Should abortion be illegal?

[tango]

Even if we want to push the concept of choice, assuming the woman consented to the sex that resulted in the pregnancy it doesn't seem so unreasonable that the man gets a say in the process as well, right?

At present we've got a situation where if the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does, too bad for him. If she wants it but he doesn't, too bad for him.

Obviously pregnancies resulting from rape become thorny but aside from that the simple reality is that consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Whatever the latest progressive/woke viewpoint is on gender equality the reality is that women are the ones who get pregnant and therefore have more to lose from casual sex.

 

[Lamb]

We are not speaking of babies. Is a fetus capable of making a choice?

Maybe the parents should wait then until the child can tell them if he/she would want to die?

 

[FredVB]

Choice is a ridiculous thing to promote, where any killing happens, as clearly there are some without any choice for that. There are always victims. And the lines drawn for who has rights, for living, as "persons", and who does not, is always arbitrary. It is from the fallen nature among us, not from the perfect will of God, provided for in the beginning with no killing, no suffering, and no death, at all.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

Personally, as someone who believes quality of life cannot be devoid of choice, especially as pertains to one's own womb, and being old enough to recall when abortion became legal in America, I think it should remain legal.
It is a choice to not have an abortion. It is also a choice to use birth control, which until the early part of the 20th century was also illegal.

I think the women who died when abortion was illegal, even when it was the only viable medical choice to save their life, is reason enough to make this elective procedure legally accessible.
I think time, energy and monies expended by those who are anti-abortion would be best served if they'd commit those resources to saving the lives that are born without a family to call their own. To adopt those who are shunted from foster home to foster home because while their mother chose to give birth to them, she chose also to give them up to a foster government agency. Those monies would serve quality of life more than using them to tell women they should be made by law to have no choice but to remain pregnant against their will, even if it kills them.

We've been there. It would be a travesty to all born women to think we must go back because it has been decided women should be stripped of their right to choose because their womb must be made to keep alive a zygote predetermined by law to have more rights than its mother.

 

[Josiah]

women should be stripped of their right to choose because their womb must be made to keep alive a zygote predetermined by law to have more rights than its mother.

The mother has the "right" to choose...... WHAT? Why do some insist on perpetuating a grammatical mistake in order to not say what they don't want to admit?


NO ONE believes a child has MORE rights than his/her mother.


The Pro-Life position is the Equal Rights position. The argument is that a human is a human and thus has human rights; no one is saying a child can kill his/her mother for any or no reason at all, the argument is that a mother (but not father) can - at least up to the second when the last cell of the toe exits the birth canal (although many Liberals think that needs to be extended for a least a few weeks after that). The pro-life position is for equal rights, not the absolute rights of some and the absolute repudiation of the rights of others, the right of the powerful to kill the less so. The pro-life position is the equal rights one.



.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

The mother has the "right" to choose...... WHAT? Why do some insist on perpetuating a grammatical mistake in order to not say what they don't want to admit?


NO ONE believes a child has MORE rights than his/her mother.


The Pro-Life position is the Equal Rights position. The argument is that a human is a human and thus has human rights; no one is saying a child can kill his/her mother for any or no reason at all, the argument is that a mother (but not father) can - at least up to the second when the last cell of the toe exits the birth canal (although many Liberals think that needs to be extended for a least a few weeks after that). The pro-life position is for equal rights, not the absolute rights of some and the absolute repudiation of the rights of others, the right of the powerful to kill the less so. The pro-life position is the equal rights one.



.

But that is not true at all. As a matter of fact and law, in America the fetus has no rights. Therefore equal rights is a non-sequitur. The American Convention on Human Rights of 1969,was signed by 24 Latin American countries and that did give a fetus rights. This is why on very rare occasions we read news from that region wherein a woman is slated to die while pregnant. Because the law forbids saving her life through abortion. And abortion that otherwise, would the law there allow, would be deemed a medical necessity.
It is untrue as to the platform of the PLP, that their position is one of equal rights, because if true, the PLP wouldn't insist abortion be made illegal.
Some who are extreme in their position, and redundant, even hypocritical when claiming their position reflects a respect for life, believe abortion, which in hospitals is also referred to as a DNC, should not be allowed even in cases of the rape and impregnation of a child, or if the woman's life is in danger.

In short, a woman's womb is no one elses business. The same people that insist a woman remain pregnant against her will, are the same people that when asked, as I have when encountering their rallies, answer; none, when I ask how many unwanted born babies they've adopted. One man even became irate enough to charge me as if wishing to do me harm for daring to ask that.

