A question you should ask yourself if your pro-choice

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
There are many reasons for abortion not just because people were irresponsible or the woman couldnt learn to keep to legs closed as most of you seem to think

I agree that there are cases out there where abortion can be the appropriate choice.
Such as a case that is threatening the life of the mother, rape, fetus is discovered to be terminally ill, or even perhaps very very early in the pregnancy (like the morning after pill...)
I am more concerned about cases where the mother clearly made an irresponsible choice, and the child ends up paying the consequences for it... That is just not right

Originally posted by stirling
I LOOK AT IT THIS WAY
Im a man....so abortion is none of my business realy.
The choice is a womans to make, and those who want to stick their necks in to someones very most private
and serious business are power trippingly arrogant.
Jesus told everyone not to judge each other......so why do the christians act so damn judgemental?
Youd think they, above anyone else, would understand ....".let he that is without sin cast the first stone.".....
There is no need for christians however fanatical, to be trying to dominate the lives and descisions of others....
Let them preach by example instead of harrassment, even terrorism.....There is something lacking in any religion that seeks to dominate human beings .

I agree religions tend to invade the free-will of others and seek to impose their views over others

But it is different when you are trying to UPHOLD the rights of someone else
In this case, people should uphold the rights of the child from being violated, because the child is unable to do so for his/herself

Originally posted by seenavv
I was confident ATS users were smart enough to draw the similarity themselves, clearly I was wrong

We are clearly smart enough to recognize when someones grasping at straws and to make matters worse for yourself you still avoided the question. How is it the same. answer this DIRECTLY. Draw a concise connection between the two. You just brushed over the whole superstitious good luck mumbo jumbo like it was nothing when its the WHOLE point of your article. If it wasn't for that then the clients would have no need for the fetus. Where as with abortion as i and other noted above revolved around a variety of serious life altering consequences.

so again how is superstitious belief the same as reality ?

Originally posted by paganini
Draw a concise connection between the two.You just brushed over the whole superstitious good luck mumbo jumbo like it was nothing when its the WHOLE point of your article.

I never brushed over anything, you just don't get it.
I explained to you what the pictures above were.
Then I explain to you what an abortion is.

Here is your :"concise connection" AGAIN

Article

six foetuses[dead, outside of the womb]

from two to seven months

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Abortion

termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.

The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.

en.wikipedia.org...

If it wasn't for that then the clients would have no need for the fetus. Where as with abortion as i and other noted above revolved around a variety of serious life altering consequences.

Serious life altering consequences.... OK.
Who pays to avoid these so called "seriously life altering consequences" ??
At the end of the day, the CHILD pays by INDUCED TERMINATION.
The child does not deserve to pay by being denied the right to life because of the irresponsibility of the mother. At two - seven months it is nothing less then murder.

Originally posted by seenavv

Serious life altering consequences.... OK.

so aborting a child because you cant take care of it isnt a a big deal and not willing to risk giving it up for adoption due to the problems that can arise from that arent a big deal and these are apparently the same thing as some weirdo thinking a fetus grants him mystical power.riiiiiiiiight

Again you are trying to put backwards belief in the same realm as the real world and its like watching someone jam a puzzle piece into a place it cant fit

Originally posted by seenavv
Who pays to avoid these so called "seriously life altering consequences" ??
At the end of the day, the CHILD pays by INDUCED TERMINATION.
The child does not deserve to pay by being denied the right to life because of the irresponsibility of the mother. At two - seven months it is nothing less then murder.

The child pays nothing as it is unborn. Some thing that doesn't exist and possess no consciousness cant do or feel anything. Sorry try again.

I agree to the point that child pays for nothing.
BUT, on the part of female, IF she really believes that once the child is in the world, she wont be able to justify her decision, and bring the child up in the way he/she deserves, then it is better to think ahead of time.