I agree. Yet another eminently important topic. One that should not be used as a weapon to quiet the discussion of the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Printable View
I agree. Yet another eminently important topic. One that should not be used as a weapon to quiet the discussion of the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I don't think Kage's query was meant to quiet discussion. I took it as (in fine backroom tradition) introducing yet another variable to consider in the discussion of abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
He introduced the "incongruity factor": that we concern ourselves with the legality, morality, and practical application of the premise all life is sacred, and should be protected, whilst being comparatively unconcerned with the life-threatening factors of those already born.
I think it's a fair observation that we should look to the ultimate sincerity of our positions, and their applicability to the issue at hand.
If we got 5 or 6 subsequent posts about hunger, THAT would be a derailment, I agree; and I would step in. I think we're OK so far.
Whether or not abortion is the "ACME of culture" doesn't matter, the fact will remain that should you ban it, the only countries with a similar law will be Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But hey, if you wish to be mentioned in the same breath as Talibanistan and their likes; be my guest. I don't live in the US, so I really couldn't care what you do with your citizens.
Right. The march for life focuses on abortion because it is the anniversary of the Roe decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
If this was a thread about the pro-life movement, that would be one thing, but we are talking about something specifically related to the case at hand, surrounding cases and the unwillingness of the media to cover the march.
The pro-life movement attempts to defend all life from individual and government stances against life. From euthanasia, abortion and starvation to war and the spread of life threatening diseases.
It seemed to me that the poster brought up his point to illustrate a perceived insignificant relationship that the anti-abortion movement has with other problems of the day. The intent seemed to guilt posters into quiting the discussion due to what he labeled as more pressing problems. You didn't see it that way?
Find me someone who is strongly pro-life and doesn't believe in attacking world hunger. Non-issue for this discussion, unless you are using it as an excuse for population control through the use of abortion.
Also - calling people who are against abortion as kins of the taleban is a pretty weak argument, eh hore?
Thanks for the detailed information Kukri Sama.:bow:
I didnt mean to sound like i would be on high horse in this issue. It was just an honest question about priorities, see i have personal experiences about the issues at hand.
I have been the other side of a couple who made abortion. Back in 2001, after my back then, ex got pregnant after contraception failed and we decided to have an abortion. Because i can never go inside other persons head, i cant say for sure, but after talking with her a lot, i think we both didnt want the child. What im sure about is that i didnt want it and my stance on the issue probably effected her opinion also. Now i was lot younger then but not that young, 22 years old.
The reason for me not wanting the child was simply that i felt i wasnt ready for it. Now looking back, what was my motive? Id say greed. I was greedy to have my own youth and not start a family. Maybe i was selfish and immature and made a intentional decision to deny the child his or hers life. Now does that make me and my ex murderers? I dont know. Does it make me a worse person? Maybe. I make decisions, some are bad, some are good, some hurt me, some hurt others.Do i regret that decision? Sometimes yes and its hard to explain the emotion it creates inside me. Do i want legistlation that decides for me what to do in that kind of situation? No.I think its a decision individuals should do themselves. Will i carry that decision with me for the rest of my life? Definitely yes.
Now those of you who see abortion as murder are free to hate me for what ive done. Here you have a person, not some faceless evil. If this issue turns me into a disgusting person, thats the prize i have to pay for my decision.Thats all i have to say in the issue.
My aim isn't to hate people who feel pressure and listen to those who say that abortion isn't murder. Blame lies with numerous parties. The victim is already deceased and it seems as though nobody mourns the loss of a child - mother and father simply purged an inconvenient growth. You won't be charged with a crime; blame and hate will do little to remedy that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
What this world needs is a HEAVY dose of birth control. Human beings are indeed a virus, and we're breeding and spreading out of control, full of ourselves and our arrogance believing this planet is ours by right of divine gift or some other mystical being.
Well you are free to think as you like. If you are talking about victims, it already shows what you think. I hope i would live in a world, where there are good answers for all the questions and everybody would only make good decisions that wouldnt cause harm to anyone else. Sadly i dont live in that kind of world.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
We can try to make it better. Part of that is putting a respect for life in the forefront even if it isn't convenient. It will lead to less war and less starvation. The abortion issue is the building block to more compassion across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
This right here is the sticking point that our neoconservative christian "friends" don't get. In a perfect world, abortion would rarely ever happen. People wouldn't have unprotected sex, rape doesn't happen, no babies out of wedlock/whatever is appropriate for the culture/etc, medical complications are rare. In short, in some kind of fantasy existence, I'd agree. The problem is that women are raped all the time, "boyfriends" impregnate and then leave girls, often mentally or physically abusing them, in most current legal situations the man has little to no say given the situation even though half ot it is his DNA (I knew 2 men who had girlfriends who got pregnant purposefully and vindictively in spite of them), families abandon or push away girls who violate social stigmas by getting pregnant purposefully or accidentally, the list goes on and on. I've unfortunately experienced most all of those with women (girls) who've been related to close to me. It's the stuff of nightmares that ruins lives. Tincow already wrote a very thoughtful post that mirrors quite a bit of my personal opinion, which goes "well" with my life experiences. In short, the old adage "You'll wish you'd never been born" is the best way to sum it up. The quality of life for the child-to-be in any circumstances, as well as the mental and psychological damage that the child, mother, and others suffer would far outweight any "positives" had they been born.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I guess it just annoys the hell out of me when I see self-righteous bible-thumpers standing on their pulpits shouting "MURDERERS!" at others that have been through far, far worse than they could ever imagine in their sheltered little lives.
