If abortion were banned on the state or national level, would "pro-lifers" support...

Which is not to say that it doesn't happen that people use abortion for evil purposes in relationships.

Of course. Pro-lifers must always find something wrong with, discredit or debunk information that makes their policies look bad.

I know, but for her it may have been from personal experience and what she may be saying is that it is nobody's business.

Most people have interpreted the song to mean that they were throwing a baby into the water off of the bridge.

 

Assumes facts not in evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it was a baby. What do you think it was?

 

Women with family incomes below the federal poverty level ($18,530 for a family of three) account for more than 40% of all abortions.[32] They also have one of the country’s highest abortion rates (52 per 1,000 women). In contrast, higher-income women (with family incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) have a rate of nine abortions per 1,000, which is about half the national rate.

And i suppose next you will want me to prove that there is no reason to believe that poor women are more stressed than wealthy women

You say the facts are not in evidence
Of course they are not in evidence
Who ever did the study did not collect the data to figure out why those women committed suicide

Just because women who had abortions had higher suicide rates does not prove that their abortions had any link to the suicides

 

Men are actually very little affected by an abortion. Those men getting all upset about it are usually more upset that they have lost control of the woman.

I know that is the tendency with pro-lifers. But it's so easy to make their policies look bad, you don't even have to try, they just look bad all on their own.

She wrote a song about her personal experience, she hopes the song sells many copies but it's nobody's business?

IF they were throwing a baby off the bridge, it had nothing to do with abortion. Instead of making wild conjectures, it is advisable to listen to the author of the song.

 

What is life....really? Is it not more than biology?

There is so much that we don’t know about life and for that matter death. Where do they end and where do they begin? We know that physical life ends and begins but what do we really know about spiritual life- I mean really know apart from what religious dogma and superstition tell us? A big question that I have is how is our state of existence different before we are born, then it is after we die, if different at all. Are there really beginnings and ends or just transitions in and out of our bodies?

Don’t religious people also believe in the human soul? A spirit that comes from god and returns the heavens upon death? If so, then there really is no death. Can you look at abortion as a means of delaying the transformation of that soul into the physical body until it can make the transition into the world at a better time and in a better place .

To say that you know anything about life and death is just arrogant!

 

I can understand that if you're poor and have a bunch of kids that more stretch marks and nine months can be inconvenient. But then again, getting sucked out of your mother's womb can really spoil your day.

 

Yeah
So why did you bring up suicides again?

 

Now you are getting all religious and philosophical on me. Stop it before my eyes start to water.

I'll stick to what science tells us, never mind the religious theories.

 

""""""""and what she may be saying is that it is nobody's business.""""""""


...and it isn't, why don't you learn from the song YOU posted.


And what anyone does with a baby has nothing to do with abortion.

 

""""""""""Those men getting all upset about it are usually more upset that they have lost control of the woman.""""""


That's the crux of the whole abortion debate.

 

You science argument is absurd on its face. Despite your hundreds of messages you have not presented 1 sentence of science that proves abortion is immoral. Nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Science has proven that elective abortion is possible. Therefore, science is 100% pro-choice.

 

Science has proven that life begins at conception. Medical science is supposed to not harm human life. The child is a human life. Abortion violates the basic moral and ethical code of medicine.

 

Science proves that a pregnancy can be terminated. Thus, science is pro-choice. Medical science can terminate a pregnancy. Therefore, medical science also is pro-choice.

You can certainly argue science and medical science is immoral if you care to, but science of itself disproves your logic.

 

You obviously don't care about women unless they are willing to do your bidding ie. gestate and give birth

I have personally watched a woman almost die from an illegal abortion. I begged her not to do it as I knew the risks. I even walked partway there with her, as far as she would allow me to (for secrecy reasons, she did not want me to see where she was going). They happened, and on a greater scale than you think:

http://www.torontoreviewofbooks.com/2012/10/why-i-am-an-abortion-doctor-by-dr-garson-romalis/


This is just ONE hospital in Canada.

Yes, you can. Just like you can be against smoking but not want it to be illegal.

Incorrect. Studies have shown children of gay parents to be just as well adjusted as those of str8 ones.

Your second sentence contradicts your first in this paragraph.

 

Using your logic:

"Science proves that if you shoot someone in the head with a shotgun they too can be terminated. Thus science is pro-shooting someone in the head with a shotgun."

You can argue if it is immoral to shoot people in the head, but according to your version of science, it disproves your logic.

 

You don't know me and I suggest you refrain from passing judgement on me. Ad hominem attacks in the very first sentence tells me that your argument is flawed and weak. If you are here to insult and not debate the issues then you are just trolling.

She sounds like a very disturbed woman. You are making a very good case against abortion.

Again, you are making a very good case against abortions. They are very dangerous to the mother and the child dies almost every time.

And ending the life of the fetus inside is as inconsequential to you as snuffing out a cigarette?

And there are studies and actual children of gay parents who would disagree with those studies.

Actually no. The first sentence is what I would be willing to accept as a compromise. Like in football, I can carry the ball to the 5 yard line, but on the next play, I'm going to try to get it passed the goal.

 

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

You want disturbed women parenting children??? Wow, I guess you don't care about children either.

Illegal abortions. Legal ones are very safe for the woman - much safer than gestation and childbirth.

Please learn what an analogy is. Here's a link that will help: www.dictionary.com

Not credible studies.

So, you would want abortion illegal in cases of rape, incest and threat to the woman's health/life.....and you say you care about women and children? Pffffttttttt.

 

Yes, you your logic science is pro-choice of shooting someone in the head. Science is not pro-abortion nor pro-shooting people in the head. Science is scientific facts, not the philosophy of ethics.

 

I do.

I care enough about them not to violently extract them from their mother's womb.

Legal abortions are not safe. It results in the death of one or more fetuses. Sometime the mother dies from legal abortions.

Partial list of women killed by legal abortions

Here's the definition from your link:

I see no similarity between abortion and smoking.

I can say the same of your studies as well. They are not credible.

The child in the womb has nothing to do with the violence perpetrated against the mother and to put the mother through another violent violation of her body by aborting the child is just adding to the violence already committed against her.

There are very few cases if any in today's modern age of medicine where the doctor would have to choose between a mother and a fetus. In such a rare case if it ever happened, I think they would choose the mother, don't you? According to Dr. Ben Carson, there is no likely instance were such a choice would be necessary.

 

You're having a hard time today. Perhaps you can reword your response in a more coherent sentence.

 

I understand your difficulties.

Yes, by your logic science is pro-choice of shooting someone in the head. Science is not pro-abortion nor pro-shooting people in the head. Science is scientific facts, not the philosophy of ethics.

 

You are off topic and hijacking a thread......can't you address the OP ???

 

I guess you never heard of medical ethics.

 

You mean the Dr. Carson who experienced on the brains of fetuses until he decided people like him are evil?

 

Hey tell that to the other guy.

The topic? I think I answered it somewhere by saying, no, that is a stupid question.