GREAT question. Here's another that I think even better exposes the inconsistent logic in the pro choice camp.
A few years ago a man was arrested, charged, and convicted for taking sea turtle eggs from a nest on the beach and destroying them. The point he made in his defense was that the courts have ruled that abortion is not illegal because technically human life does not begin at conception. The turtle eggs had gone through conception but had not resulted in "birth". Therefore, he had done nothing illegal. The courts ruled against the argument.
It appears some in our society place greater value on the life of an unborn turtle than on the life of an unborn human.
I believe this exposes the true motivation of the pro choice camp. It is not about the life of the unborn, it's all about me. If allowing a birth inconveniences ME then MY rights must be protected. If allowing a birth (sea turtles) does not inconvenience ME then the sea turtles rights must be protected.
It's all about accepting responsibility for ones actions. Unfortunately man has found a quick and simple way to absolve ourselves of responsibility for a life which the woman DECIDED to create by her lack of responsibility. (Not talkin about rape OK? for all those who are gonna jump on that point)
2006-10-07 05:31:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by yagman 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Who said they were? Is there a viable study that shows this? I suppose we could turn that around and say, "Why are all pro-life people submissive women and insecure men?" or "Why are all pro-life people concerned about some living cells instead of living people who have already been born?"
I'm sure neither of those statements are true either. Pro choice has nothing to do with not being concerned with life. It has to do with each woman having control of her own body, having the right to make her own decisions, and not being forced to carry a child she doesn't want. I believe in "wanted" children. I'm pro-choice, but I personally would never have an abortion because it goes against my personal beliefs and I want kids. At the same time, what I do with *my* body is none of you, or anyone else's, business. I think every woman has that right. If having an abortion is against God(s), let those women take it up with him when they die. It's not you or anyone else's place to judge. :)
2006-10-07 12:22:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by swordarkeereon 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
abortion is a medical procedure seeked out by women for various reasons,a woman doesn't wake up pregnant and say "hey i feel like an abortion today"......you must be a man,i say this because of the way you worded your question,and if your a woman then you should know better then to ask such a stupid question.abortion is not performed enough,that's evident from the horror stories of child abuse,newborns being left in toilets and garbage cans,newborn neglect that results in death,if i were a newborn id much rather be aborted rather than left somewhere,waiting to endure the horrors of foster homes.
you should really look past the abortion its self and realize its needed alot more in some cases,children should not be born to women who have no intention of giving it what it deserves,a decent start to a decent life.
it would be a perfect world if it was that easy,you must be a man,you just dont get it and you never will,ABORTION IS NOT ABOUT SELFISHNESS
2006-10-07 12:33:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by jen 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
exactly!! If a woman is not having a baby then she is NOT pregnant!. How can Christians depend on our Lord Jesus who gave up his body so that they may have life not do the same for a defenseless baby? People who believe that it is o.k. to abort a child are being deceived either by their own selfishness or shame (Killing the evidence of a sin of lust) or the rantings of people who do not know or love God.
2006-10-07 12:29:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Midge 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
because adoption agencies are full, foster homes are like jailhouses and stupid breeders keep dropping litters in every corner of the globe--Get a brain--children are not an endangered resource or species, in fact there really should be some regulations placed on producing them
2006-10-07 13:10:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
PRACTICALITY I SUPPOSE
1960 3 billion babies
2000 6 billion babies
2040 9 billion babies
--------------------------
1960 650 billion trees
2000 300 billion trees
2040 100 billion trees
As Dr. Watson would say : ELEMENTARY
MY DEAR .....
2006-10-07 12:21:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Moonlite gambler 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
They think that humans have been destructive to the trees and animals, and there are already too many humans coming into the world.
2006-10-07 12:19:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by TarKettle 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
I don't think being pro chioce has anything to do with saving trees. I think that being pro choice means helping to ensure that the children that ARE born are wanted and cherished.
2006-10-07 12:18:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
there are plenty of more important issues in the world right now. you fundie b@$t@rds trying to take my rights away, global warming, taxes, the waste of money we call the Iraq war,...
2006-10-07 12:39:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sparkiplasma 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
If you cut the number of babys born in half, we would survive. If you cut the number of trees in half, we might not. Abortion would not be needed if idiots out there learned to use condoms.
2006-10-07 12:18:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Arcturus R 3
·
6⤊
3⤋