Welcome to Gaia! ::

As has been brought up often on this kind of topic, mostly everything in life has risks. You need to breathe to live, but there's always the chance that there may be something in the air that could be harmful to you. Suppose you breath in some bacteria, does that mean now that it's made you sick you can't take anti-biotics to go back to normal because you'd kill the bacteria? At the point most abortions are done, the cells of the potential future baby really are about as good as bacteria as they don't yet have enough development for nerves and brains and other organs to function, feel, or most importantly, think. The only difference is that the DNA is human. Also, even if you still want to argue that the thing is really going to count as a living human at this point, then it still doesn't matter and doesn't make it murder because of the right of bodily integrity as a part of self-defense. Nobody has the right to use your body without your consent. If a woman does not want something/someone growing inside of her she has the right to see to it's removal even if it results in it's death. The need of something does not give right to it.

I see your point.

The infant is still a cell yes, that is how they all start.

But in some circumstances, a women has no choice on who user her body.

For the most part they can, but if your not carful, some sick man could drug a women into it and she doesn't even know it. then, BAM. A few months later she finds out she's pregnant, and her family can't support another child.

And yes, I see your point of killing a germ and a cell.

heart !!APPLAUSE!! heart *wipes away a tear* A man after my own heart! xd

well for me abortion is wrong....

Abortion...what a biggie. Here goes my rebuttal on most arguments I've heard from pro-lifers. I'll format it like a dialogue of sorts.


Pro-life: You got pregnant, so deal with the consequences.

Hold up. If you're pro-life, isn't your concern supposed to be the life of the CHILD? Well, then, by saying 'deal with it' you're saying it should be a punishment for the parents. There's a problem with that. Many pregnancies aren't from people who were just fooling around and not thinking of the consequences. That, and there's the issue of your viewing abortion as "the easy way out." I'll get into those a bit later. The other side of your 'deal with it' means that a child is getting born to parents that either don't want it, or cannot provide for a child. Either way, the effect of your 'punishment' for the parents actually ends up being a punishment for the child that has to grow up resented by its parents, or worse yet, malnourished and dirt poor because the parents weren't financially prepared for it. This leads to the popular pro-life rebuttal of...

Pro-life: So put it up for adoption if you can't handle it.

Which beautifully contradicts your original argument. You view abortion as "the easy way out" but you're fine with putting a child up for adoption. Big problem with that. You can't say both that it should be a punishment for the parents, yet also agree that, if a parent isn't prepared to raise a child, they should put it up for adoption. Adoption is just as much of an "easy way out." In both abortion and adoption, the parent shuffles of the burden of raising a child, getting out of what you'd like to call "dealing with the consequences." Adoption is usually no better than leaving a child with the original incapable parents. Kids end up in orphanages or hit social services like a brick wall and are stuck in foster home after home. In some cases, the foster parents even end up molesting the kids. In many cases, these children have been seen to grow up traumatized by their childhoods and often do not lead successful lives in which they contribute to society. In essence, by having adoption as the only alternative to keeping the child, we'll still end up with a majority of these unwanted children becoming degenerates with low quality lives. We also wouldn't be doing anything to help the population problem. Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born on an overpopulated planet into what will most likely be a life of impoverished quality. It also allows the parents who wouldn't have been able to care for the child to lead productive lives and possibly have a child later if they become capable of supporting one.

Pro-life: But a life of any quality is still a life.

Ok, but if only one life is possible, which would you have it be? What I mean is this. Say you have a couple who tried to take every contraceptive measure possible (besides abstinence and surgery), using spermicidal condoms AND the pill, etc., but somehow the woman still got pregnant. They're young and do not have the financial stability or resources to care for a child.
Option 1: If they have the child, they will not be able to provide for it properly and in all likelihood will not be able have another child because the first one set them back financially so far that they are in debt and will spend the next ten to twenty years trying to get back to where they were before it was born. The effect on the child is that, since the parents weren't prepared and end up struggling with debt, it is not well cared for and leads a life of low quality.
Option 2: If they give it up for adoption, as covered above, the child will most likely lead a low quality life.
Option 3: If they get the child aborted, the couple will not be thrown into as much of a financial struggle (even though abortions are expensive, it's nothing close to the cost of raising a child). If the couple decides never to have a child, at least they will not have to struggle through life in their efforts to provide (what will likely be a low quality life) for a child that they had before they could handle one. They will be productive, childless members of society. If, however, they do decide later in life, when they're better prepared for it, to have a child, they will be able to give that child a life of better quality than any of the other situations mentioned above. They may even be able to have more than one and support both children beautifully because they are prepared to and desire to have kids. These children would potentially grow up to be productive members of society.

