How to talk to pro-choicers?

[Gustogus]

Is "viable" life a separate category? From what I understand, the question isn't "viable" life... it's what is LIFE. Pro-lifers aren't interested at what point baby can make a break for it, they want to protect baby at the very point baby becomes "Baby." Even what constitutes viable life is under debate- babies are surviving at younger and younger gestational ages outside of the mother. Even before the third trimester, babies are dreaming, seeing, hearing... the heart has been beating since about 5 weeks... It is a VERY tough subject. But I can only speak from experience... when my ER doc tried to tell me that my baby was "nothing but a ball of cells and could stay or go", I was pissed. Her heart was beating. She was alive. To dismiss her as less than such was an insult.

I truly do understand the Pro-Life argument. I was Pro-Life for years, but upon following it to its logical conclusion I did ultimately come right up against womens rights.

Like I said, If we're going to bestow "personhood" on the unborn, that neccessitates the full weight of the state protecting that child with all the power it would use to protect a 2 year old.

That means pregnant women become wards of the state until that child is born.

Unless you think its ok for pregnant women to get drunk, smoke a pack of cigarettes and deliver babies with severe mental problems.

Like it or not Mothers and the unborn are linked. They are not "Seperate entities", if you value the welfare of the unborn, then you have to value a limitation on the freedoms of the mother. Otherwise your simply placing a value on some ideal of "life" other then the reality that this "Life" could be irrevocably harmed due to the actions of an irresponsible mother.

Its a very sticky situation, up until the 3rd trimester I'm comfortable with erring on the side of the mother and personal freedom... I admit its a compromise...but its the best I can come up with.

 

[aravoth]

I truly do understand the Pro-Life argument. I was Pro-Life for years, but upon following it to its logical conclusion I did ultimately come right up against womens rights.

Like I said, If we're going to bestow "personhood" on the unborn, that neccessitates the full weight of the state protecting that child with all the power it would use to protect a 2 year old.

That means pregnant women become wards of the state until that child is born.

Unless you think its ok for pregnant women to get drunk, smoke a pack of cigarettes and deliver babies with severe mental problems.

Like it or not Mothers and the unborn are linked. They are not "Seperate entities", if you value the welfare of the unborn, then you have to value a limitation on the freedoms of the mother. Otherwise your simply placing a value on some ideal of "life" other then the reality that this "Life" could be irrevocably harmed due to the actions of an irresponsible mother.

Its a very sticky situation, up until the 3rd trimester I'm comfortable with erring on the side of the mother and personal freedom... I admit its a compromise...but its the best I can come up with.

Then let them drink , smoke and do whatever they want when they are pregnant. As long as they get no handouts from anyone. They can bare the full weight of their idiotic mentality. I refuse to pay for a public abortion, and I refuse to pay for a child whose stupid ass mother couldn't figure out that smoking a pack a day and drinking her ass off was a bad thing to do.

Freedom means dealing with the mistakes you had the freedom to make. It also means that it is none of my business. Personal views aside I cannot force my opinion legally in on anyone. Likewise, no one can force their mistakes on mine.

I am not responsible for other people's lot in life, nor are they responsible for mine. I would never pay to support them, and I would never ask to be supported by them.

 

[Azurite]

I truly do understand the Pro-Life argument. I was Pro-Life for years, but upon following it to its logical conclusion I did ultimately come right up against womens rights.

Like I said, If we're going to bestow "personhood" on the unborn, that neccessitates the full weight of the state protecting that child with all the power it would use to protect a 2 year old.

That means pregnant women become wards of the state until that child is born.

Unless you think its ok for pregnant women to get drunk, smoke a pack of cigarettes and deliver babies with severe mental problems.

Like it or not Mothers and the unborn are linked. They are not "Seperate entities", if you value the welfare of the unborn, then you have to value a limitation on the freedoms of the mother. Otherwise your simply placing a value on some ideal of "life" other then the reality that this "Life" could be irrevocably harmed due to the actions of an irresponsible mother.

Its a very sticky situation, up until the 3rd trimester I'm comfortable with erring on the side of the mother and personal freedom... I admit its a compromise...but its the best I can come up with.

