Serious and Honest Question For Pro-Life Men

[Dragonfly]

when, you see more and more of….

you see that there is growing a danger to life, civilization etc.

This worries me greatly.

Just an FYI, ignore posts like that by Bodhi. He's FAR from being serious.

 

[pinqy]

They are not innocent. They invaded without consent a woman's body.

they are not babies... they are embryos.

Final Judgement is a load of horse ****....

Are you saying that all sex is rape? Or that women don’t know the biological function of sex?
If you have sex you undertake the chance of pregnancy. You are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. That’s men and women.

But you seem to think that being pregnant is a punishment for sex, or that sex (and pregnancy) is something that is done to a woman.

(And now I’m betting the response, if any, will make wild and completely untrue assumptions about my beliefs)

 

[Dragonfly]

Are you saying that all sex is rape? Or that women don’t know the biological function of sex?
If you have sex you undertake the chance of pregnancy. You are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. That’s men and women.

But you seem to think that being pregnant is a punishment for sex, or that sex (and pregnancy) is something that is done to a woman.

(And now I’m betting the response, if any, will make wild and completely untrue assumptions about my beliefs)

The post below is your answer. He's not posting that stuff seriously.

Just an FYI, ignore posts like that by Bodhi. He's FAR from being serious.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If you have sex you undertake the chance of pregnancy. You are consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. That’s men and women.

Consenting to the possibility of pregnancy is in no way, shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth.

Just like how a smoker consents to the possibility of lung cancer, but can still have any resulting tumour(s) removed from his/her body.

 

[Removable Mind]

The future is down-steam of culture beliefs we help create…

when, you see more and more of….

you see that there is growing a danger to life, civilization etc.

This worries me greatly.


The egregiousness disregard to its importance…if abortions were rare, restricted and mostly based on horrible situations and medical realities, perhaps I could come to be more sympathetic.

When my wife speaks of her miscarriage the grief is rarely losted people. They don't dismiss that simply because our baby was biologically unviable in early term; yet, had she "aborted" so often that grief is never considered.

So if a woman feels indifference or grief this should be the determining difference in how we view the event as a society?

That is simply not how a developed moral compass works. It convient apathy. A condition which always leads to greater and greater evils.

I do think it can be treated with respect but we are not in that position as a culture. There is a problem.Once acknowledged as murder. We can have a discussion about the merit of circumstances of its allowance.


In the sense of being a tenet or common belief of those who i identify as religiously kin. No.
Do my religious beliefs help form my moral disposition - of course.


I do think it is a concerning position to be without power in that "choice" considering there are two parents, but, "fear" is not word of my thoughts on those situations.

I do though certainly feel disgust when we just let women be murders of their own children. I really can't see how one can not. However, I can fully submit not all circumstances of intentional killing is murder. Holding that one best assumes it is until justified otherwise based on the context.


Yes, but some are more evil than others…mainly due to their cumulative effects.

This wrong stands out and is very preventable.


We do however need a moral society to survive….I see little different between this the ancient practice of child sacrifice…that needed to end there/then and this here/now.


Of course, and there is some merit to saving mothers from back alley abortions - however - a smaller issue to be dealt with when they are rare and acknowledged with the proper moral weight.

Oh, my.

Firstly, you’ve mischaracterized abortion as the murdering of children. That’s your opinion, and not congruent with the law.

Apparently you believe that women, by circumstance of birth, are morally and legally obligated to proliferate the species - foregoing the right to determine how many children that they want or don’t want. That women don’t deserve due process, liberty, self determination, and the right to privacy, and equal justice under the law.

I guess that in your opinion an unwanted pregnancy is nothing less than irresponsibility - and that a woman must be damned to gestate and give birth against her will.

In my opinion, when men are compelled to control women’s reproductive rights, it really sounds more like strong-arm mentality.

Your claim that a woman who chooses to have an abortion is somehow evil, which you’ve decided can only lead to more evil, is patently absurd.

Resorting to a moral compass argument, in which your implying that your compass is the universal standard, is a big red flag raiser.

There is no evidence that all of the abortions performed since the very first has caused a negative impact on humanity.

 

[Conaeolos]

…and not congruent with the law.

As we are talking about morality not statue In what sense?

Do you mean it is unenforceable in the sense that it is grey zone to punish a woman or doctor as a murderer for an abortion?

Or,

That it does not meet the regular standards of murder?

