The pro-lifers are always going on and on about life begins at conception, and human life is sacred. Thus, abortion must be wrong. Unless, of course, rape or incest is involved, or the mothers life is in danger. Pro-choicers go on and on about a woman's body and her right to choose, but its even more heinous to prevent her from aborting in the cases of rape, incest, etc....

But if all life is sacred, if babies are alive and human the moment of conception, then shouldn't the products of rape or incest be just as important? Isn't that the equivalent of saying a 5 year old whose dad raped his mom is less sacred, less human than a conventional child?

If all life is sacred, where are the lawyers who represent the wishes of the child, filling injunctions on abortions so that the child might live at the cost of the mother? Why does a child who is already been born have more rights then its equally-sacred brother in the womb? Imagine the uproar if we allowed a healthy 7 year old to donate his heart and life to save his mothers. How is sacrificing an unborn to save his mother childs life any different?

Why have the pro-choicers been successfully able to alter the narrative on these three points, but are unable to stem the tide of pro-life legislation and rhetoric, when all abortions are equal? Hell, if life begins at conception, why does it matter what trimester she's in? Or, for the pro-choice side, if a baby requires the mother to incubate and grow and live, why does it matter if that's true at 3 months in or 7?

Seems like there's a lot of hypocrisy here.

 

-----signature-----

The "real" Pro-Lifers support no abortion under any circumstance including the life of the mother being at stake.

The "real" Pro-Choicers support abortion up to the moment the baby is born with zero restrictions.

Everyone else is using some measure of justification mechanisms.

"I am pro-life but I am too squeamish to tell a rape victim what to do."

"I am pro-choice but supporting the idea of a doctor sticking scissors into the back of the head of a late term fully viable baby makes me seem villainous."


Some of it is hypocrisy, some of it is lack of backbone.

 

-----signature-----

That looks like life to me, and if male Christians and other idiots wants too preserve life and ban abortion they will also have to inact laws that makes masturbation for men illegal.

But that will never happen BECAUSE THAT WOULD INFRINGE ON THE FREEDOMS OF MEN..

all of this religious social conservative bullshit is just patriarchal misogyny, if the roles were reversed Abortion would not even be a issue.

 

-----signature-----

Most people don't believe a fertilized egg equals a baby.I have never met a pro-choicer that believed a fertilized egg equals a baby.The real debate is when does a mass of genetic goo become a human child.For me it doesn't become human until it experiences conscious thought which is quite awhile after conception but also well before birth.What I am basically saying is that the argument isn't when is it ok to kill a baby ,it is when does a pregnant woman stops being one person and starts to be two people.

 

-----signature-----

The tougher call is the late term abortions.. Those look like babies when they pull them out.

This

 

-----signature-----

I think its more complex than that since killing a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide.

She has the right to decide the fate of the embryo not anyone else..

 

-----signature-----

But if its not a living person then what is it that was killed?

Parasite with the potential to become a person..

What is immoral is to force a person to have a child that will grow up unwanted and not properly cared for, not only is it unfair to the child it's also unfair to me as a tax payer who have to pay for the subsequent costs of raising batches of illiterate criminal poor people who won't benefit me or my country.

 

-----signature-----