I think we should consider our beliefs have no right to enter another persons body. And we need perhaps to recall that at one time it was just as passionately advocated and sustained by law, that birth control itself be and remain against the law.

What then is the objective?

 

[Lazy Suesun]

The mother has the "right" to choose...... WHAT? Why do some insist on perpetuating a grammatical mistake in order to not say what they don't want to admit?


NO ONE believes a child has MORE rights than his/her mother.


The Pro-Life position is the Equal Rights position. The argument is that a human is a human and thus has human rights; no one is saying a child can kill his/her mother for any or no reason at all, the argument is that a mother (but not father) can - at least up to the second when the last cell of the toe exits the birth canal (although many Liberals think that needs to be extended for a least a few weeks after that). The pro-life position is for equal rights, not the absolute rights of some and the absolute repudiation of the rights of others, the right of the powerful to kill the less so. The pro-life position is the equal rights one.



.

But that is not true at all. As a matter of fact and law, in America the fetus has no rights. Therefore equal rights is a non-sequitur. The American Convention on Human Rights of 1969,was signed by 24 Latin American countries and that did give a fetus rights. This is why on very rare occasions we read news from that region wherein a woman is slated to die while pregnant. Because the law forbids saving her life through abortion. And abortion that otherwise, would the law there allow, would be deemed a medical necessity.
It is untrue as to the platform of the PLP, that their position is one of equal rights, because if true, the PLP wouldn't insist abortion be made illegal.
Some who are extreme in their position, and redundant, even hypocritical when claiming their position reflects a respect for life, believe abortion, which in hospitals is also referred to as a DNC, should not be allowed even in cases of the rape and impregnation of a child, or if the woman's life is in danger.

In short, a woman's womb is no one elses business. The same people that insist a woman remain pregnant against her will, are the same people that when asked, as I have when encountering their rallies, answer; none, when I ask how many unwanted born babies they've adopted. One man even became irate enough to charge me as if wishing to do me harm for daring to ask that.

I think we should consider our beliefs have no right to enter another persons body. And we need perhaps to recall that at one time it was just as passionately advocated and sustained by law, that birth control itself be and remain against the law.

What then is the objective?

 

[Josiah]

As a matter of fact and law, in America the fetus has no rights

Thus you confirm my point: The whole Pro-Choice point is UNEQUAL rights. It holds that some humans have NO rights, some have ALL rights. That's about as unequal as I can image. Worse than slavery, at least there the Black was considered TWO-THIRDS human and had the right to life, it was illegal to kill a slave (although this was not always enforced). The "pro-choice" argument (taken hook, line and sinker from the pro-choice point in the slavery debate) rests on the whole concept of UNEQUAL rights.

a woman's womb is no one elses business.

Old legal proverb: "Your right to swing your arm ends with my face." YES, absolutely, no debate, EVERYONE has the right over their own body. But here again, you want a total, absolute UNEQUAL situation: Adult women have this right, children don't.




- Josiah



.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

Thus you confirm my point:

That wasn't your point at all.

The whole Pro-Choice point is UNEQUAL rights. It holds that some humans have NO rights, some have ALL rights. That's about as unequal as I can image. Worse than slavery, at least there the Black was considered TWO-THIRDS human and had the right to life, it was illegal to kill a slave (although this was not always enforced). The "pro-choice" argument (taken hook, line and sinker from the pro-choice point in the slavery debate) rests on the whole concept of UNEQUAL rights.

I would submit your bias blinds you to the facts.
It isn't my duty to expend an effort to educate one who has already made up their mind that women have no rights. And while basing that argument on the premise of equal rights. Abortion in America is a matter of law.

Old legal proverb: "Your right to swing your arm ends with my face." YES, absolutely, no debate, EVERYONE has the right over their own body. But here again, you want a total, absolute UNEQUAL situation: Adult women have this right, children don't.

Absolutely off topic and immaterial to the discussion.
How many born unwanted children have you saved from foster care, Josiah?

 

[Josiah]

Lazy Suesun

. Abortion in America is a matter of law.

1. I disagree with your entire premise that if something is legal, ergo it is moral and good. By your "logic" slavery was a good and right thing 200 years ago because it was legal; by your "logic" the murder of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany was a good and moral thing because it was legal. I find your whole premise to be absurd.


2. And if the government declared it illegal, it would thus be illegal. Would you thus do a "180" and a complete reversal and declare that ergo abortion is therefore now immoral? Is morality nothing more or other than what a civil government happens to say is legal and illegal at that moment? Is that how morality works for you?

