period. No excuses.

I disagree.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 1:00:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 7:46:00 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/2/2012 1:50:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Of course it's a human. If you don't draw the line at conception, then anything further than that is purely arbitrary. The thing is that it presupposes that it's bad to kill humans, which is a crappy axiom.

So, killing humans is not wrong? Please explain.

Not inherently.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 1:53:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think what the debate REALLY comes down to is where personhood begins. While birth and conception are the two obvious choices as to where to draw the line, there ARE biological reasons for drawing it somewhere around the third trimester.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 2:20:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 4:09:59 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/4/2012 4:07:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
Quick rebuttal to Slick:

Take a skin cell which he has no problem destroying. Put it in certain chemical baths for an extended period of time, and the cell can regress into a pluripotent stem cell. That is, it can gain the ability to become a fully formed human being if implanted in a womb. Assume no one implants the treated skin cell.

According to Slick's argument, the treated skin cell was murdered because it has in its "nature" the ability to become a full grown human if simply put in a natural environment.

Are these certain chemical baths natural?

No less natural than in vitro fertilization.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 2:22:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/6/2012 2:20:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
No less natural than in vitro fertilization.

What does that have to do with anything?

Mind you, I don't hold with in vitro fertilization either.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 2:24:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 1:07:23 AM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
At 10/4/2012 4:07:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
Quick rebuttal to Slick:

Take a skin cell which he has no problem destroying. Put it in certain chemical baths for an extended period of time, and the cell can regress into a pluripotent stem cell. That is, it can gain the ability to become a fully formed human being if implanted in a womb. Assume no one implants the treated skin cell.

According to Slick's argument, the treated skin cell was murdered because it has in its "nature" the ability to become a full grown human if simply put in a natural environment.

Please elaborate on that.

Your skin cell and the "you as a single cell embryo" have the exact same DNA. The reason you skin cell doesn't turn into another person is that the process of cell differentiation leads to "shutting off" certain genes using mechanisms like methylation, adding methyl groups.

Chemical baths can undo the methylation to "de-differentiate" the skin cell so that the DNA reaches such a state that the cell acts as though it were a recently implanted embryo. The embryo, if implanted in a womb, will result in a viable human being.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:04:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/1/2012 2:13:20 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this on Carm.org...
A little lazy on my part, but if someone has said it better....ya know.
From Mr. Matthew Slick:

A logical argument against abortion
by Matt Slick

That was hardly a logical argument. Logical arguments contradict themselves.

"If you say no because it will become a human, then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.

Slick is fine with killing things that are human and alive. You aren't being consistent with his argument. If you reject Slick's argument, why did you bother to quote it?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:16:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 10:04:56 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/1/2012 2:13:20 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this on Carm.org...
A little lazy on my part, but if someone has said it better....ya know.
From Mr. Matthew Slick:

A logical argument against abortion
by Matt Slick

That was hardly a logical argument. Logical arguments contradict themselves.

So do you disbelieve that logical arguments can be coherently made?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:45:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many of us judge whether or not it is right to kill something by the condition of sentience. If an collection of human cells isn't sentient, it's perfectly fine to terminate it, according to this judgement.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 11:47:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 11:45:13 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
Many of us judge whether or not it is right to kill something by the condition of sentience. If an collection of human cells isn't sentient, it's perfectly fine to terminate it, according to this judgement.

So?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2012 10:56:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/7/2012 10:16:47 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/7/2012 10:04:56 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/1/2012 2:13:20 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
Saw this on Carm.org...
A little lazy on my part, but if someone has said it better....ya know.
From Mr. Matthew Slick:

A logical argument against abortion
by Matt Slick

That was hardly a logical argument. Logical arguments contradict themselves.

So do you disbelieve that logical arguments can be coherently made?

No, sorry. I meant to say that logical arguments do not contradict themselves. Slick's argument contradicts itself, so it is not logical.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 6:38:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love how pro-lifers always seem to think that pro-choicers aren't aware that the zygote/fetus has the potential to become a human. WE ARE FVCKING AWARE.