But I thought the argument was about what to tell Pro-choicers? Whether or not we believe life begins at conception or birth, there are people out there that believe it is within the law (and apparently conscience) to end a life at their will. You are right about the influence mother has on baby. It is scary, but it is a fact. But not all mothers smoke, drink, or do drugs. So does there come a point where you have a governmentally appointed person to decide which one can live? "Oh, you smoke? Ok, we can kill your baby." "What... you had a few beers during the first two months? Oh... your baby will just be all wrong so it's OK if we kill it." It doesn't work that way. And I have no idea WHAT the happy medium is, but I would rather leave it to the states, live in one that says no, and go about my business. As to the OP- emphasize that it is NOT the government's right to decide what you should do. If your state's elected disagree with you, fight with all you've got to change it. You can only go with what you believe is right and true and fight for it. That's what this country stands for. Keep it that way.

 

[Ricochet]

Thanks to Punks4RonPaul for this info:

A good assessment of Ron Paul’s positions on abortion on this blog:

http://thereconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com/2007_07_22_archive.html

An excerpt from: A DEFENSE OF RON PAUL'S VOTING RECORD:
IN HIS OWN WORDS
By Bryan John Dini

-abortion: Paul challenges us to reconsider our fundamentals on this one, and argues that a pro-life libertarian is not a contradiction in terms. In fact he argues that the pro-life position is consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle and reaffirms the essential connection between life and liberty, in that you cannot defend the one without the other. Remember, libertarians do not believe violent and/or aggressive force is authorized except in the case of imminent personal and/or national defense. For this reason, Paul made an exception to ab*rtion *if* it will protect the life of the mother, which he admits is a very rare case indeed. This also extends to his opposition to the death penalty (which is again, "pro-life") and his belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned not only because he believes all social issues like this should be left to the individual states that are closer to the needs of the various communities, but also because it allows for the slippery slope possibility of including human life in the "natural" sphere along with animals and vegetation, making way for eugenics-type programs, patents on sections of the human genome, and more genetically modified organisms. This is why he also backed legislation that would deem "life to begin at conception." Of course, the states would still have final jurisdiction over how this "life" is to be treated and prosecuted in court, but Paul believes it is an essential step forward in defining the issue, as the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect life and liberty above all else. This duty immediately trumps dubious privacy and property issues, which he spells out below. If you think the debate is over as to *where* life begins, you are mistaken. Ask any bio-ethicist.

Ron Paul’s own words on the subject can be found in this:

Interview with the San Francisco Chronicle Board of Editors

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=18533

(he also cites, in this interview, two of his heroes in the great non-violence tradition, Martin Luther King & Gandhi )

Q: Does your view of a limited role of government also apply to social issues like choice on ab*rtion or on same sex marriage?

A: On personal associations, all of them, they’re legal, but neither can they be prohibited nor can those who have personal relationships use their relationships to force them on me or on the taxpayer, which means that same sex marriage they can do whatever they want so long as they’re not hurting people, you know, voluntary consent but when it comes to abortion the issue isn’t so much freedom of choice the issue is whether there’s a life involved. If there’s a life involved you have to protect the life of all individuals and that becomes more difficult and more complicated – the more difficult and more complicated the issue the more local it should be – so I want to denationalize it, I don’t think the courts should rule on it, I don’t think the federal government should rule on it. They shouldn’t take – if you’re for abortion, she’s not, I’m allowed to take your money (if you’re against it) and allow abortions to occur, that’s so offensive and I as a physician and one who has tried to understand the legal status of the fetus, it’s very legal, it’s alive, it’s human, has legal rights, it has inheritance rights. If you accidentally injure the fetus you’re liable, if somebody in a violent act kills it your taken to court for a violent act, even murder in some states, so we can’t ignore that. It’s not just simply a privacy issue, because if it were strictly a privacy issue, our homes are our castles and should be absolutely private, if you say its only a privacy issue you’ve actually legalized infanticide (garbled)...