Absolutely off topic and immaterial to the discussion

No, it's EXACTLY to the point - you just must evade it.

You pointed to "EQUAL RIGHTS" by insisting the one murdered as no rights - an absolute and radical insistence on UNEQUAL rights.

Yes, a woman (and just as much a man) has the "right" to do with her OWN body what she wants (within reason.... suicide however is generally illegal), but may NOT do to ANOTHER'S body as they wish. This is why the legal proverb applies "Your right to swing your arm ENDS with my face." Just because the mother and father of this child have the right to shave the hair off their OWN heads does not mean ergo they can kill their child. "Your right to swing your arm ends with my face."

Now, if you can prove that the unborn child IS the mother - identical DNA - then you would have a point, but it would be a very weak one; by it you'd have to support the right of an identical twin to kill his/her sibling. Logically, you'd have to go there. But anyone who took Biology 101 knows that the unborn child is NEVER a clone of the mother or father, that cannot happen, so the child is NOT identical to the mother. And you could argue that the unborn child is dependent upon the mother (and no one would disagree) but I doubt you want to go there because that would make it moral to kill anyone fully dependent upon someone else (as is a person having surgery or many in the ICU of your local hospital) and of course, the child remains dependent for a long time - some 25 year olds are still dependent on Mom and/or Dad, LOL and thus morally you'd have argue it's moral to kill a 25 year old man still dependent on mom.



- Josiah


.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

Lazy Suesun





1. I disagree with your entire premise that if something is legal, ergo it is moral and good. By your "logic" slavery was a good and right thing 200 years ago because it was legal; by your "logic" the murder of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany was a good and moral thing because it was legal. I find your whole premise to be absurd.

Well, I'm female therefore your whole premise decrees I am without choice because I am with womb.
You lost your side of the debate the very moment you interjected the non-sequitur that is Godwin's Law.
Furthermore, for the record, since you brought up the other non-sequitur, slavery, slavery was introduced into America by Christian's in government and due to scripture supporting the measure. Lastly, slaves were sold to traders by African tribal leaders who found they could profit selling their tribal war POW's, rather than slaughtering them per usual.
Of all the slaves transported from the continent of Africa to the America's, the United States as we refer to ourselves today, acquired but 4%. The balance of enslaved peoples were acquired by south and central America. The foremost purchaser being Brazil.
And as a side note, it was a Republican government that sought not only to free the slaves in America, but after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, it was a Republican led Congress that amended the U.S. Constitution via the introduction of the 14th amendment in order to insure the freed would also be equal. Prior to this a Democratic government not only drafted slave articles, but after their emancipation, sought to enslave them again through measures like the Jim Crow laws.
About the only bridge between the topic of slavery and abortion in this matter is, a people were made slaves due to the color of their skin, some thinking that representative of the mark of Cain. While women are thought to be enslaved to being incubators of male sperm against their will, and by law, due to their sex and the fact they have a womb.

One cannot denigrate slavery of a race and champion slavery of a sex. The very idea of equal rights in that pursuit is irrational and indefensible. And while expressing contempt for the law in this matter, you may wish to reflect upon the absolute fact that your position is one that would have to be secured by law.
Something that is only respected when it obtains the objective of the extremist I guess.

2.

And if the government declared it illegal, it would thus be illegal. Would you thus do a "180" and a complete reversal and declare that ergo abortion is therefore now immoral? Is morality nothing more or other than what a civil government happens to say is legal and illegal at that moment? Is that how morality works for you?

You're too young to remember that at one time in America and prior to Roe V. Wade.
At the early part of the 20th century even birth control was illegal.

No, it's EXACTLY to the point - you just must evade it.

You pointed to "EQUAL RIGHTS" by insisting the one murdered as no rights - an absolute and radical insistence on UNEQUAL rights.

Yes, a woman (and just as much a man) has the "right" to do with her OWN body what she wants (within reason.... suicide however is generally illegal), but may NOT do to ANOTHER'S body as they wish. This is why the legal proverb applies "Your right to swing your arm ENDS with my face." Just because the mother and father of this child have the right to shave the hair off their OWN heads does not mean ergo they can kill their child. "Your right to swing your arm ends with my face."