If the former, there is certainly merit to the argument. Society certainly has more of the onus of moral guilt rather than an individual in this case…it is difficult to enforce "punishment" but that can be true of many crimes. Often, one simply removes punishment and rather labels the change to enforce discouragement.

as to the later, how you would think it does not meet the definition of murder? It must take some real metal gymnastics as the only way to do so is to either remove humanhood from an unborn baby or to think said child has no free will over that of their parent.

Ask any child spared their planned abortion their opinion…it is more often than not murder[with some exceptions of circumstance].

Apparently you believe that women, by circumstance of birth, are morally and legally obligated to proliferate the species…

Wrong, I would support & defend any woman's choice to determine family size or choose to be without children.

That women don’t deserve due process, liberty, self determination, and the right to privacy, and equal justice under the law.

Not a single one of those things. I would defend each.

…in your opinion an unwanted pregnancy is nothing less than irresponsibility - and that a woman must be damned to gestate and give birth against her will.

Well yes, sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances where we are morally obliged to forgo our intreats to that of another. In this case, the rights of her child to life surmount any claim she might have to them being unwanted and the burden of labour of pregnacy/birth.

Are there circumstances that one can justify the murder? Of course, sickness, medical complications for example….intent of course is apart of any moral context.

…but the most common reasoning of being "unwanted" is certianly not a justification for taking life. Now or ever!

when men are compelled to control women’s reproductive rights, it really sounds more like strong-arm mentality.

I do not hesitate to strong-arm against the perpetration of evil. If you saw someone attempting sucide, would you not consider strong-arming a perhaps even necessary reaction?

Your claim that a woman who chooses to have an abortion is somehow evil

No, I claim women who choose to have an abortion under most circumstances are committing evil. Anyone is capable of committing evil.To be labeled "is (somehow) evil" though takes a lot more than one simple act or decision in folly.

…which you’ve decided can only lead to more evil, is patently absurd.

Society's encouraging is by far the greater crime…so "patently absurd" only if you ignore any sense of collective karma/responsibility.

…our compass is the universal standard

I am your judge?

One of us is more right. And as we share a society together we need to hash these matters out for the good of us all.

There is no evidence that all of the abortions performed since the very first has caused a negative impact on humanity.

Conflating the objective with the subjective. In subjective terms though: would the world be a worse place without Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Churchill, Queen Victory, your mother….?

If the answer is yes and anyone of those killed was akin to their merit. The principle is self-fulfilling.

 

[Scrabaholic]

as to the later, how you would think it does not meet the definition of murder? It must take some real metal gymnastics as the only way to do so is to either remove humanhood from an unborn baby or to think said child has no free will over that of their parent.

In order for it to be murder, it must be codified in law as such. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person.

Well yes, sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances where we are morally obliged to forgo our intreats to that of another. In this case, the rights of her child to life surmount any claim she might have to them being unwanted and the burden of labour of pregnacy/birth.

I see you will never ever go through labour and childbirth. I'm starting to think all anti choicers who are barren or don't have a uterus should have to go through this for a period of time equalling a typical length of labour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlU2lmzzpxQ

No, I claim women who choose to have an abortion under most circumstances are committing evil.

Wanting to force women to gestate and give birth is evil, IMO.

 

[Conaeolos]

In order for it to be murder, it must be codified in law as such. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a person by a person.

That is not an argument for or against. If child sacrifice was given exemption from the law on religious grounds tommorrow. It is still just as wrong and still murder. (Or are you saying I need to address the US/Canadian legal arguments?)

Morality not law is true justice. Why a convicted criminal can be considered innocent.

I see you will never ever go through labour and childbirth. I'm starting to think all anti choicers who are barren or don't have a uterus should have to go through this for a period of time equalling a typical length of labour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlU2lmzzpxQ

You’re honestly arguing men would not endure pain and sacrifice for the greater good? Ummm...really?!?

Both woman and men are capable of being required to endure reasonable necessary sacrifices for the greater good which in this case seems a pretty clear cut one: to save the life of a healthy child.

You think me experiencing the same pain countless woman experience everyday is going to change my mind? I think you might be underestimating the resolve of your fellow human beings.

Wanting to force women to gestate and give birth is evil, IMO.

And I am glad you are free to share that opinion openly. Bad ideas have a place in the public discourse.

The problem is that is a mischaracterization of most circumstances. Forcing one not to kill is very different from forcing one to kill.

Absent cases of rape. You must agree woman have a choice in getting pregnant and acknowledge in that the possibility of pregnacy by engaging in sex. It has been well established in common law, that one can not separate accepting risk with one act only to later revoke responsbility when facing unplesant realities to those choices.