So, what I'm saying there is that it's illogical to give up the possibility of one or more lives of good quality for a life of poor quality. Especially when it could be three lives of poor quality if a couple decides to keep the child, but end up struggling to provide for it and themselves.

Pro-life: Well you wouldn't even have that problem if you didn't get pregnant. (Part A: unpreventable pregnancies and unsuccessful contraception)

Ok, now I'm addressing that issue that I said I'd get to later. The pregnancy issue. It's huge.

First things first, you can't always blame the woman for getting pregnant. "If you didn't get pregnant" doesn't apply when you're dealing with rape. Rape victims didn't ask for sex and pregnancy and weren't given a choice. A 12-year-old girl suffers through a horrifying experience of statutory rape and winds up pregnant and you have the audacity to say that it should be illegal for her to get an abortion? A girl whose body isn't even prepared to carry a child healthily to term and who, being a child herself, is in no way prepared to raise a child? You can't be serious. Making her go through that would just be too sick.

Secondly, other unwanted pregnancies don't always result from drunken carousing or careless bouts of unprotected sex. People who use contraceptives and still get pregnant weren't being careless and took conscious measures to prevent pregnancy. These people tried 97% effective methods of stopping it, but somehow the sperm and egg still managed to reach their destination. This leads to the pregnancy argument part B.

Pro-life: Well, you wouldn't even have that problem if you didn't get pregnant. (Part B: the promotion of abstinence or surgery)

So you say that having sex even with highly effective contraceptives is still accepting the risk of pregnancy? Well, yes, that's true. The risk is still there and having sex would mean taking the risk. The only non-risk solutions to the problem of contraception are abstinence and surgery.

So your solution is that people should be abstinent if they can't deal with the possible outcome of having a child. Wake up because you must be dreaming if you think that people are going to stop having sex just because there's a chance it'll result in having a child. You aren't giving sex enough credit. Sex is more than just "the process of making babies." For many couples, it is an intense experience of physical, yes, but also emotional bonding. Historically speaking, prostitution (having sex) is the oldest profession around. Prostitution isn't legal anymore, but it still exists. Also, even though prostitution isn't legal anymore, society has evolved since the days of puritanical conservatives. Sex is everywhere now, on television, in the movies, on the internet, etc. People are having sex much more and at younger ages than they used to. Why? Because society's views on sex has changed. Sex used to be one of the most taboo subjects, but our culture has decided to break taboos. Where before our culture was comprised mostly of religious conservatives who thought premarital sex was horrible and sinful, it is now moving away from that. Now that our society is combining a mix of cultures with different takes on sex, we're beginning to see a shift in favor of it. In years gone, people were scandalized when they heard of cases of premarital sex, but today, if someone discovers that a couple had premarital sex, they wouldn't even bat an eye.

When it comes down to it, you can preach abstinence all you want, but people who don't want to have a baby are still going to have sex. The solution is impractical and wouldn't even get considered by legislature.

"Get your tubes tied, then," you might say. Well, the problem with some surgeries is that they can be or become permanent. Tying the tubes is not a two-way street in many cases. What if a couple that's getting married want to be able to consummate their marriage, but don't want a child until later on, when they become more financially stable? Telling them to be abstinent isn't a practical solution. In their current situation, if they are determined to have sex, the best they can do is use contraceptives and hope that they aren't the 1-2% of people who end up pregnant. If they do fall within the 1-2%, what choices do they have? This loops back up to that scenario from earlier. Keeping it could leave them struggling for the rest of their lives. Do they really deserve that? Is that going to be their deal in their pursuit of happiness? Giving it up for adoption could leave them just as traumatized as it would for the child growing up in an orphanage or foster home. They might be burdened with feelings of regret and guilt and they would live their lives constantly wondering about the child they gave up.

Pro-life: But it's murder.

