2006-08-02 23:53:44 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thank you your answer has been helpful
2006-08-03 00:22:54 · update #1
The ability to produced offspring does not mean the capability to provide care for the young life financially or moral well-being. If the person who realise this choose to terminate before a young life is ruined due to poverty or environmental conditions that is not conducive for raising a child, it 's should be regarded as the doing good deed, would you care for or could you care for all the children who are born to such circumstances, take on the role of parenting?
Nevertheless, we never know what's goin on in the mind of that particular pro-life candidate. It may be his way of consoling himself through financial gains if pro-life activites failed. The bottomline is at what stage is a life consider a life (consiousness).
2006-08-03 00:14:07 · answer #1 · answered by lucas l 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, what TD said. If you want to stop abortion, you've got to take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The Morning After pill does that.
As long as the antiabortionists oppose methods for preventing unwanted pregnancy, it's impossible to take seriously their claims to being "pro-life". They're simply out to put sexuality under religious control.
2006-08-03 07:01:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The morning after pill is not an abortion method. It prevents pregnancy, it does not end one. Therefore, it prevents abortion.
2006-08-03 06:58:58 · answer #3 · answered by First Lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