This thing has become such a difficult issue for so many because now I can get paid for doing the abortion on a 3, or a 4, or a 5 lb. infant and get paid for it but the babies born, the girl throws it away we arrest her what’s the difference between the value of that life one minute before birth and one minute after birth. I think legally we have to resolve that and there will be times – first I don’t want the federal government involved - and there are certainly times in very, very early pregnancy where the definition of pregnancy is un-definable. Even though I’m strong right-to-life I recognize that [if] you can’t define it medically or legally how can you make a crime out of it? So let’s say, the ‘day after pill’ and things that’s getting overly burdened with details that confuse the issues more and I’m sure the people who think of abortion as wonderful and perfect as an absolute right don’t think about seeing a five pound baby extracted and [then] allowed to die. I don’t think they want that, yet they’ve sort of endorsed it, so I think we have a ways to go in discussing that issue and I think that our system offers the solution, which will never be perfect and that is the same way as marijuana: let the states sort it out, not have a federal government and a federal court come in and say: you cannot do this or: you will subsidize this. Government should be more neutral in most of these of things.


National Public Radio
All Things Considered, July 25, 2007

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12224561

Q: Abortion. Should it be maintained as legal by a supreme court ruling of the United States or is it a proper matter for the states?

A: No. I don’t think the supreme court should be involved because the more difficult the problem the more local it should be. We don’t have to authority for our federal government or our supreme court to deal with the issue of punishment for violence and we have all kinds of charges for violence murder first degree second degree third degree manslaughter and the states sort these things out and courts sort them out and judges and juries on what should be a criminal act and so I think under the intent of the Constitution it was never meant that we should pick out one area, which is considered by many as an act of violence and treat that differently on all the other acts of violence


See also, this excellent point:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916

Abortion: Yes, Paul thinks abortion is murder but there is a difference between taking a so-called "morning after pill" and a person committing "the horrible murder when you see someone lying in the floor and someone takes a gun and puts it to their head. I don't equate those and don't expect the law or juries to treat them exactly alike."


Here is an excellent article written by a pro-choice female:
Understanding Ron Paul’s Stance on Abortion
http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/understanding-ron-pauls-stance-..ion

I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. I am also pro-choice whereas he holds strong pro-life views, yet I agree with him completely on abortion. Confused yet? Read on–this is the exact misunderstanding of abortion that I want to eradicate–you can be pro-choice and against the terms of Roe v. Wade. How? Because Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, and Ron Paul recognizes this without a pro-life bias as I do without a pro-choice predisposition of my own.

 

[Gustogus]

I don't really care if "legalities" get in the way of a pregant women wanting to down a 1/5th of whiskey. Someone has got to speak for the kid in her belly that can't speak for himself.

Ok, now follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion..

I take it you are advocating for the rights of the unborn to be born whole and healthy and protected.

We know, thanks to science, that the point in which the unborn are most susceptible to FASD is in the first few weeks - month of pregnancy.

Its at that point that alcohol can have the largest negative impact (mental retardation, learning disabilities, physical disabilities)

The only way to prevent this sort of damage would be to establish alcohol prohibiton for all sexually active women. I mean we don't allow drinking and driving because of the harm you may cause another person, why should drinking and sex be any different if it can have just as traumatic an impact...

"well thats silly", yeah..well...how else are you going to stop women who don't want to be pregnant from poisoning there own kids?... remember we're talking about the good of the children here.

Now look, I'm not saying this is what pro-lifers are proposing, I'm just saying this is the logical conclusion drawn from a doctrine that instills the unborn with all the rights and priveleges of the born.

 

[Gustogus]

But I thought the argument was about what to tell Pro-choicers? Whether or not we believe life begins at conception or birth, there are people out there that believe it is within the law (and apparently conscience) to end a life at their will. You are right about the influence mother has on baby. It is scary, but it is a fact. But not all mothers smoke, drink, or do drugs. So does there come a point where you have a governmentally appointed person to decide which one can live? "Oh, you smoke? Ok, we can kill your baby." "What... you had a few beers during the first two months? Oh... your baby will just be all wrong so it's OK if we kill it." It doesn't work that way. And I have no idea WHAT the happy medium is, but I would rather leave it to the states, live in one that says no, and go about my business. As to the OP- emphasize that it is NOT the government's right to decide what you should do. If your state's elected disagree with you, fight with all you've got to change it. You can only go with what you believe is right and true and fight for it. That's what this country stands for. Keep it that way.

Oh, I completely agree on the states rights issue.
I was just pointing out a Pro-choice point of view. It was more to pass the time and have a nice discussion then actually try and change any minds ore speak to the OP topic..

 

[jesse27]

I think they should petition their goverenor on the issue.