The woman was alive first. If the pregnancy is life-threatening, the mother should be able to defend her life by getting an abortion. It's her right to her life and her body that you're denying here. Even if the pregnancy is not life-threatening, it's her body. She has a right to her own body and it's use. If there is an unwanted person inside of her, using her body for protection and sapping nutrients from it, she should have the right to have it removed. Some pro-lifer's claim that this argument sounds inhuman because they cannot think of a child like that themselves and therefore conclude that others must not be able to fathom it either. To that, I say this. Not everyone sees a child the way you do. In order to argue this logically you need step back from your sentimental, affectionate view of babies and accept the facts as they are. The facts may not sound human because they are not blinded by emotions. Fact: a fetus qualifies as an unwanted person using her body. Even in the middle of sexual intercourse, after a woman has invited a man into her body, she can still say "stop" if she doesn't want to continue. If he continues, it would be without consent and can qualify as rape. In the same sense, she should be able to dictate what happens to her own body when it comes to pregnancy. If she does not find out she's pregnant until months after conception and she does not want the baby in her body, she should have the right to get it removed. Indeed, if at any point, she does not want a baby human being using her body, she should have the right to have it removed. If a baby is inside a woman who does not consent to mothering it, technically it is violating her rights. If the woman tries to stop it from violating her by removing it and the baby dies, the case is still one of self defense, NOT MURDER.

Pro-life: But people won't even bother with contraceptives because they can always get an abortion. People are getting abortions for all the wrong reasons these days.

You assume too much. Abortion is surgery. It costs money. Not as much as raising a child because it's for people who don't want to or can't afford to have a child, but, hey, it still costs a lot of dough. People will continue to use contraceptives because they are highly effective and would cost a whole load less in the long run than getting an abortion every time they wind up pregnant. As for people getting abortions for all the wrong reasons, it's not up to you to judge whether their reasons are right or not. The point is that they don't want to rear a child and should have the right to choose, for whatever their reasons, whether or not to have it. If you must judge reasons, think of my argument against the murder statement. Not wanting it violating her body should be reason enough to get an abortion.


As for my own personal views, I wouldn't be comfortable with getting an abortion after the second trimester. The exception to that would be if the child was found to be seriously deformed or if the pregnancy became life-threatening. It may not be what others would do, but that's the beauty of the freedom to choose.

Well, if the human had unfailing permission to use her body for nine months, this wouldn't be a problem. If it's using her body and it doesn't have permission to do so, it's violating her rights to her own body and its use. She should have the right to defend her body from being violated by another human being. If a woman is trying to defend herself from being violated by a rapist and that results in the rapist's death, it's a case of self defense. In this nation, people have the right to live without being violated and if the protection of that right results in the death of the person attempting to violate them, it is not murder.




Welfare and immigrants are not the issue here, so there's really no point to your bringing it up besides to make random speculations about what I am or am not averse to. That is an empty filler and not a legitimate argument. As for the next bit, I said nothing about my opinions on the death penalty for anyone and your guess is just that...a guess. What I said is that you should have the right to protect yourself. If the only way you can protect yourself from being violated results in the death of the person violating you, so be it. Or would you rather have a woman submit to having her body violated continuously because defending herself may involve killing the violator?



Your opinion that "adoption sure is a better alternative than death" is highly subjective to the fact that you are implying death is the worst possible outcome. Many people, not necessarily myself, would argue that they feel it might be better not to suffer through what is highly probable to be a torturous life. Also, you aren't being practical about the fact that people aren't going to suddenly become capable, financially or otherwise, of raising a child just because you and other pro-life people PREFER it. You can prefer things all you want, but imposing your preferences on other people is not practical because there will always be people that do not care one bit about your preferences. Since you can't force people not to give a child up for adoption (and legislation will probably never allow it), they will do exactly that. From what you have said, you seem to think abortion is a lot easier than it really is. In essence, it is similar to giving a child up for adoption because it is giving up the right to be the parent of said child. In addition, if someone would have had an abortion, stopping them from getting an abortion will not make them parent the child. If they can't do it one way, they'll go for the other. Your preference that they keep it means nothing to them. In all cases you would rather that the human have the right to live, but the problem with that falls back to the first argument, which is that if it is living in violation of the rights of another human, that other human has every right to protect itself. As for the 'butchered at birth' bit, these fetuses don't even make it to birth. Most abortions are decided on and carried out before the pregnancies even reach third trimester, let alone labor. Many surgeons even refuse to do abortions after a specific point in pregnancy.



Again, more of your opinion used as invalid arguments. Just because you think a woman should let a human violate her for the sake of its life doesn't mean it's going to happen. She has a right to protect herself. We've been over this already. As for "adoption is hardly as "easy" as abortion," have you ever had an abortion? Do you know how hard it is to go through with one? You are entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't use your opinion as an argument. The fact that there are many people who would have opposing opinions on whether adoption or abortion is easier makes your statement irrelevant. You say we should consider abortion for all murderers, etc. We have. It's called self defense. That's, in essence, what abortion comes down to and why it's not illegal. That's why it will probably remain legal. Also, who are you to judge who is worthy of life? You are no more in a place to make judgments on the worthiness of peoples lives than anyone else is. And, since I know you're probably going to attempt to argue this at some point, I'll address it now. Abortion isn't judging the human unworthy of life. It is simply the prevention of one person from violating another.