Now, if you can prove that the unborn child IS the mother - identical DNA - then you would have a point, but it would be a very weak one; by it you'd have to support the right of an identical twin to kill his/her sibling. Logically, you'd have to go there. But anyone who took Biology 101 knows that the unborn child is NEVER a clone of the mother or father, that cannot happen, so the child is NOT identical to the mother. And you could argue that the unborn child is dependent upon the mother (and no one would disagree) but I doubt you want to go there because that would make it moral to kill anyone fully dependent upon someone else (as is a person having surgery or many in the ICU of your local hospital) and of course, the child remains dependent for a long time - some 25 year olds are still dependent on Mom and/or Dad, LOL and thus morally you'd have argue it's moral to kill a 25 year old man still dependent on mom.



- Josiah

Now you're becoming inflammatory and abusive after being irrational and resorting to non-sequitur and Godwin's Law.
I won't participate in that atmosphere.

That you did not answer the question I posed about born unwanted children is an answer. The law is.
Countless women died when the law was what it was prior to Roe v. Wade. Women who's life depended on terminating an abortion in south and central American countries where anti-abortion laws are so extreme not even to save a woman's life gives lapse to the law so as to perform the procedure. There are those who insist even a child raped by a relative and impregnated at 9 years of age must have the baby no matter what. And those types are in this country. Even an elected official, a fool on the record, in defense of that obscene objective declared women who are raped are not able to become pregnant! Any excuse to revoke a woman's personal privacy.

Those who insist we must go back to the days when women had no choice, even in a medical emergency, but would instead have to die rather than have an abortion, aren't pro-life. They're pro-sperm.

 

[Josiah]

Well, I'm female therefore your whole premise decrees I am without choice because I am with womb.

No, obviously I'm NOT saying that as anyone who has read my posts understands.


I AM favor of equal rights, NOT exclusive rights for some and absolutely none for others. I'm okay with someone getting their ears pieced (their body) but not killing someone (not their body). "My right to swing my arm ends with your face."


Okay, you are a female. And yeah, that likely means you have a womb. I never remotely denied either of those points.


I never remotely said ANYONE should be denied human rights, that's your position (and it's absolute - even over the right to be, to exist, to live; the right without which no other matters at all).


You seem to fail to note that I'm the one arguing for EQUAL rights here, you are the one fighting for absolute UNEQUAL rights. You are the one parroting the slogan of the pro-slavery folks during the days of slavery, I'm not.

you may wish to reflect upon the absolute fact that your position is one that would have to be secured by law.

No. I don't agree with you that morality is simply whatever happens to be legal in a given place and time. So, IMO, whether a secular state (such ad Germany in 1939) allows something does NOT ergo mean that is moral, good and right. What is legal is irrelevant to me as to what is moral. We seem to disagree on that.






.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

As I said, you're all over the place. Unable to stay on topic and bringing in non-sequitur's , especially the violation that is Godwin's Law, and insisting on ignoring the one question that would make at least a foundational argument of being pro-life somewhat credible; how many born unwanted children have you adopted.
Refusing that answer is the answer. None!

Further, and lastly, it is not advocacy for equal rights that you're espousing. Never has been. The reason that is so is because you believe a woman has no right to choose whether or not she will remain pregnant. That is your absolute. The idea that a ovum, zygote, a fetus, a baby, all the stages of in utero development of a human being, need have or does have "equal rights" to that of a born person, is indefensible to the prior contention you've made about "equal rights".

Though that effort, equal rights at conception, was tried years ago in Georgia Legislature. Thank God it failed. Otherwise, a woman, as the bill intended by its language, would be investigated by police after having a miscarriage. The idea being, as you well know, when giving an ovum equal rights in utero, that in itself precludes a woman's right to choose. Again, the equal rights factor is null and void then.

The ovum having rights would mean abortion , even spontaneous abortion, would be illegal, or suspect, in the case of miscarriage. Hence the Georgia law that proposed in its language investigation of any woman suffering a miscarriage. The idea being said woman was, a violation of
jurisprudence, which is another reason why the GA law failed to pass into law, guilty of having an illegal abortion when miscarrying. The investigative end would then decide upon her guilt being prosecutable, being she was presumed guilty of having an abortion first. Or her innocence due to her body miscarrying, which is known as a spontaneous abortion.

You may couch your argument in any guise you wish however, what you are clearly saying amid all the chaos of your language is, women must remain pregnant no matter what. Which also is the argument platform related to, women have no other choice.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

And for the record, in America there is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing women equal rights!

That is why your argument failed from the beginning in this particular topic under discussion.

Ratification By State — Equal Rights Amendment

www.equalrightsamendment.org

 

[tango]

As I said, you're all over the place. Unable to stay on topic and bringing in non-sequitur's , especially the violation that is Godwin's Law, and insisting on ignoring the one question that would make at least a foundational argument of being pro-life somewhat credible; how many born unwanted children have you adopted.
Refusing that answer is the answer. None!