So once again, let me explain to you why I'm pro-choice (early abortion only):
BECAUSE HAVING A BABY IS FVCKING HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!!!!!
BECAUSE FORCING WOMAN TO CARRY A BABY FOR NINE MONTHS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO IS FVCKING BULLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!
BECAUSE AN UNDEVELOPED FETUS IS NOT CONSCIOUS NOR CAPABLE OF PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE WE HAVE NO SHORTAGE OF UNCARED FOR CHILDREN ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE "CARRY THE BABY AND PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION" IS A FVCKING STUPID ALTERNATIVE!!!!!!!

How many times do we have to go over the same thing. Take your moral high ground and keep it. It's really wonderful to look at the world through rose coloured glasses but here in reality, legal abortion is completely, 100% necessary. Because there is a demand for it, like it or not and there ALWAYS will be a demand for it. So, like drugs, you can make it illegal and create a highly dangerous black market for unscrupulous assh0le criminals or you can put all your effort into effective things like education and providing contraception. Stop with the appeal to emotion crap.

Also, why do I always, always get the vibe that pro-lifers put humans way, way, way high on the pedestal. I mean, if you're cherishing life why not cherish all life? Why not become a Jainist? A fruitarian? A class VII vegan?
I smell dirty hypocrisy.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 6:41:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 6:38:28 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I love how pro-lifers always seem to think that pro-choicers aren't aware that the zygote/fetus has the potential to become a human. WE ARE FVCKING AWARE.

So once again, let me explain to you why I'm pro-choice (early abortion only):
BECAUSE HAVING A BABY IS FVCKING HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!!!!!
BECAUSE FORCING WOMAN TO CARRY A BABY FOR NINE MONTHS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO IS FVCKING BULLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!
BECAUSE AN UNDEVELOPED FETUS IS NOT CONSCIOUS NOR CAPABLE OF PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE WE HAVE NO SHORTAGE OF UNCARED FOR CHILDREN ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE "CARRY THE BABY AND PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION" IS A FVCKING STUPID ALTERNATIVE!!!!!!!

How many times do we have to go over the same thing. Take your moral high ground and keep it. It's really wonderful to look at the world through rose coloured glasses but here in reality, legal abortion is completely, 100% necessary. Because there is a demand for it, like it or not and there ALWAYS will be a demand for it. So, like drugs, you can make it illegal and create a highly dangerous black market for unscrupulous assh0le criminals or you can put all your effort into effective things like education and providing contraception. Stop with the appeal to emotion crap.


So, wait, because there is a demand for something, that makes it right? Well thats about the most f***ed up logic I've ever heard.

Also, why do I always, always get the vibe that pro-lifers put humans way, way, way high on the pedestal. I mean, if you're cherishing life why not cherish all life? Why not become a Jainist? A fruitarian? A class VII vegan?
I smell dirty hypocrisy.

We cherish Human life. All other life comes secondary, and is quite a bit less important.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 6:42:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/8/2012 6:38:28 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I love how pro-lifers always seem to think that pro-choicers aren't aware that the zygote/fetus has the potential to become a human. WE ARE FVCKING AWARE.

So once again, let me explain to you why I'm pro-choice (early abortion only):
BECAUSE HAVING A BABY IS FVCKING HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!!!!!
BECAUSE FORCING WOMAN TO CARRY A BABY FOR NINE MONTHS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO IS FVCKING BULLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!
BECAUSE AN UNDEVELOPED FETUS IS NOT CONSCIOUS NOR CAPABLE OF PAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE WE HAVE NO SHORTAGE OF UNCARED FOR CHILDREN ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE "CARRY THE BABY AND PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION" IS A FVCKING STUPID ALTERNATIVE!!!!!!!

How many times do we have to go over the same thing. Take your moral high ground and keep it. It's really wonderful to look at the world through rose coloured glasses but here in reality, legal abortion is completely, 100% necessary. Because there is a demand for it, like it or not and there ALWAYS will be a demand for it. So, like drugs, you can make it illegal and create a highly dangerous black market for unscrupulous assh0le criminals or you can put all your effort into effective things like education and providing contraception. Stop with the appeal to emotion crap.

Also, why do I always, always get the vibe that pro-lifers put humans way, way, way high on the pedestal. I mean, if you're cherishing life why not cherish all life? Why not become a Jainist? A fruitarian? A class VII vegan?
I smell dirty hypocrisy.

Win rant.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord