Do the Pro-Life people even recognized if you make abortion illegal; it does not stop women from having abortions and even creates more abortions?

[Freedom97]

Just look at El Salvador. They ban all types of abortions, but there are tens of thousands of illegal abortions every year.

" Indeed, the rate of abortion in countries with restrictive abortion laws far exceeds that of countries with far more liberal laws, such as the United States"

Also, Romania bans abortions. However, they have the largest abortion rate in the EU

"480 abortions per 1,000 live births. For comparison, in Italy, where abortion has been legal since 1979, there are only 9.8 abortions per live birth"

"With no sexual education and no access to contraception, there ensued a massive wave of underground abortions, which claimed the lives of nearly 10,000 women"

https://newsmavens.com/news/lessons-learned/1345/the-death-toll-of-romania-s-abortion-ban

https://www.guernicamag.com/consequences-el-salvadors-abortion-ban/

A. Yes, but they do not care

B. No, because their emotions get in the way

C. They secretly want more abortions

[madhatters4]

i don't think they care about facts like that. you are right legal abortions and better counseling on the matter has led to a more than 50% reduction in abortions to the point that there are fewer abortions than any time in recorded history in the USA.

[Freedom97]

They put their feelings over facts and cry when someone proves them wrong

[madhatters4]

thanks for MHO

[madhatters4]

and i agree. it's feelings over facts. the reality is pro-life policy leads to more abortion, higher rates of infant mortality and birth mother mortality... it is just a strange conflict due to ignoring facts and reality in favor of feelings

[Pummel]

Can I please have your source of information?

[polishedwingedhussar]

An combine that with the fact many refuse to give proper sex ed, that is just a recipe for death and more abortions in back rooms.

[SovietBall]

Abortions should be legalized because the world is already being overpopulated in a horrible way and it's about time to reduce our numbers if we want that planet to survive the coming millennium

[Freedom97]

I agree. However, the idiots want the world to be overpopulated

[SovietBall]

Barry McGuire was right, we're literally on the eve of destruction

[BornFree]

Only authoritarian jerks who are against freedom are Pro-Life

They are no different than people who want to ban guns

[Freedom97]

That's very true

[fjh80]

"Only authoritarian jerks who are against freedom are pro LIFE."
THINK about that statement for a moment.

I'm sure you want that to be the case, but it's not, and I'm pretty sure you know it's not.

They're not authoritrions. They simply want to stand up for the defenceless life that you're snuffing out.

You have to know this. How could you not see that?
I think you know it, and you know everyone else knows it, but you want them to think differently.

[BornFree]

@fjh80 People on the left wants to ban guns because they think guns murders people. People on the right want to ban abortions because they think abortions murders babies

Both sides are beyond stupid

[israelisevil]

Trump failed to take my bumpstock glock and neither can Biden.

[israelisevil]

@fjh80 hey dude I’ve been responsible for abortion went with girl and beat some bitchass faggot like you who got in her face saying abortion is murder. I’m liberatarian government has no right over any aspect of people lives besides protecting us from mega companies and banks Wich they don’t in fact they do opposite and sell prisoners to private prisons

[Pummel]

No... abortion kills the baby
People kill people

[-sunflowersss-]

[Freedom97]

Lol what

[nightdrot]

Do pro-choice people even recognize that if you make murder illegal, you will - almost by definition - get more murder? Do they recognize that if you outlaw child abuse, you will still get child abuse? If you outlaw segregation, you will still get bigotry?

The question is based on a faulty, not to say silly, premise. The law, as Burke said, "touches us but here and there." It is not only a regulatory mechanism. Rather, it also expresses the ethical and moral presuppositions of a society.

In this it reinforces, neither completely nor perfectly, habits of mind that suffuse the culture and reinforce those habits. The obvious example being the laws against Jim Crow.

Passage of those anti-discrimination laws, which at the time were highly disputed in their purpose and ethic, in the short term reduced outward discrimination. In the long term reinforced habits of conduct and mind that stigmatized expressions of bigotry. As the late columnist Joseph Sobran wrote, he would get up and leave the room rather than listen to the kinds of things that were routinely said about blacks at his father's dinner table.

Put simply, we shape our laws and our laws shape us. In the context of abortion laws, current law is an ethic of freedom as an end in itself. That life has no value except that which each person subjectively decides that it should have.

In that legal and cultural context, the society rejects any notion of the absolute value of human life. Indeed, it is no accident - as they used to say - that as laws on abortion liberalized there was also, allowing for increased reporting, increased spousal abuse, increased child abuse and other similar social pathologies.

The point of the pro-life position then is not simply to ban abortion on demand, but also to reinforce a societal ethic that stresses that human life has an intrinsic value inherent in itself and that it is not subject to individual interpretation. As Edmund Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

The irony of the pro-choice position is that, in making freedom not a means to an end but an end in itself, it devalues life. Indeed, it makes life subject to those who have the power to exercise control over it. We've seen in history what that looks like - and it isn't pretty.

[zagor]

You mean like abortion-banning Adolf Hitler?

[nightdrot]

@zagor You mean like the forced abortion China?

[zagor]

Yeah, mass starvation would have been preferable I suppose, which is where China was headed at the time.

[nightdrot]

@zagor Thanks for making the point so eloquently. Human life, in your formulation is a mean rather than an end in itself. Be careful where you take that logic.

Oh, and as to the Hitler analogy, it is faulty. Hitler was attempting to expand the pure Aryan race. He was quite content with abortion - and worse - where applied to what he considered inferior races.

Quite a different thing than to suggest, in ethics and in law, that human life has value intrinsic to itself. Then again, based on your most recent reply, you don't appear to believe that it does.

[zagor]

I do, but I don't believe a cluster of cells is above, say, a dog, just because it carries human DNA.

[nightdrot]

@zagor Question: On what day does it cease to be a cluster of cells? How is it different the day before as against the day after?

Your proposition is scientifically dubious, philosophically problematic and morally questionable.

[zagor]

Scientifically dubious? Are people not declared legally dead as long as they have a single living cell? Of course not.

Of course it is not crystal clear at what point a human being should be defined. But I will go out on a limb and say it is well past the time of conception.

And again, those with no skin in the game seem to be the most determinedly moralistic on the matter.

[nightdrot]

@zagor So, on the basis of no scientific evidence, you have made a moral comparison - as you did above - of a human being to a dog. Interesting, to say no more. I do believe you have made my point.

You attach to human life no particular value except that which you subjectively wish to attach to it. Works for you but as a premise in culture and law somewhat sandy moral soil, to say no more.

You are Exhibit A for my point.

(By the way, as a scientific matter, a thing cannot be other than what it is. Those cells that you are so quick to make the equivalent of a dog will not become a dog. They are human at a different stage of development. The fact that they are at a different stage of development does not make them anything other than human.)

As to no "skin in the game," if we have none in the making of law and culture, then you have just undermine the case for democracy at the very least.

A gentle suggestion: When you are in a hole, the best way to get out is to stop digging.

[zagor]

They are human cells, which is not the same as being human. So are the skin cells you wash off in the shower. They are not a sentient being. You are conveniently insisting on the rights of a collection of cells in someone else's body that are entirely dependent on that other person's body, and you demand that that person continue to let those cells feed off her body. Sorry, but you are going way beyond "respect for human life" and dictating someone else's way of life.

[nightdrot]

@zagor They cannot be anything other than what they are. You are engaged in reductio ad absurdum.

You, after all, are nothing but human cells at the scientific level. (This leaving aside cultural, philosophical and epistemological principles.) You are merely carrying out your biological and evolutionary functions - and en route have managed so far to undermine any inherent notion of the value of human life or the purposes of democracy.

It has not been edifying to read.

[zagor]

WRONG. A human is a complex organism requiring the interaction of millions of cells. If you take some of those cells on their own, they may be human cells in the sense of their origin, but they are NOT a human being.

As far as the purpose of democracy, the voters of the US have consistently shown that they support choice. It is pandering politicians playing to the fringe who oppose it and try to undermine personal freedoms.

[nightdrot]

@zagor You are still just a collection of cells acting out its biological function. You are simply adding layers of complexity. Complexity does not equal humanity. No more than a collection of deer cells at any stage of development adds up to anything more than a deer.

Again, you make my point. You reduce man to nothing but a collection of biological functions and submit that at some arbitrary point that you cannot even scientifically define that it is something different from what it is in a material sense.

The point is that you are finding yourself, without seeming to realize it, rejecting the principle is that human life is something that transcends its physical properties. You cannot prove that scientifically. Rather it is a moral principle - and one that your argument rejects.

Not unlike Hitler and Marx, whom I believe we were discussing earlier.

[zagor]

Complexity does equal humanity; if your finger gets cut off, it isn't another person, even if you gave it an independent blood flow and kept it alive. Without complexity there is no sentience, without which there is no human.

[nightdrot]

@zagor What living thing is not complex? Imagine the trillions of biological functions that go on in the cells of a dog. A single cell is an enormously complex intermix of molecules and atoms.

Taking your argument to its conclusion, if we then strip from that which lacks the level of complexity in an ordinary human - say a man who is paralyzed, thus his body is lacking in certain biological functions, or a mentally challenged woman - their humanity, you are back to that whole Hitler/Marx thing again. (This leaving aside the problem you have in determining at what point you reach the level of sophistication necessary to define humanity. That too, is problematic in your formulation.)

You are confusing the biological with the moral and hoping that the former will serve as a stand-in for the latter. It is crass materialism - and it is a deeply problematic premise on which to base the law and culture. A word to the wise: You may wish to examine the pedigree of your ideas.)

[zagor]

Even the most severely handicapped, mentally or physically, have some degree of sentience, even in a coma. A clump of cells does not.

[nightdrot]

@zagor Again, you have no scientific basis for that argument. There cannot be one. Please, to stay consistent, define the scientific point at which complexity equals humanity.

You are in the grand tradition of dialectic materialism. That did not end well.

[zagor]

Obviously, there is no single agreed-upon differentiating point - there is no scientific definition of such a point because it is purely subjective. That does not imply that because a clump of cells will presumably become a newborn baby if left to leech off its host, that the clump of cells is in fact a baby.

[nightdrot]

@zagor The gravamen of your argument is that human beings are no more than the sum of their parts. Reductio ad absurdum, as I mentioned.

You run to sophistication on a scientific basis and then concede that there is no scientific basis for determining that principle. You seem unable to grasp the implications of your own argument.

You are in the grand tradition of Marx - who said that man was nothing more than a product of the means of production - and Hitler - who said that man is nothing more than a product of the evolution of race. As I mentioned, you may wish to examine the pedigree of your idea. It has not been pretty.

You cannot assert a scientific principle in one breath and then in the next say that you cannot define the scientific principle. Again, to premise law and culture on such a rickety intellectual and philosophical basis is to build on the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

[zagor]

Marx and Hitler were talking about people as political/social entities, not biological beings. No one would mistake either for scientists.

Just because the specific line between two states is not precisely defined does not mean that the two states are the same throughout. At what point does the earth's atmosphere end and space begin? There is no concrete dividing line; you could make up one with an arbitrary standard like molecular density, but that would be an artificial distinction. Yet no one disputes that while sitting on Miami Beach you are within the atmosphere, while halfway to Mars you are not.

[nightdrot]

@zagor You are doing what they were doing. You are substituting a principle - in this case a principle that you ironically cannot define on its own terms - for the inherent worth of the human person. You are making them a means to an end rather than an end in their own right.

In your formulation - as I noted - you make man nothing more than the sum of his parts. Indeed, as I noted, you cannot even define at what point biological function conduces to the definition of a human.

You are simply chasing your intellectual tail as you deny the philosophical and epistemological implications of your own argument. Indeed, weirdly, you cannot even define on its own terms the basis of the principle you assert. To repeat, scientifically, at what point does sophistication conduce to the definition of humanity and indeed, if any human lacks those attributes, is it then logical to assume that they lose their humanity?

Lots of questions that you just blithely assume we should found law and culture.

[zagor]

You are the one saying that a person is just parts, as you are attributing humanity to a cluster of cells undergoing low-level cellular respiration and division.

[nightdrot]

@zagor No, that is you. You are the one that says that human life nothing but a mere collection of cells until a point - that you tantalizingly do not define - in the gestational process.

My point is that the law starting premise ought be that life has an objective value and that value is categorical at all points along the spectrum of life. I argue for this as a matter of law, and thus to inspire and reinforce a cultural ethic that sustains that standard.

You, as I noted have a standard that you do not define and thus make subjective to each person. It is a sort of moral relativism and as I noted is very sandy soil in which to base either a legal code or a cultural ethic.

[zagor]

So I assume then that you define it at conception?

[nightdrot]

@zagor Yes, that was the start of this discussion and why I asked you if not at that moment then on what day does the child become human. In that connection I asked you what the difference - physical and moral - was between that day and the day before that day.

You admitted that you had no answer - only that there is disagreement - thus opening the door to some other criteria other than that life has an objective value in its own right. That then conduces to an ethic of mere power relations rather than defining life as of inherent moral worth.

[Poormanscomedian]

@zagor The evil, immoral , god hating people of Germany made Hitler ruler.

[nightdrot]

@Poormanscomedian Burke famously said, "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people." Yours is a sweeping generality that ignores much nuance and historical particulars.

Yes, it is a black mark against Germany, but it has done what it could to make amends. Beyodn that, you will find it difficult to find a people in history always pure of motive and whose conduct has been eternally beyond reproach. There is, after all, "no way to make straight the crooked timber of humanity."

[hellionthesagereborn]

Actually the countries with the highest abortion rates all allow abortion: www.worldblaze.in/.../
www.insidermonkey.com/.../
Also the argument that their would be more is just absurd as making it illegal does not encourage the behavior. Its entirely possible, plausible and almost certain that other factors are present, like crushing poverty and poor access to birth control (which the west has none of). Further more the argument that it will happen anyway is the stupidest argument you could make. Murder will always occur, does that mean we should just make it legal? How about rape? Should we make that legal as clearly making it illegal has not stopped it? Of course not. We also know that abortion is the result of irresponsibility, at least in the west as their are plenty and readily available means of stopping pregnancy. We also know that legally it is considered murder as killing a pregnant women is considered double homicide, abortion just ignores this fact. We also know that it is murder in general as the child is a separate being from the mother and abortion kills it. So really the only thing that one can ask is why would you be so adamant that we allow abortions? Is it because you just don't feel like wearing a condom and you don't care that it results in the death of a child (potentially your own) while also causing sever emotional trauma (the overwhelming majority of women suffer short term depression, many suffer long term depression) as well as physical trauma to the cervix if its their first pregnancy which increases the risk of miscarriage for the rest of their life? Seems rather selfish of you to not care how damaging this is to women and to ignore all data on the subject just so you don't have to spend a dollar for a condom.

[Freedom97]

Do you know that making something illegal only makes the black market stronger?

[hellionthesagereborn]

First you would have to be able to prove that and you cannot. What it does is stops some and not others. Also as I pointed out by your rational we should abolish ALL laws as by your reasoning they have no purpose and in fact encourage the problem. According to your argument if we made murder legal we would have fewer murders. If we made robbery legal, we would have fewer robberies. But of course we all know that is absurd, so why would we ever apply your logic to this situation if it cannot hold up under any other situation? Its an invalid argument which is not backed by facts or logic.

[Freedom97]

Well yes you can

Take weed for example. Since my state made weed legal, much fewer people are smoking it

[Freedom97]

We all know that making things like weed, guns, and prostitution illegal puts them in the hands of the criminals. Prohibition never works

When we made alcohol illegal, we all know what happened. Abortion is the same thing

[hellionthesagereborn]

Know, we do not know that it increased use, we know that it was exploited by organizations because it controlled how much could be produced and thus allowed them to artificially inflate the price for those who would break the law. Again, I presented you two lists all showing that the places with the highest abortion rates where places that where generally more tolerant of abortion. So its not a reasonable conclusion to come to that it will increase the probability of it happening more frequently simply by making it illegal.

[Maik567]

You seriously think harsher abortion laws would result in more abortions? Or that making abortions more easily available makes people not get as many abortions? Dude use your fucking head.

The amount of abortions people get is affected by the living standards of the country, the availability of different forms birth control, culture, religion, etc.

The amount of mental gymnastics you have to go through to think that banning abortion causes more abortions is ridiculous. You yourself used a quote stating that the real issue is not having sexual education or access to contraceptives.

Making abortion illegal would absolutely lower the rate of abortions and would make (some) people more responsible about sex and avoid accidental pregnancies.

[Freedom97]

Sure making it illegal lowers it lol

Ever heard about the black market before?

Are you religious by the way

[Maik567]

I didn't say making it illegal removes abortion all together.

And do you think that products on sale on the black market are selling as much as they would if they were commercially available? Of course not. You just proved my point about how making something illegal can help to lower it's popularity.

And I'd rather not say anything about my religious views or lack of thereof cause you seem like the type of person who likes to make assumptions.

[Freedom97]

We all know that making things like weed, guns, and prostitution illegal puts them in the hands of the criminals. Prohibition never works

When we made alcohol illegal, we all know what happened. Abortion is the same thing

[Maik567]

And making things legal keeps them away from the hands of the criminals? Come on dude.

And I sincerely doubt you know what happened during the multiple times alcohol was made illegal or restricted in the united states, not to mention the rest of the world.

You say "prohibition never works" even tho there are multiple cases of prohibition working extremely effectively. For example Mao's prohibition of opium in China. China had a huge problem with opium addiction, yet after the prohibition the problem was practically non-existent.

[zagor]

And it would raise the crime rate and the number of people incarcerated.

[Maik567]

@zagor It would, but that's the case with everything when you make something illegal.

[ShortCircuit]

Because most people are uncomfortable with the idea of a necessary evil. I don't believe abortion is morally acceptable in the majority of cases, but legally speaking, I am pro-choice for precisely the reasons you outlined. However, it is difficult being of that school of thought because I have no allies on either side. Pro-lifers blind themselves to the statistically observed reality, but pro-choicers embrace abortion with no moral objection, and only use the statistics you used as a pivoting point.

[Pummel]

Do Pro-Choice people realize that what most Pro-life people want (what the main focus is) is for their tax dollars not to go towards abortions?
Do pro-choice people realize how insane it is to actually murder your own species in the womb?

Do pro- choice people realize that an abortion is not a solution for a night of unprotected fun?

Do pro-choice people know the reason why PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS CONCEIVED? (no pun intended)
Answer = PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS STARTED BY A WRETCHED C**T named Margret Sanger, and the reason why she started was it was to... kill off the black people in the United States...
This is sick and evil on so many levels.. You can read Margret Sanger's manifesto online...

Now with BLM removing a lot of statues all over the country (good I could care less about statues) why is there a statue of MARGRET SANGER STILL STANDING IN NEW YORK CITY?
could it be that the government of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA funds PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

[no_ane]

I just think they are so full of anger and lack common sense and emphaty. Long stroy short: they are so obsessed with ther idea of *right* life that they'd kill for it.

[Freedom97]

Very true and prohibition does not work at all

[fjh80]

Seriously?
You're pro abortion, and your argument invokes the OTHER side killing?

Tell me honestly, when someone aborts, do you think that they're not snuffing out a life?

If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it wasn't a life being snuffed out, I'd be all for it too.
I don't know for sure one way or the other, so I wouldn't take the risk.

[fjh80]

Involves NOT invokes... stupid auto correct

[Poormanscomedian]

@fjh80 God said I knew you in the womb. Meaning it would know the name , what they end up doing for a living, the babies complete future , if the mother uses her free will to take that away by killing the child.

[Anonymous]

I think they are very selfish People who literally don’t care about any babies or respect woman. The People who are pro life are mainly conservative and trump want to pass a law banning same sex marriages which would cause thousands of children from finding a wonderful home and having food and an education. In reality they don’t care about these unborn babies at all they just listen to anything their president says and agrees to them. Like and 8 year old child was raped by her father and got pregnant and then she was denied an abortion and was forced to give birth. So when giving birth both the child and the unborn baby died, but they literally don’t give a shit.

[Anonymous]

That can be said for most (if not all) criminal activity. Just because making it illegal isn't going to stop people from doing it, doesn't mean we should make it legal.

Ladies, don't have sex with guys (who often just use a woman, as it says in the popular book: "Are Women the Stronger Sex") unless you're in a committed relationship.
Please don't drink alcohol or do drugs and then hang out with a guy because it often leads to sex (and you may not even think about STD's or whether he's wearing a condom)!

[Anonymous]

They probably know and don't care. That's the impression I get, they act all indigent about thinking it's murder but they don't blink an eye when they hear about kids and adults getting murdered that are already born. I've gotten to the point where I just have no respect of these people any more. They have no compassion for anyone who might be going through a tough time. I hope it remains legal in enough states but it won't help people who are poor, of people who live in areas where doctors might be afraid to help them in life saving situations. Some of the these so called don't even have any compassion for your girls, children or women who are raped, and those are unborn lives that were not supposed to be created in the first place, unless the think the rape was supposed to happen.

[Opinion Owner]

*young girls*

[djmzes]

It is simple as that
I have a question
Who are you to decide if that baby can live or die?
If you are allowed to make that decision
So a son is allowed to make the same decision for his parent.

what will you answer?
I will never agree with it, but if someone want to do, her problem.. that all

[rjroy3]

By this argument, Rape, Theft, murder and other heinous crimes should all be legal because it's not going to stop those crimes.

The purpose of laws are to get behind what we want to encourage and discourage as a society. The argument that having a law against it won't stop it so therefore we should do away with the law is just a silly argument.

[Freedom97]

We all know that making things like weed, guns, and prostitution illegal puts them in the hands of the criminals. Prohibition, never works

When we made alcohol illegal, we all know what happened

[no_ane]

But the argument that if you don't want an abortion you should have made a baby in the forst place is a good one. So it is ridiculous to ban an abortion, cause those who want to do it, will do it anyway now risking their own life along the way. Instead, they should have positive policies on sexual education and just learn boys to always use protection, and girl to say NO to sex without condom, cause afterwards if she gets pregnant, he will be the one saying it is a murder to abort a kid no one wanted and was ready for.

[zagor]

So forcing women to bear unwanted children is something we want to encourage in society?

[no_ane]

Oh God did you miss the whole thing I wrote? That what you wrote is being done by banning abortin as a legal, amd no one reasonable wants that. No, forcing men to stop making unwanted children in the forst place is something we want to encourage in society.

[fjh80]

FFS
Don't have sex if you don't want to have a baby!
at least use a rubber!
Abortion is NOT birth control!

[no_ane]

So does anyone around here actually read what other person said and think a bit or people just have this compulsion to write their own opinion even though they did not read let alone consider the points argued there? Just wear a condom if you don't want a baby, and if you don't and make one, it isn't your saying what a girl\woman does afterwards. Have a nice day.

[rjroy3]

I'm saying if you want to support your case you need to find a better argument, because while you sidestepped my argument it doesn't change the fact that "people will do it anyway" does not work. I never claimed there wouldn't be people who break the law and do it anyway. The point of the law is to keep the honest man honest and dissuade people who are on the fence.

[rjroy3]

@zagor sure. Let's go with that

[RolandCuthbert]

I think it is quite obvious that either;

1. They are ignorant and don't realize it.

2. They simply do not care.

Either way, it is the immovable object.

[Freedom97]

They are also very stupid lol

[fjh80]

Your Poll is fucked.
Every option make pro life people seem evil.

People who are pro life, are like that because they see abortion as killing an innocent and defenceless life.

That's it, there's nothing else to it.

The three options you give in your poll are messed up.

It's obvious that you're pro abortion.
You can have what ever view you like, but educate yourself before you try to villianize people who only want to protect life.

[Freedom97]

I am pro-choice because I like people making their own choices not the government

I do not trust the government

[Freedom97]

That's why we have guns

[fjh80]

You're making the issue about government.
It's about the little life inside. At least that's how I see it.
I don't know one way or the other.
Because I don't KNOW that it's not a life, I can't condone it's destruction.

I'm told that there is a vacuum involved and pulling piece by piece the little thing out.

[DrMeow]

kinda sad for the unwanted child to live under a house filled with people who never wanted them. Kid might grow up into a neglectful family. people only care about the child being born, not when they grow up in a possibly dangerous/sad environment. Not all pregnancies are happily made (e. g. forced, unplanned etc). Birth controls aren't 100% guarantee and why should the mother be forced to go through the struggles of pregnancy when she could just abort and later when she's ready give birth to life later.

[WintersDaughter]

With that logic, everything should be legal because it's gonna happen either way.

Guess we should make murder, rape, theft, and crime in general legal because making it illegal doesn't stop it.

Oh and, no gun control. Because people will get guns anyway, whether you like it or not.

Abortion kills an innocent child. Why would you want that to be legal?

[Whatever2929292]

But see then it is a crime... So I guess if she wants to end up in prison.

Or better yet why don't they keep their legs closed and you seem like a man even asking this retarded ass question keep your pants zipped. You only want abortion since you don't want to pay child support with all these women you are sleeping around with.

I bet they are all ugly too

[safemtpkit]

All women's right to choose what is well for them? Abortion is the aspect that women take once in their life. In some countries, they consider abortion an illegal procedure. But some countries legally permit and assist women in aborting the pregnancy with the proper method. Women are allowed to perform the process only under some circumstances, keeping concerned with the legal process. However, if a woman is conducting an abortion should consult a specialist to make a wise decision and proper guidelines to have an abortion.

[safemtpkit]

Research has found that most women choose to abort unwanted pregnancy with medicines. When aborting pregnancy with medical abortion, it is necessary to understand the process and order abortion pill online easily. Visit: safemtpkit. com to know more.

[Dujavi]

1. Abortion is legal in Romania as of 1990. But, yes you do have a point, I think the main problem was no access to contraceptives.
2. Contraception is obviously the preferred route and it's LEGAL.

For all you anti-gun people out there I think abortion is like shooting a loaded gun at someone by "accident." Because they didn't mean to have a baby. Does it make it okay? Your life is just as important as the next. We are not all meant to be judge, jury and executioner. Someone has to speak up for the babies, oh, I'm sorry "fetus." Because they can't speak for themselves until after they die, if you believe in ghosts or spirits or whatever you may call it.

[Poormanscomedian]

I guess if they have sex prepared to raise a baby , so make sure it is dynamite sex

[Julie_TS]

Uhhh... I'd really like to know the theory/ reasoning as to why you think making it illegal will actually cause more? That doesn't really make sense.
Are you saying that people will purposely go out, get pregnant and then get an abortion just because it's illegal?

[fjh80]

It's a BS argument.
It probably comes from a state like, "there would be more illegal abortions."

[Wheresthebooze]

There are actually a lot of home remedies to use to have natural abortion in early pregnancies.
1. extreme exercise
2. massage
3. laxatives
4. aspirin
5. sex
6. eat lots of these things: papaya, cinnamon, black cohosh, hot shower, sesame seeds with water and honey, pineapple juice, angelica sinensis and warm water, parsley and water, vitamin c, dried chamomile with hot water, banana pods and acacia pods, and penny royal

[Someguynamedbob]

It’s people who would rather restrict freedoms instead of thinking logically

[Freedom97]

Very true

They are also snowflakes