You didn't provide an argument that wasn't already addressed.
Lol what if we were aborting Hitler? It can be just as equally bad as good.
That's not the same thing at all. Everything in the world would change if Hitler had been aborted, some good would have came from it however, his movements did change many things about the world. So the outcome is still negative with a more positive spin in it. Everything changes the potential of a life by aborting one child. Had I not survived and been aborted:
-My parent's marriage wouldn't have survived. (Grand parents)
-Never would have saved my brother from drowning.
-Deep depression would have fallen after my grand parents true son died.
Now let's pretend a guy walks into a store, aiming to kill the first person he sees. Where you stand a man who was aborted would have stood causing you for whatever reason to be safe from the shooting. Sure it is very cynical in concept but still remains the same idea. One potential death or life can change a majority of the world.
No, she wouldn't do it again, because abortion isn't birth control.
There have been records of specific women getting multiple abortions over their lifespan. Painful yes, but still done. Birth control is one thing, this is an entirely different meaning.
2) These 'responsibility' arguments are by far the most annoying. Honestly, they are just utopia preaching that will never happen and never fix the overall solution. You can't expect people to not have sex until they are 100% ready for a child. The best you can do is assist them in doing something they're going to do anyway (.. which is both having sex AND getting an abortion legally or not).
Having sex is not the problem, destroying a potential "savior" is. At the very least it shouldn't be supported in such a way.
And really, if a guy has a heart attack because he was irresponsible about his diet, should we just let him die?
That's not the same thing. Following a strict diet is one thing, heart attacks happen to many people who are responsible. However, if a man has diabetes and starts eating tons of sugar regardless of helping said man he will die. It won't matter if we help. So why exactly waste tons of money bailing the man out over and over again if the solution is the same either way. Logically it isn't helpful.
She's better off financially definitely.
I'll admit I laughed. Considering she can barely find the grips on herself to go out around society. She's practically a vegetable living off of welfare. Little at that. I probably make more money in less than a month from a less-than-minimum wage job. ---->For the first 90 days.
----
well obviously. women who choose to have an abortion, aren't heartless or not capable of having feelings. Nobody is excited over abortion, nor is the woman having the abortion actually truly wanting to have it ..but in most cases, it's better off for them.
What my point is, is why not just pay a man to punch them. Logically it saves money to improve the town with TP money and so on. Let alone
they could just give it to adoption as someone else stated. America at least is far from going "hungry." Although it can be argued the quality of adoption houses and the like. Before you argue "didn't I say don't mention adoption." I didn't say that they would be adopted. They can still grow up and move on to live their own life with aging. Alone, certainly, but alive and full of potential? Also very true.
i'm not talking for the people who constantly have unprotected sex of course. I'm talking about the people who use every bit of protection while having sex, to prevent them from getting pregnant/getting a woman pregnant. Sadly not all protection is 100% accurate as we all know.
I really don't see why people have to suffer with a child, when they were responsible enough to use protection, but sadly weren't lucky and it failed. They obviously aren't ready to take care of a child. And please don't give me that adoption crap. PLEASE DON'T. it doesn't work.
Last time I read up on percentages of accidental pregnancies with 100% protection was relatively low compared to those with unprotected sex. The only question I have is though, if abortion normally damages the lady in question in the first place how is having the child any worse, when it normally doesn't cause permanent scarring. (Although weight gain can happen and body distortion I will give you)
Well being raped, would leave scars and most likely will cause serious mental issues just alone. And the child being born, will always be a memory on that woman. They're going to be hurt from the beginning anyways from the rape.
People have a lot of nerve harassing women who have been raped for getting an abortion.
The problem I have with this is most women who still have the child normally end up with a better life than those who don't. Although this is a percentage / Statistical thing, many women who end up raped and have an abortion normally end up insane or otherwise. This is also true for those who have had the child but at a lower rate. However, being the lower rate makes what I'm trying to say clear. Overall it is more effective to have the child. Sometimes the parent will warm up to the child and end up disregarding that they are a memory of the rapist. Note: I don't harass women who have abortions. I just think in general abortions should be stopped. I'd rather see that exaggeration put into practice just for the better results of said exaggeration.
Note: Ignore the other post, I'll delete it.