In cases of rape, I agree it's more complicated but would still prioritize the right of a healthy child to be born and likely adopted out over the feelings of an unwanted pregnancy by the mother.The complicated part to me though is that there is some valid defense (a trauma related psychological response to a previous evil) not that there is moral justification. Akin to potential victim killing their potential rapist when a serious injury might have been an option...murder sure - justified likely without a doubt.

Now are the doctors than the criminals? Depends - was the mother going to attempt a back alley, is the child healthy, are there serious complications[physical/mental] for this mother or is abortion preformed simply as a medical option based on the mothers feelings.

If only the later - yes they are a murder (IME) with the moral karma there-of. If not, no they are just trying to be a good doctor with diffcult moral ethics of such a postion.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That is not an argument for or against. If child sacrifice was given exemption from the law on religious grounds tommorrow. It is still just as wrong and still murder. (Or are you saying I need to address the US/Canadian legal arguments?)

It would not be murder, since murder is a legal term, not a moral one.

You’re honestly arguing men would not endure pain and sacrifice for the greater good? Ummm...really?!?

What "greater good"? And yes, I am saying many men would not endure the pain of labour/childbirth. They can't even handle a few minutes on a simulator.

Both woman and men are capable of being required to endure reasonable necessary sacrifices for the greater good which in this case seems a pretty clear cut one: to save the life of a healthy child.

There is nothing wrong with abortion. The human race is not in danger of extinction. Some would say that is unfortunate.

The problem is that is a mischaracterization of most circumstances. Forcing one not to kill is very different from forcing one to kill.

Who said anything about forcing to kill?

BTW, we kill every day. That cow in your freezer was killed for your enjoyment. (enjoyment of eating)

Absent cases of rape. You must agree woman have a choice in getting pregnant and acknowledge in that the possibility of pregnacy by engaging in sex.

That is not in any way, shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth should she get pregnant. Just like the smoker acknowledges the risk of lung cancer, but can still have any resulting tumour(s) removed from his/her body.

 

[Removable Mind]

It would not be murder, since murder is a legal term, not a moral one.




What "greater good"? And yes, I am saying many men would not endure the pain of labour/childbirth. They can't even handle a few minutes on a simulator.




There is nothing wrong with abortion. The human race is not in danger of extinction. Some would say that is unfortunate.





Who said anything about forcing to kill?

BTW, we kill every day. That cow in your freezer was killed for your enjoyment. (enjoyment of eating)





That is not in any way, shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth should she get pregnant. Just like the smoker acknowledges the risk of lung cancer, but can still have any resulting tumour(s) removed from his/her body.

:applaud

Ohio is trying to push a law that not only gives personhood rights to a zygote, but also impose a severe prison sentence for abortion AND for the State to have the right to murder women in prison for having an abortion. This type of belief system is coming from extreme right religious zealots.

 

[Conaeolos]

It would not be murder, since murder is a legal term, not a moral one.

Its most certainly both, in terms of legal terminology I would agree to the distinction. Mainly in the sense that a charge of "murder" would generally receive prison/death in terms of sentencing. An aborter at worst would in my estimation receive mandatory counselling/therapy and for an abortionist mostly reprimands with possible loss of medical licence in extreme cases like other ethics violations.

That has a lot more to do with just sentencing. Morally speaking there is little difference - the context of the crime merely makes things like prison/fines/death for an aborter or abortionist not fit the crime.

What "greater good"?

The life and rights of a healthy child in threat of being aborted! How is that not a greater good?

And yes, I am saying many men would not endure the pain of labour/childbirth. They can't even handle a few minutes on a simulator.

Okay?

There is nothing wrong with abortion. The human race is not in danger of extinction. Some would say that is unfortunate.

Why?
I think you mean "underpopulated" and that's a subjective thing…so...

Who said anything about forcing to kill?

It's an example. You suggested its evil in your opinion to force women to gestate and give birth. I said that statement is a mischaracterization of most circumstances of abortion.

It's a mischaracterization since the context in abortion is not forcing women to gestate and give birth, it's forcing her not to kill her unborn baby which only happens to have her gestating and giving birth at this time.

The point of that use in this context is to highlight we are talking a restrictive moral act not prescriptive moral action. What you expressed is like saying against "do not steal" : It is evil to force people to act against their own self interests.