 

[misericordia]

I'd say to a pro-choicer, that I was one once too, but that much like ROE, after
my abortion I came to understand very quickly that I made the wrong choice, and have been eaten up by guilt ever since.

There are more than 13,000,000 women in america who have had this experience.

http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/

 

[affa]

What I've learned from this thread:

If confronted with someone who is pro-choice, please follow these instructions:

If pro-life, tell them Dr. Paul thinks the federal gov't has no business deciding one way or another - if we grant them the power to decide it's legal, we are thereby granting them them ability to criminalize it in the future. Tell them that's why it's none of the gov'ts business. Period. Maybe add in that he's 72 and has helped birth over 4,000 babies which may help explain why he is pro-life. Then DROP IT. Immediately. Even if it means politely opting out of the conversation and walking away. Maybe they'll meet some other Ron Paul supporter who can follow the next set of instructions. Because odds are, if you keep talking, we'll lose them.

If you're pro-choice, talk them through it. You already know how, because YOU have come to respect Dr. Paul despite disagreeing with him on this issue.

Seriously, some of you with your "legs up in the air" rhetoric will only create enemies, not compatriots.

Don't use the message of Dr. Paul to push pro-life views. This is about getting the good doctor the PRESIDENCY, not getting people riled up.

Put it this way - I'm vegan. Would you find it effective if I pushed slaughterhouse leaflets on you, trying to convert you to veganism while simultaneously telling you to vote Kucinich? HELL NO. That's not how people change their views. Sadly, it's as ludicrous as some of the ideas I've seen in this thread.

 

[goldismoney]

You could just as easily say pro-choice is anti-baby.

Abortion is obviously not an issue that people are going to agree on anytime soon. Letting the states decide is the fair and constitutional thing to do, so if people ask that should be the answer. And frankly if someone doesn't agree with that, they don't care much about the constitution and aren't going to vote for Dr. Paul anyway, so we shouldn't waste our time on them.

+1

 

[Azurite]

Oh, I completely agree on the states rights issue.
I was just pointing out a Pro-choice point of view. It was more to pass the time and have a nice discussion then actually try and change any minds ore speak to the OP topic..

LOL! Abortion is NEVER a "nice discussion!"

 

[Fields]

You could just as easily say pro-choice is anti-baby.

Abortion is obviously not an issue that people are going to agree on anytime soon. Letting the states decide is the fair and constitutional thing to do, so if people ask that should be the answer. And frankly if someone doesn't agree with that, they don't care much about the constitution and aren't going to vote for Dr. Paul anyway, so we shouldn't waste our time on them.

This answers the thread. End of story.

 

[RichardC]

I am personally pro-choice and a RP supporter. The way I see it, he is the only candidate with a unifying message on the issue of abortion, as difficult as this issue is.

The main problem is people are penned into their little liberal vs conservative arguments. As soon as you say something that appears to lean one direction, they lump you in with that category. They take certain stances as 'code' for something more sinister. The problem with abortion, whether you are personally pro-life or pro-choice, it is that it is inherently divisive, and it has NO clear moral imperative one way or the other.

You may think the issue is clear, but I guarantee you the other half of the country disagrees. This is not at all a simple women's rights issue or equality issue, because it calls for the rights of one life over another. Even that point is highly debatable, depending on how you personally define life. So because it is a human rights issue with no clear moral imperative, that will always divide us rather than unite us, it has no place being national law. It is unethical to legislate this issue nationally, one way or the other. That is point #1 that everyone must accept and understand.

Once you accept that, you must take it to states rights and have faith in the states to handle this issue better than the federal government does. Many pro-choicers see this as code for a pro-life agenda, but it really isn't. It's a constitutional agenda, one that believes sticky social issues like this should not be one rule fits all. Remind them that this is part of the reason why we have states, to legislate locally when its more appropriate to do so. Remind them that this is not a reversal or going back to old times, that it is done today. Nevada legalizes gambling and prostitution, because it makes sense for them to allow this at a local level. And people vote with their dollars on this by going to Vegas for adult fun. There doesn't need to be anything reprehensible about it... this is America. If you don't like how Nevada runs itself, don't go there.

So the vision for this country was that local governments would handle these more difficult social issues. This is a big reason why we even have states at all. This is point #2. Most pro-choice people live in CA or NY anyway, where the vast majority of intellectual, liberal, highest population cities are. CA and NY residents should have faith in their states to not only go pro-choice, but handle it better than the Fed would.