Not adopting a child from foster care is an irrelevance if ever there was one, and your complaint about Godwin's Law merely indicates you are unhappy with the point being made. It's not difficult to come up with multiple other examples of things that were legal at the time but considered immoral at best now. If you dislike the use of Hitler as an example pick another. Maybe Stalin, or slavery, or throwing Christians to the lions in the days of Daniel, or the Chinese rounding up Uighur Muslims and sending them off to who-knows-where, or the use of chemical weapons prior to the ratification of the Geneva Convention or, well, I'm sure you can find as many as you want really.

But if the notion of adopting kids from foster care is such a sticking point for you, let's go there. I'm broadly opposed to abortion and my wife and I are in the process of trying to find a match so that we can do exactly that. It's not a trivial process. The process of getting approved is long and drawn out, involves extensive training and can involve significant costs. If you want to adopt an infant you can be looking at costs running to $30,000 and maybe more. If you're willing to adopt an older child from the foster care system the costs will still run to several thousand although in some states much of the cost may be covered by the state depending on your openness to adopting children with specific characteristics (i.e. the ones that are especially hard to place). If you have a criminal record the chances are you won't be approved and the rules for raising foster children (which the child will be, pending finalization of the adoption) are much stricter than raising a biological child. Because we are willing to take on a "hard to place" child our up-front costs have been largely covered by the state although we have yet to experience the costs of pre-placement interviews and visits (this is where you travel, at your own expense, for a number of visits of increasing length with the child prior to them being placed in your home but with no guarantee that the placement will actually occur or that the placement will result in adoption). Just to make it more interesting the way the process works these days increasingly involves dual objectives so a pre-adoptive family may find, after a child has been living with them for many months, that parental rights are not terminated and a court rules that the child is to be given back to their biological family. For good measure they may still have to travel, at their expense, to allow the child to continue visitation with their birth family pending a court decision as to the child's future.

So it's really rather silly to argue that "I didn't adopt a foster child" automatically translates into "I don't get to disapprove of abortion".

Further, and lastly, it is not advocacy for equal rights that you're espousing. Never has been. The reason that is so is because you believe a woman has no right to choose whether or not she will remain pregnant. That is your absolute. The idea that a ovum, zygote, a fetus, a baby, all the stages of in utero development of a human being, need have or does have "equal rights" to that of a born person, is indefensible to the prior contention you've made about "equal rights".

The question ultimately comes back to the point at which that thing in the womb becomes a human. Unless there's some genetic development part way through pregnancy that has escaped me then that thing in the womb, genetically speaking, is a human from the point of conception.

As to the matter of the woman "choosing whether she will remain pregnant", this is a rather silly objection. I'm sure you already know this but the reality is that sex makes babies and the woman is the one who gets pregnant. So if the woman consents to sex she consents to a baby-making process even if she is hoping that no babies are actually made. You don't get to consent to an activity with known consequences and then claim you don't consent to the consequences. You know, rights and responsibilities. You have the right to have sex with any consenting adult partner you choose and you have the responsibility to live with the consequences.

Where a pregnancy occurs as a result of rape the issue arguably becomes thornier (hence my earlier comment about being broadly opposed, as opposed to absolutely opposed).

You may couch your argument in any guise you wish however, what you are clearly saying amid all the chaos of your language is, women must remain pregnant no matter what. Which also is the argument platform related to, women have no other choice.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but women could always try keeping their legs together if they don't want to get pregnant. The word "no" is a remarkably effective contraceptive. I'd have thought Christians would be supportive of fewer unmarried people having sex.

To be clear, I also think it's pathetic when men get their partners pregnant and refuse to take responsibility for the results. That said, the basics of biology mean that the father can walk away (and, indeed, the father may not even know of a pregnancy if a dalliance is particularly short-lived) while the mother cannot. We might whine and moan and "be woke" claiming how unfair it all is but it's reality. It's really unfair that my friend's 14-year-old faces a load of distressing and invasive medical procedures while his friends get to be normal kids but that's the reality of it - moaning about it doesn't change anything at all.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

Not adopting a child from foster care is an irrelevance if ever there was one,

Yes, I knew your answer that you avoided for so long was, no.
What you don't appear to understand is, when you argue against abortion and claim to be pro-life, you fail in that regard when you make the statement above that you did about adopting born life. That one whose mother chose to give them life and also chose not to raise them up.
Being proactive for the life of the unborn, but not for the born homeless, is abomination.