BTW, we kill every day. That cow in your freezer was killed for your enjoyment. (enjoyment of eating)

Killing cows is now equivalent to a killing humans?

What-about mosquitos?
What-about plants?

Where are we drawing the line and Why?

That is not in any way, shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth should she get pregnant.

Okay I will try to understand your point of view: so in your opinion what is one responsible for then if not the full consequences of their free choice?

Just like the smoker acknowledges the risk of lung cancer, but can still have any resulting tumour(s) removed from his/her body.

Yes and if a women gets a tumour via STD via that sex I am 100% in agreement. Get any tumour removed.

When a child is involved - that freedom gets more complicated because the rights of that child. These must be balanced.

The only way to think otherwise is to deny the unborn human-ship. By what measure? Their dependence on another? You again invite child sacrifice. No child can live absent support for quite some time. Fetus are little humans. Your killing a human - how is this not morally complex in your view?

 

[Lursa]

Well yes, sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances where we are morally obliged to forgo our intreats to that of another. In this case, the rights of her child to life surmount any claim she might have to them being unwanted and the burden of labour of pregnacy/birth.

Who says? Besides you? Why is the unborn's life of more value than the woman's? A life is more than just breathing, when it comes to abortion we are discussing 'the entirety' of a life including a future and self-determination.

Why is the unborn, in your opinion, 'more' entitled to that than a woman?

If you are just going to reduce life to 'a heartbeat,' then my morality sits solidly on the side of quality of life over quantity.

 

[Lursa]

I do not hesitate to strong-arm against the perpetration of evil. If you saw someone attempting sucide, would you not consider strong-arming a perhaps even necessary reaction?

No I would not presume to force my will on them. If there was mental illness diagnosed (implying an inability to recognize reality), then I would refer back to their medical professional for help but otherwise, that's an individual's decision.

Are you suggesting that women that choose abortion are mentally ill and unable to recognize reality?

 

[Lursa]

You’re honestly arguing men would not endure pain and sacrifice for the greater good? Ummm...really?!?

Both woman and men are capable of being required to endure reasonable necessary sacrifices for the greater good which in this case seems a pretty clear cut one: to save the life of a healthy child.

One of us is more right. And as we share a society together we need to hash these matters out for the good of us all.

What greater good? "The greater good" is not about the effects on an individual.

In what way is abortion a negative for society? Please name some examples.

There are over 100,000 children available for adoption in the US...waiting, hoping, aware. For every unwanted/unaffordable child born and added to that adoption pool, one of those children gets bumped further and further down the list, lessening the hopes and chances of those thousands *already waiting* for homes. It is just cruel to encourage the birth of more of these unwanted children living in limbo. (Certainly no moral High Ground there)

OTOH, there are many positive effects that abortion has on society. I'm not aware of a single negative one. In discussing 'for the good of us all,' I'd need to see your examples of how ending elective abortion is 'good' for society.

 

[Lursa]

Ask any child spared their planned abortion their opinion…it is more often than not murder[with some exceptions of circumstance].

Your personal speculations are not necessarily fact. There are at least 3 people that have posted in this sub-forum alone, that they wish their mothers had aborted them. Considering the concentrated numbers posting on an online forum, 3 people is not an insignificant ratio.

 

[Lursa]

That women don’t deserve due process, liberty, self determination, and the right to privacy, and equal justice under the law.

Not a single one of those things. I would defend each.

*IF* you would see elective abortion made illegal, then this would be untrue. ^^^

How would the govt prevent a woman from aborting a pregnancy without violating some or all of those Constitutional rights and her bodily sovereignty and self-determination?

 

[Lursa]

When a child is involved - that freedom gets more complicated because the rights of that child. These must be balanced.

The unborn has no rights. It is not equal to born people, physically, ethically, legally (SCOTUS has examined this, as it did for women and blacks, and determined the legal status).

Certainly the unborn has no (imagined) rights that should supersede those of born people, and born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law (nor ethically either IMO).

Is it your position that the unborn should be valued higher by law and by society than women? Again, it's not possible to treat them equally.

 

[Conaeolos]

Why is the unborn's life of more value than the woman's?

There is a large difference between a right to life being more important than a mother's feelings that the child is unwanted and that the rights of the unborn are more important than that of their mother's own life.

If a child is sick or if there are complications for the mother…circumstances may permit abortion in the interests of the mother. That however is an exception not the rule in the case of abortion in our society.