You are assuming a lot here. Your first assumption is that people choose abortion because they're "bordering on poverty with insanely sensitive reproduction systems." Do you realize, in this day and age, how much it costs to raise a child in this country if your standard of living is average? It's very expensive. There are many people who aren't bordering on poverty, but would not be able to support a child, and it's not even always about being financially able. As for your assumptions on their reproduction systems, you can learn in a sixth grade sex ed class the fact that all it takes is one good sperm to meet one good egg. There isn't really sensitivity involved unless you're saying that any normally fertile person has an insanely sensitive reproduction system. In this case, the only people that aren't insanely sensitive are sterile. You other assumption is that people choose abortions because they can't put the child up for adoption. Some people choose abortions because they don't want to go through pregnancy and shouldn't be forced to let someone use them to grow inside their body. Some choose it because they feel it's better for the child not to experience a hard life of feeling unwanted and being shuffled to and from various foster homes.




I never presented that as an opinion. Your statement is false. Even if it was someone's opinion, it would not be unfounded. All I did was present the argument that putting a child up for adoption does not mean it will lead a life of even average quality. First, you cannot assume that everyone being put up for adoption actually gets adopted. Statistics show that, of the many children put up for adoption each year, an overwhelming number of them do not get adopted (partially due to people adopting kids from out of country, but also just from people not adopting in general). Many cases have also proven that foster homes and other such programs have often been found detrimental to the well-being of the children involved. There are cases in which foster parents neglect, beat, and sometimes even molest the children untrusted to their care. It's not just leading an"unfulfilling" life because such situations go far beyond that. Also, after these children turn 18, they are shot out of the system and left to fend for themselves. Many of their years as children and teens are lives of instability and, being unadopted, a sense of being unwanted. Some leave the system not only with that, but with the added damage of having experienced various forms of mistreatment. With all of that as their foundation, they are left to make their own way. I'm not saying that the system never works the way it's supposed to. I'm just pointing out the fact that a lot of the time, kids get shunted around and pushed out into the world when they hit 18 and, without having much to go on, don't end up being productive members of society.




Lesson: Unless you're in a case specific debate, do not start arguments with "from my personal experience" because personal experiences do not make valid arguments.

Your personal experience with adopted children does not set the standard for adopted children throughout the nation. That is more along the lines of a stereotype than an actual argument. Your opinion that it makes a beautiful chemistry and that tradition is not all bad is, again, just an opinion. As an argument, it holds no weight. I didn't neglect to mention that the government pays people to raise children. I said that the programs they're paying for don't work a lot of the time. Also, no one has to "be able to AFFORD a family as a requirement to get married" in this country. Even people living out of a car because they can't afford a house can get married. It's just a matter of getting the paperwork done. What you're probably referring to are more the bonuses that come with being legally married. The thing is that not everyone gets married because, well, for one, not everyone CAN. There are plenty of women who get pregnant and suddenly find that the father of their child has run off and disappeared. There are some that can't get married because they feel that marriage is a religious institution and tradition and they have their own traditions that do not allow them to marry the other parent. Then there are the people that don't want to get married. People who mutually can't stand to marry one another, even for the sake of raising a child. Even if someone prefers that they marry and feels that they are morally obligated to for the sake of the child, that doesn't mean they are going to listen and comply. People are going to live their lives and it's impractical to expect everyone to uphold the same traditions and morals.





You can also learn in a sixth grade sex ed class that girls usually start to menstruate anywhere between the ages of 8-16. If a 12-year-old girl has begun menstruating before she is raped, she is just as likely as any other menstruating woman to get pregnant. I never said that I feel being raped justifies murdering babies, so yes, you are GUESSING. What I do feel (and this is not my argument, but just my opinion) is just that it's sick to say a 12-year-old girl who has been violated should continue to be violated. She was already violated by one human being, and now another is threatening her health and even possibly her life. It's not her fault that she's pregnant and she has every right to protect her body and her life. Taking away that right, in my opinion, is sick. It's not being raped that justifies abortion, but the result of that rape was a pregnancy that she never consented to. What you say is sick is essentially that people might think it acceptable that one child defend itself from a child that threatens to take its life.