Point #3 is my favorite, because it considers the big picture and deals with a subject few people think about. The real problem with nationalizing the issue one way or the other is that it will always put it at risk for one group. The big fear for pro-choicers is that some conservative president with a litmus test will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal for all Americans. So liberals are in a constant battle with social conservatism, constantly fearful that they'll lose Roe v Wade to the changing political tide of this country. Think of all the effort they waste, all the money spent and despicable lobbying that goes on behind the scenes trying to either keep RvW alive, or kill it. Now imagine how much better off we'd be if we simply took this unethical, unconstitutional law out of the national equation.

Pro-choice people need to realize that even though they think and believe something personally, that this should not be national law. They put their own agenda at risk, and they risk losing the right completely by pushing it on half of America that will never agree with them. Really divisive social issues like this with no clear moral imperative have a solution in states rights. It's not perfect, but a perfect solution for an issue like this is *impossible*. And right now, their greed in wanting to keep it national puts their whole agenda at risk.

Remind them that once RvW is overturned, and someday it may very well be, that they'd wished they supported states rights at that point.

I think everyone can agree that there are far more important national issues to be dealing with. We'd all do better and be a better people if we didn't have to hear national politicians dance around and pander on social issues they have no business legislating. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but that is where this social issue should remain.

I have to say RP opened my eyes on this topic in a way no politician ever did. Again I am personally pro-choice, and I recognize RP is personally pro-life, but our personal beliefs are superceded by the greater philosophy of Constitutionalism. It teaches us that there is another way, and it leads us out of these tired liberal v conservative political agendas that are nothing more than complete dead ends when it comes to finding common ground and solving real problems.

 

[Fields]

It doesn't put freedom and life at odds. The woman was free to have sex and get pregnant. She didn't have too. And I don't mean "boo hoo the friggan condom broke", I mean she didn't have to have her legs in the air. It really is that simple. It comes down to choices. She, and the guy that knocked her up have to deal with it, for better or for worse.

Life is viable from the day it is conceived. A one celled amoeba is viable, it grows, consumes and breaths. So does a fetus.

I don't really care if "legalities" get in the way of a pregant women wanting to down a 1/5th of whiskey. Someone has got to speak for the kid in her belly that can't speak for himself.

I though your videos were amazing. Now your thoughts are amazing me too. Thank you for the clarity.

 

[Fields]

I'd say to a pro-choicer, that I was one once too, but that much like ROE, after
my abortion I came to understand very quickly that I made the wrong choice, and have been eaten up by guilt ever since.

There are more than 13,000,000 women in america who have had this experience.

http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/

Thank you for your input. I have a lot of friends in your boat that learn how they truly feel when it is too late.

 

[freelance]

Point #3 is my favorite, because it considers the big picture and deals with a subject few people think about. The real problem with nationalizing the issue one way or the other is that it will always put it at risk for one group. The big fear for pro-choicers is that some conservative president with a litmus test will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal for all Americans. So liberals are in a constant battle with social conservatism, constantly fearful that they'll lose Roe v Wade to the changing political tide of this country. Think of all the effort they waste, all the money spent and despicable lobbying that goes on behind the scenes trying to either keep RvW alive, or kill it. Now imagine how much better off we'd be if we simply took this unethical, unconstitutional law out of the national equation.

What an interesting point. Perhaps if it went back to the states, we could get about the business of dealing with the "sanctity of life" as it pertains to the actual LIVING--you know, stop the global killing machine that we've built from the ground up--the killing machine that is finding its way to our shores via DHS and monies thrown at local law enforcement!

 

[affa]

I am personally pro-choice and a RP supporter. The way I see it, he is the only candidate with a unifying message on the issue of abortion, as difficult as this issue is.

The main problem is people are penned into their little liberal vs conservative arguments. As soon as you say something that appears to lean one direction, they lump you in with that category. They take certain stances as 'code' for something more sinister. The problem with abortion, whether you are personally pro-life or pro-choice, it is that it is inherently divisive, and it has NO clear moral imperative one way or the other.

You may think the issue is clear, but I guarantee you the other half of the country disagrees. This is not at all a simple women's rights issue or equality issue, because it calls for the rights of one life over another. Even that point is highly debatable, depending on how you personally define life. So because it is a human rights issue with no clear moral imperative, that will always divide us rather than unite us, it has no place being national law. It is unethical to legislate this issue nationally, one way or the other. That is point #1 that everyone must accept and understand.