My $199.95 USD.
Rape is responsible for between 0.35% and 1% of annual abortions in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Incest accounts for about 0.03%.
Pysical Life of the mother is responsible for 0.2%.
Physical health of the mother 1.0%
more stats
I'm not a practitioner of any religion, it helps but is not necessary in this argument any more than it is necessary in an argument tackling world hunger.
There's another very common scenario for abortions that I don't hear anyone talking about -- severe birth defects. Haven't you noticed how few kids you see these days with Downs Syndrome? Here are some statistics:
Canada: "[A] Canadian study of 22,000 women who received prenatal diagnosis found that 88 percent of the women carrying a child diagnosed with Down syndrome had an abortion."
United States: "About 90 percent of women who receive a positive test for Down syndrome get an abortion, said Dr. Ray Bahado-Singh of Wayne State University’s Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine."
This is another thorny issue. Children born with Downs Syndrome usually develop heart problems and mental retardation. Their average lifespan is 49 years. They place immense stress on their support mechanisms, both the state and family. Who am I to tell a parent that they must not abort that fetus? Hell, I know how hard it is to raise a healthy child, and can only imagine how rough it is with a boy or girl who has severe development problems.
On the other hand, we're talking about a human life. George F. Will called the current attitude towards Downs Syndrome babies "a search and destroy mission." (Coincidentally, he has an adult son with Downs Syndrome.)
Anyway, from what I've read, the abortion debate comes to an end when you're told you have a fetus with severe defects. According to obstetricians, it doesn't matter if you're Democrat, Republican, Northerner, Southerner, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice ... at that moment none of it matters. And 90% of women and their men decide to terminate.
Food for thought.
-edit-
One more thought and a question:
What will this mean when it's possible to test for gayness, which I expect we will see within the next ten years? Will people choose to terminate a homosexual fetus? Will the gay population vanish in a couple of generations? What will a far-right couple do, if they know they have to choose between raising a homosexual and abortion?
And here's a serious question: Your wife/girlfriend is pregnant. You're in the exact circumstances financially and emotionally that you're in right now. A test shows that the fetus is extremely damaged. You know with 99% probability that the child will be mentally and physically crippled, assuming the kid even lives past two years. What do you do?
That's horrific. I want to have that debate - it is barbaric. 90%? that is insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As an aside: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962162/posts
http://mysite.verizon.net/res6rexj/s...umbert_74.jpeg
TuffStuff, here's a fairly good article about the Downs Syndrome/abortion situation.
I think birth defects are the elephant in the room when it comes to the entire abortion issue. Pregnancy due to rape just isn't that common. And I find it hard to believe that many woman are insane enough to use abortion as their primary method of birth control. My wife and I went through a miscarriage, which is basically a spontaneous abortion, and I can assure you that it ain't something you would do lightly, or often.
No, I suspect that a huge portion of the terminated pregnancies in the U.S. are due to birth defects. When you've got 90% of positive Downs syndrome tests resulting in abortions, well, add it up.
BTW, I can't make out what the fetus is supposed to be doing in frame 4 of your cartoon.
That does not surprise me, and it is in fact the single most relevant aspect of abortion to my life and the lives of most people I know. My wife is vehement that she will not carry to term a child with a serious birth defect. Since many genetic birth defects, like Down Syndrome, cannot be detected in the first trimester, such a situation will certainly cause me to have something of a moral dilemma. My plan to confront this dilemma is to get lucky and not have the problem in the first place. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
"Only 1% of women aborting say they have been advised that their unborn baby has a defect, and only I% say they became pregnant by rape or incest."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Most women use abortion as a form or birth control (a back-up method)
You're gonna need to provide a link to a non-advocate site for your numbers, friend. It's not that I'm doubting you, but I would like to see the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
no more dilemma for youQuote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Yes they can. I'm sad to say it, but now parents can kill their own children and feel even less guilty about it.
here you goQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm sorry, it's 2% according to that study.