So yes, she can endure the unpleasantness of gestation and birth for the right of her child to have a chance at life. If her life not comfort has become threaten perhaps an abortion is justifiable for medically valid reasons. Unborn babies are vulnerable and miscarriages do happen. Those case do not however excuse the abortion of an unborn child based solely on the feelings of the mother. That is just murder!

Why is the unborn, in your opinion, 'more' entitled to [a future and self-determination] than a woman?

How is the entirety of her life effected by not killing another life? I would say my statement defends both the woman and the child. Her quality of life is so effected as to justify the ending of another life? I do not follow.

my morality sits solidly on the side of quality of life over quantity.

Yes, one must have a life in order to have a chance at quality. I can not guarantee or even maximize such a subjective thing. I can however move to protect any human beings right for the chance to live a quality life.

No I would not presume to force my will on them. If there was mental illness diagnosed (implying an inability to recognize reality), then I would refer back to their medical professional for help but otherwise, that's an individual's decision.

I can respect your absolutist love of personal liberty. I however observe very clear grounds to help save that persons life by any means necessary.

I must wonder where you do begin to draw the line then of where you would interfere for the greater good?

Are you suggesting that women that choose abortion are mentally ill and unable to recognize reality?

I would not use either word as mentally ill generally involves "a psychological distress which interferes with the functioning of one's life" and "unable to recognize reality" is a statement which does not apply.

I would connect the same over-welling destructive egotism that justifies suicide though as related to cases of mothers who abort children based on their feelingtaht it is "unwanted".

I do submit that mandatory psychological treatment would be a beneficial to the rehabilitation of a mother aborting their child over feelings of the child being unwanted.

How would the govt prevent a woman from aborting a pregnancy without violating some or all of those Constitutional rights and her bodily sovereignty and self-determination?

If it was considered a restrictive medical procedure it allows for normal medical ethical guidelines. Doctors can use their medical ethics to determine medical rational with only extreme cases being a legal matter. Indivudal aborters found guilty of unjustified abortion would be sentenced to mandatory treatment. This similar to how one might treat laws surrounding suicide and child welfare.

Is it your position that the unborn should be valued higher by law and by society than women? Again, it's not possible to treat them equally.

No, I would argue the rights of the unborn are far more restrictive than that of an adult citizen or even a born child.That does not mean they are without rights. Children already have restricted rights. This is not a far out concept.

BTW, we already have cases where a person forced an abortion unwilling on a mother and they've been convicted of murder. So politics aside its bad laws on the books….if you see a difference, please start explaining....

 

[cpwill]

So, I hate this forum, and realize this reply is about to be endlessly attacked by a legion.

BUT, you said you had serious, and honest, questions for folks in my position, so I'll answer

Why do you care about this topic? <--- serious and honest question

What is it exactly that drives your passion here?

Is it based on a religious belief? (be honest here)

....somewhat. I believe than an unborn human child is still a human child, and while our governing system declares that humans have basic rights, that is certainly buttressed by my faith, which says that each human being is a special creation of our God, and that children, especially, are loved by Christ. This same blending (American declaration of inherent, individual, human rights, Christian care for the person) gave us the anti-slavery movement, which I draw a lot of parallels to, here.

Is it centered around something else? What would that something else be?

Is it perhaps that you fear having no control over a situation you might find yourself in?

Nope.

I get that you feel it's "wrong". There's lots of "wrongs" in the world. Lots.

What is it that feeds your ideology on this one topic?

The same thing that feeds my ideological position on slavery.

The human race is still growing in population.

Sort of - birthrates are declining and, according to most demographers, at least, the global human populace should peak in the 2050's, and then begin falling. Our problem in the advanced countries (and China) is that we have too few children for the policy structures we have in place, not too many.

That, however, is not in and of itself a reason to ban abortion.

There's no rational fear of human beings going extinct due to "choice" regarding pregnancy.
We don't "need" unwanted babies for the human race to carry on.

We don't "need" "unwanted" street kids, either. Rounding them up and killing them would still be horrifically wrong.

As a male/man, what is it exactly that drives your passion in this?
As a male/man, why do you care?

Hm. As a man I would say I have a desire to protect. More generally, however, as an American - and, yes, Christian - I think that each life is something special.

Also, please know that simply making abortion illegal won't make abortion go away. You do know that right?

Sure. The same is true of slavery. That doesn't mean we should decriminalize slavery, or stop trying to reduce its incidence as much as possible.

Heroin, cocaine, meth, and plenty of pills are all illegal and can be found in every high school in America just about.
Rape is illegal and it happens at alarming rates.