[quoe]and your complaint about Godwin's Law merely indicates you are unhappy with the point being made ...[/quote] Orrrrr, realizing someone who interjects slavery and Hitler into this discussion are sidetracking to off topic issues because they realize, consciously or subconsciously, they have no actual foundation of merit upon which to remain on the topic of a woman's right to reproductive privacy.

Thanks.

 

[Josiah]

Maybe the parents should wait then until the child can tell them if he/she would want to die?

.

THAT would be the real "pro-choice" position. But the pro-choice argument was invented by slave owners in the South, and the absurd flaw in it was noted even then, "pro-choice" simply eliminates all choice from the one impacted by it! When the pro-abortion folks adopted the slogan (hook, line and sinker) they simply embraced the same silly, absurd flaw: the one killed has NO CHOICE, it's ANTI-CHOICE! Similar, it would note that the woman raped has no choice and would call this "pro-choice."




.

 

[Josiah]

woman's right to reproductive privacy.

You INSIST on evading the whole issue and trying (desperately) to change the subject. You seem to NEED to evade the issue and divert the discussion.


AGAIN, yet again, still one more time, NO ONE ON THE PLANET (with the possible exception of the Catholic Pope) gives a rip what any woman does in terms contraception. Yep, take the pill? Yep, that's a matter of privacy that no one objects to, yup that only impacts the woman. Want to force a man to use a condom? Even there, that's a matter of privacy of two people that no one objects to, as long as the man chooses that, it only impacts the body of the man. If you want to discuss contraception or sexual behaviors with self or with another CONSENTING person, that's find and that's private but that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether ONE human has ABSOLUTE power and human rights over another (even to kill an innocent, defenseless child), if it's good to have absolute UNEQUAL rights (all rights to some, no rights others) similar (but more extreme) than we had in the days of slavery, OR if EQUAL rights should prevail. All lives matter (not just adult females).... all human rights matter (not just those of the powerful).



Legal proverb: "Your right to swing your arm ends with my face." YES, YES, a thousand times YES, you have the right to swing your arm. But that right ends with my face. YOU have rights over your body, the child has rights over hers. The unborn child should not be allowed to kill her mother. It's how EQUAL rights work. I reject your extreme, radical, absolute embrace of unequal rights. If a woman wants to masturbate in private, that's her "right" and if she does so privately, it's private. I agree. If she wants to do so to her son, she does NOT have that right. Done privately or otherwise. Your right to swing your arm ends with my face. This seems to be a fundamental aspect of civilization that alludes you.



.

 

[tango]

Yes, I knew your answer that you avoided for so long was, no.
What you don't appear to understand is, when you argue against abortion and claim to be pro-life, you fail in that regard when you make the statement above that you did about adopting born life. That one whose mother chose to give them life and also chose not to raise them up.
Being proactive for the life of the unborn, but not for the born homeless, is abomination.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Aside from noting that my wife and I are in the process of trying to adopt exactly one of the children you describe (which you appear to overlook in what I can only imagine is a rush to assume that people who oppose abortion don't care about children), it's not a trivial process to adopt even for those who are notionally able to adopt. It's not as if you can go into your local Wal-Mart and take your pick of a bunch of kids whose biological families don't want them and take them home the same day.

I personally know multiple couples who would dearly love to adopt a child who would otherwise be unlikely to have a secure future but for various reasons cannot get approved. Do they get to have an opinion that contradicts yours as well?

and your complaint about Godwin's Law merely indicates you are unhappy with the point being made ...

Orrrrr, realizing someone who interjects slavery and Hitler into this discussion are sidetracking to off topic issues because they realize, consciously or subconsciously, they have no actual foundation of merit upon which to remain on the topic of a woman's right to reproductive privacy.

Thanks.

Ah yes, because women can reproduce asexually and it's nothing to do with anyone else. Is that it? Or do you simply dislike the thought that the thing growing in the womb is genetically as human as you or I? But hey, if a woman has the absolute right to choose why should that right stop at birth? You know, kids get really troublesome - the "terrible twos" got that name for a reason, so why is it anyone else's business if mum wants to just get rid of the kids?

If you took the time to read the arguments you'd see that the point being made wasn't about some "right to privacy", the point is about legality and morality not necessarily being one and the same. Something can be legal without being moral and something can be moral without being legal. Honestly, if you can't grasp that basic concept there's little point continuing a discussion on anything more substantial.