You keep assuming that just because I am arguing the case for pro-choice, that my personal opinions must coincide. You should focus on making legitimate arguments instead of assuming things about me if you want to debate successfully. I never expressed an opinion that it was not careless to risk pregnancy without being prepared to have a child. What I did say is that there are people who take that risk and they aren't going to stop just because a few people think they should. You keep bringing up marriage as if it's a key to responsibility and raising a child, but it's not. Whether a couple is married or not is irrelevant to being responsible about sex and the risks of pregnancy. Marriage does not constitute responsibility. There are many responsible, unmarried parents who have proven perfectly capable of raising children. Marriage is simply a religious tradition that has been given legal recognition and benefits. As for 'in a manner that can induce pregnancy,' you are ignoring my argument that the use of contraceptives is overwhelmingly popular and that the people who use them are taking a risk, yes, but they are having intercourse in a manner that is the opposite of what you are inferring. Contraceptives, though not 100% reliable, are highly effective and the use of them during sex is a demonstration of preventative measures, the opposite of your implication. I'll admit that there are careless people who are doing just what you say, but the people who take precautions should not be punished just because people only want to see abortions as actions done by the people who were careless and don't want to deal with a kid.




That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's highly impractical for someone to think that abstinence is a solution that everyone will accept. It's like telling people that various diet programs should be illegal and expecting that everyone will accept it. If that ever happened, there would be a lot of people who just go on living the way they have been. Sometimes that includes the popular pattern of eating unhealthy foods, gaining unhealthy amounts of weight, and then dieting to bring the weight down. Just as people will not stop eating the unhealthy foods that lead to their weight gain, people will not stop having sex just because it often results in pregnancy. The best you will be able to get them to agree to is to eat unhealthy foods in moderation, or to use contraceptives when they go at it.




Like I said in the surgery argument, that's not the solution for everyone that is not willing to accept abstinence. If you had a broader knowledge of the different procedures, you would know that these surgeries are not, as you put it, "perfectly safe." Some people, for various health reasons, cannot have the surgery required (let alone carry a child to term healthily). Other people choose not to op for the surgery because it is not always a two way street. This is especially the case if someone has surgery to get certain reproductive parts removed. If someone wants to have children later in life, they will not be willing to have surgery that could potentially make them permanently sterile.





Except for the people who cannot, for health reasons, live underground, and cannot accept moving away from the community and location that they call home, even if it is in Tornado Alley. These people don't want their houses blown down. They even take measures to prevent it by building houses made for durability. In the event that a tornado gets the best of their efforts at reinforcement and manages to blow their house to bits, they shouldn't be denied the home insurance they paid for.




Really. Most of that was unnecessary and overheated. My argument was not "since a baby may be inconvenient" but rather, if a said human is violating your rights, you should be able to defend those rights. Prevention of being violated has nothing to do with convenience. As for your graphic and highly inaccurate, I might add, description of an abortion, think of what would happen if it became illegal for surgeons to perform the procedure. Then women would try to do it themselves, like they did before surgeons formed a safe procedure for it. Before surgical abortions, many women were using coat hangers and anything else they thought would work. This often resulted in them dying or seriously maiming themselves in an attempt to abort their pregnancy. If someone is determined to have an abortion, they might as well get it done safely by a surgeon. Unsafe attempts that make women wind up in the hospital, after all, would exhaust more tax money if they rely on the government for health care because they could possibly end up hospitalized for life. Disappearing from "their moral conscience"? You need to go look at some first hand accounts from women who have actually had abortions if you really think it's that easy on someone's emotions and conscience to go through an abortion. Many women who have had abortions have experienced a grieving period similar to that of women who have given a child up for adoption.