Once you accept that, you must take it to states rights and have faith in the states to handle this issue better than the federal government does. Many pro-choicers see this as code for a pro-life agenda, but it really isn't. It's a constitutional agenda, one that believes sticky social issues like this should not be one rule fits all. Remind them that this is part of the reason why we have states, to legislate locally when its more appropriate to do so. Remind them that this is not a reversal or going back to old times, that it is done today. Nevada legalizes gambling and prostitution, because it makes sense for them to allow this at a local level. And people vote with their dollars on this by going to Vegas for adult fun. There doesn't need to be anything reprehensible about it... this is America. If you don't like how Nevada runs itself, don't go there.

So the vision for this country was that local governments would handle these more difficult social issues. This is a big reason why we even have states at all. This is point #2. Most pro-choice people live in CA or NY anyway, where the vast majority of intellectual, liberal, highest population cities are. CA and NY residents should have faith in their states to not only go pro-choice, but handle it better than the Fed would.

Point #3 is my favorite, because it considers the big picture and deals with a subject few people think about. The real problem with nationalizing the issue one way or the other is that it will always put it at risk for one group. The big fear for pro-choicers is that some conservative president with a litmus test will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal for all Americans. So liberals are in a constant battle with social conservatism, constantly fearful that they'll lose Roe v Wade to the changing political tide of this country. Think of all the effort they waste, all the money spent and despicable lobbying that goes on behind the scenes trying to either keep RvW alive, or kill it. Now imagine how much better off we'd be if we simply took this unethical, unconstitutional law out of the national equation.

Pro-choice people need to realize that even though they think and believe something personally, that this should not be national law. They put their own agenda at risk, and they risk losing the right completely by pushing it on half of America that will never agree with them. Really divisive social issues like this with no clear moral imperative have a solution in states rights. It's not perfect, but a perfect solution for an issue like this is *impossible*. And right now, their greed in wanting to keep it national puts their whole agenda at risk.

Remind them that once RvW is overturned, and someday it may very well be, that they'd wished they supported states rights at that point.

I think everyone can agree that there are far more important national issues to be dealing with. We'd all do better and be a better people if we didn't have to hear national politicians dance around and pander on social issues they have no business legislating. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but that is where this social issue should remain.

I have to say RP opened my eyes on this topic in a way no politician ever did. Again I am personally pro-choice, and I recognize RP is personally pro-life, but our personal beliefs are superceded by the greater philosophy of Constitutionalism. It teaches us that there is another way, and it leads us out of these tired liberal v conservative political agendas that are nothing more than complete dead ends when it comes to finding common ground and solving real problems.

+infinity.

 

[affa]

I'd say to a pro-choicer, that I was one once too, but that much like ROE, after
my abortion I came to understand very quickly that I made the wrong choice, and have been eaten up by guilt ever since.

There are more than 13,000,000 women in america who have had this experience.

So, over 13 million women needed to have an abortion to realize they were against abortion. Including yourself.

Now do you understand why you can't convince someone else that abortion is wrong? They couldn't convince you, or those 13 million plus other women either! It's a personal decision that people will or will not come to on their own.

 

[literatim]

It doesn't put freedom and life at odds. The woman was free to have sex and get pregnant. She didn't have too. And I don't mean "boo hoo the friggan condom broke", I mean she didn't have to have her legs in the air. It really is that simple. It comes down to choices. She, and the guy that knocked her up have to deal with it, for better or for worse.

Life is viable from the day it is conceived. A one celled amoeba is viable, it grows, consumes and breaths. So does a fetus.

I don't really care if "legalities" get in the way of a pregant women wanting to down a 1/5th of whiskey. Someone has got to speak for the kid in her belly that can't speak for himself.

So, over 13 million women needed to have an abortion to realize they were against abortion. Including yourself.

Now do you understand why you can't convince someone else that abortion is wrong? They couldn't convince you, or those 13 million plus other women either! It's a personal decision that people will or will not come to on their own.

It has nothing to do what people think is wrong. It is about what is wrong. People in Soviet Russia thought it was just fine to kill 50 million Christians.

 

[Truth Warrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life