So.... we should decriminalize rape, then? Keep Our Laws Off Men's Bodies? Have the government step in to fund and ensure safer, cleaner rapes?

.....or is the fact that rape continues to occur not, actually, all that great an argument against its' criminalization, because women have rights, and others shouldn't violate them?

 

[Lursa]

There is a large difference between a right to life being more important than a mother's feelings that the child is unwanted and that the rights of the unborn are more important than that of their mother's own life.

Nope, didnt write or imply that. It's not about the mother's feelings. It's about the entirety of her life, her self-detemination (which you already said you'd defend), her bodily sovereignty and her rights.

So the question is...why is the unborn more entitled to those things than the mother?

 

[Conaeolos]

There are over 100,000 children available for adoption in the US...waiting, hoping, aware. For every unwanted/unaffordable child born and added to that adoption pool, one of those children gets bumped further and further down the list, lessening the hopes and chances of those thousands *already waiting* for homes. It is just cruel to encourage the birth of more of these unwanted children living in limbo. (Certainly no moral High Ground there)

OTOH, there are many positive effects that abortion has on society. I'm not aware of a single negative one. In discussing 'for the good of us all,' I'd need to see your examples of how ending elective abortion is 'good' for society.

It is morally unjustifiable to murder children because their mothers feel they are unwanted why not extend that to the unborn? You haven't even addressed that point. You can say the killing is in the name of the greater good all you want. There is no scenario though where we can bring back the dead and find out.

Subjectively speaking, if you can't say the world wouldn't be a worse-place if <insert person you consider good>, your mother, etc than you can't say it is better thanks to the death of the aborted.Of those planned to be aborted who survived - I've yet to find the one who wishes they were...

Adoption in this country is its own complex mess. End of the day, being an orphan is not justification to end one's life. That is the core of that argument, it's a non-starter….

 

[Lursa]

How is the entirety of her life effected by not killing another life? I would say my statement defends both the woman and the child. Her quality of life is so effected as to justify the ending of another life? I do not follow.

Altho you specifically reworded for emotional manipulation, I still find it odd that you ask how having a child you're not prepared for/cannot afford would affect a woman's entire life.

Would you like to reconsider asking the question?

 

[Lursa]

It is morally unjustifiable to murder children because their mothers feel they are unwanted why not extend that to the unborn? You haven't even addressed that point. You can say the killing is in the name of the greater good all you want. There is no scenario though where we can bring back the dead and find out.

Adoption in this country is its own complex mess. End of the day, being an orphan is not justification to end one's life. That is the core of that argument, it's a non-starter….

It's factually not murder, as you've been told so it's silly to keep writing it.

As for justifiably killing the unborn...if a woman cannot care for a child, then it would be justifiable not to produce the child. Who are strangers or the govt to determine what she is capable of? Certainly finances are a great part of that. It's perfectly responsible to choose abortion rather than add another unwanted/unaffordable child to the population. Where did you address the 100,000 kids already waiting, in limbo, that would be actively harmed by the addition of more kids into an already desperately full pool that all wish to escape and find homes?

And I didnt say it was worse to be an orphan...I wrote clearly that for each NEW child added to that large #, it means one of those aware, suffering, waiting...ends up with less chance of a family. *Increasing* a societal problem...and living children's pain.

 

[Conaeolos]

It's not about the mother's feelings. It's about the entirety of her life, her self-detemination (which you already said you'd defend), her bodily sovereignty and her rights.

So the question is...why is the unborn more entitled to those things than the mother?

I do not follow as to the difference
...is her quality of life affected? Yes temporailiy as a consquence of her choice to have sex.
...is her self-detemination affected? Yes temporailiy as a consquence of protecting the life of her child.
...is her bodily sovereignty affected? In so much as her bodily sovereignty is now shared between two lives: hers and her childs. Both intrests need to be considered. Not equally but fairly.
...is her rights affected? Restricting one's ability to kill a child is not a rights violation no.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, one must have a life in order to have a chance at quality. I can not guarantee or even maximize such a subjective thing. I can however move to protect any human beings right for the chance to live a quality life.

So right here you clearly value the unborn's potential quality of life over that of a woman's quality of life. Why?

If she makes the decision that having a child will be harmful to her life, her health, her future, her self-determination...then who is in a better position to know that?

And what would give strangers or the govt the right to make that determination *for* her, against her will?

Only the assumption that the unborn is more valued. It's an assumption that the American public rejects in every single poll on abortion.