That is not the case for the majority. It makes me wonder if you've ever thought of situations that could crop up in a marital context. For instance, a married couple in which surgery is not an option because of a health problem. They've had a couple of kids and know they don't want any more. Do you really expect them to be celibate for the rest of their lives just because they can't have the surgery? Even if you did expect that of them, do you honestly think they would agree to that? They decide that the pill, spermicide, and condoms working together are the best route, and things go well until all of a sudden, defying all the odds, that 1-2% chance of pregnancy pops up. Let's say they were using contraceptives for the past ten years or so and suddenly the woman finds herself 40 years old and pregnant. Her body isn't what it used to be. She's older now and will heal more slowly and on top of that, may have a health problem that would make carrying the child to term life-threatening. Besides her health, there's her family. She's got three kids and they're a handful. The couple are financially stable, but they know that if they have another kid, they'll be struggling to make ends meet and probably fall into debt. Let's also say the woman has a history. She herself was put up for adoption as a baby and went through the foster care system, etc. Her experiences weren't the worst in existence, but she does not want the one she had bestowed upon any child of hers. She and her husband talk it out and consider having an abortion. She may even consider an abortion, due to her history, to be better than putting it up for adoption. We also must take into account her views on when a human being is truly alive. Some people feel that it begins at birth, others at conception. She feels that a baby is not truly alive until it is fully formed in the womb and can survive outside the body of the mother. So to her, it's not truly alive yet (now, you and I may disagree and have different feelings of when a human being is truly alive, but we have to respect her right to her opinion). After considering an abortion, she deems it best for the unborn child, for her family, and for her own health, and therefore concludes that an abortion is the best course of action to take. She was not a careless youth who couldn't be bothered to use a contraceptive. She's just an ordinary woman trying to do what she thinks is best for her family. If she carries the child and dies or becomes permanently hospitalized, her children will be left possibly without their mother and the family as a whole would lose half its financial income. Her health and well-being is important not only to herself, but also to the family that depends on her.

Just because this situation is unlikely does not mean it's impossible. If we're going to make a law about abortion, we have to consider all cases in which the law would be put into effect. We cannot just see what we want to see (irresponsible carousing and sexual promiscuity leading to unwanted pregnancies that the careless people don't want to deal with). There are cases in which average people are trying to live responsible lives, but life isn't perfect and, despite their efforts, the highly improbable happened. There are also cases that involve people who were innocently going about their lives when suddenly they fell victim to a rapist and there was a resulting pregnancy. Rape victims are not accountable for 'getting pregnant' because they didn't have a choice when it came to getting raped.

Though it may seem ridiculous to be defending the careless and promiscuous people, the real defense includes all of the others who were not responsible for their pregnancies. This is a defense of people's rights.

A person living in this nation has the right to their own body and its use. If someone does not like the fact that people in this nation have that right, they shouldn't be living in the United States of America. Modern America FTW, because it's the land of the free, where people have rights to their own bodies and lives and the laws prevent people from imposing their morals and opinions upon others.


By the way, NOCTVRNVS, despite what you may think, I really do look forward to hearing your response to this post. I hope your next one involves more arguments that aren't based on opinion, but it was indeed interesting to see your personal perspective on the issue. The more points that people bring up, the further the issue can be discussed and thus explored. Perhaps, once enough people successfully debate the issue on all points necessary, we will be able to determine if there should or should not be an abortion law, and if so, what that law should entail. There are some arguments that I make that I don't personally agree with for multiple reasons, but I have found the arguments themselves to be fair and sound.

If you want my opinion on it, here. I can understand why an abortion might be the most practical course of action for some people. I can understand why those people decide that it's best for their own reasons. I respect their decision because I feel that it's theirs to make. If I was raped and became pregnant as a result, I would probably decide to get an abortion as early as possible. I have my reasons, but some involve my health and all of them I'd like to keep private. Besides getting raped, an unwanted pregnancy would not be a problem for me, as I have no qualms with absolute forms of birth control. I don't feel that dictating how other people should deal with pregnancy, unwanted or otherwise, is any of my business. I believe that they should be able to maintain the rights that are upheld by the laws of this nation. If that means that they are able to choose a course of action that I would not agree to do myself, so be it. At least they cannot infringe upon my rights and force me to choose what they do.

Well, now that I've spent almost all of my daily allotment of what I like to call "gaia-time" doing this, I think I'll go give daily chance a whirl. 3nodding

Valid arguments are based on facts. Most of your arguments are based on your personal thoughts on the matter, while many of mine are based on factual information such as the statistics for adoption showing that a lot of kids put up for adoption don't get adopted. Or would you say that it's an opinion to argue they aren't getting adopted? Secondly, not everything everyone says is their opinion. That's why people can have successful debates in the first place. Heck, if you look at any high school speech and debate team, they aren't making arguments based on opinion, they're arguing with the evidence that they've spend months researching. They have to be able to support both sides of the same debate, too, because which side they get to argue for is determined by a coin toss. People are capable of saying things that are in total contradiction to their opinion as well, or have you never heard of someone playing devil's advocate?

Also, if carrying the baby is going to kill the woman, she has a right to defend her life. If you deny that right, you're basically saying that it's ok for someone to kill an innocent woman so long as they're a baby.