Given that a healthy slice of the "liberal" establishment in Europe holds precisely that view at present, what loss would it represent?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Note: I'm using "liberal" in USA parlance, which is not the same way my Euro friends use the term.
Calling BS on the stats also, AND also the fact that even if you could get a "fair picture" from what's reported (which I doubt), one can't account for all of the unreported metrics. Women who are raped have a good chance of not reporting it. That's not the only factor, there are many others.
And my wife and I yet again are in the same mode of thought as Tincow. If she was pregnant with a child that we knew was going to have severe birth defects, we would abort the pregnancy. There are a large number of reasons, but the one that stands out and is constantly dismissed is quality of life for both our children to be, and ourselves.
Since we are the ones who live here and, to the best of our knowledge, the only beings who are also self-aware, who else could claim ownership? Unless, of course, you would prefer octasquid overlords?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
If we are a "virus" that is overproducing, then we'll wipe ourselves out by killing the host. If that occurs where do you want me to send the "you were right all along" message? :devilish:
The .35%-1% rape stat is a liberal estimate based on the reality of undereporting and I did post the links. The 1% birth defect stat was one study, another put the rate at 2%Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Read the last 2 posts before this me by me and all of your problems will be answered.
A bit earlier in the thread, countries like Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan, etc were cited as backwards places where abortions are prohibited.
I looked around, and found this place: LINK, listing which country allows what level of abortion.
It turns out that there are 56 countries (39% of world pop)that allow abortion without restriction:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And about 30 that ban it outright. The remainder allow for various reasons.
Not entirely germaine to the discussion, I admit, except as a reply to the tangent introduced earlier.
Actually, that's the 1987 numbers. The more recent study lists 3.3% as "risk to fetal health." Sounds like birth defects to me. And 2.1% are listed as "other."Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Here's the study Wiki cites for 2000. Some interesting stuff in there. I'll admit, I thought fetal defects would rank much higher.
If what you say is true, why does basically all the pro-life organizations mostly focused on abortion? Why not just as much on war? If pro-life is truly pro-life shouldn't they be in favor of world peace/banning all guns, ect...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
But the problem is that spending your time and effort on abortion instead of world hunger creates much less results. You can stop every abortion right now and you would still "save" less people than if you lower world hunger by like 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I don't think anyone would object to world hunger, yet theres plenty of people for pro-choice. If the pro-life movement shifted its focus from abortion to ending world-hunger, how many more people could have been saved? Millions, without doubt.
As for your reasoning that I'm just trying to change the topic, the same reasoning goes behind my assertion as that its better to invest resources into preventing a whole region from selling/procuring nuclear weapons instead of just one person.
Will both courses create results? Yes, they probably will, but do you get the same bang for the buck? Of course, not
Take a look at Kukri's list, and you'll notice that only a few(Ireland, perhaps Brazil, while San Marino and Malta isn't real countries anyway) civilized nations ban it, the others are all despotic and oppressive dirtbag countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Of those who allow it, however, you see countries with a strong and working democracy, with a respect for human rights(including yours), plus the ex-soviets and the revolutionaries. Coincidence? Not really. The laws of the land will, of course, always reflect the level of civilization.
@ Seamus: Haha! Point taken :beam:
Oh, and as usual, I agree with whacker in this thread.
Was wondering at first as well, it's wearing a baby harp seal costume, if you have good eyes(and a bit of imagination), it says so on the box as well, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I've never gotten away from the "kill your unborn/recently babtised child, making the ultimate sacrifice" problem though. The child goes to Limbo/Heaven and the parent ends up in hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Isn't Limbo out of Catholic teachings nowadays though, and not merely not spoken of?
As I mentioned to Xiahou, to do nothing because it's an "accident" is the same as the medical personal leaving you to die because it was a natural incident. You usually don't do that to people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Thanks for your answers :bow:
Tuff, as Tincow was into, the main flaw with the article is that it's still too wide of a concept. Those parts of your unborn twin Tincow mentioned or my personal wierdness favorites, twins where one has developed into what in practice is a parasite, would still be considered as human as any child or adult would be, by only using those guidelines.
Viking is accurate on the "1/3 of my generation is missing" of course, it ends up as a "what if" -scenario.
San Marino and Malta "is real countries anyway"Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What a joke - here are 38 out of the 56 listed. Rectal Cranial inversion is a serious medical issue, have a doctor look into it.Quote:
Of those who allow it, however, you see countries with a strong and working democracy, with a respect for human rights(including yours), plus the ex-soviets and the revolutionaries. Coincidence? Not really. The laws of the land will, of course, always reflect the level of civilization.
Vikings argument was flawed. The idea that sex sells are as wholly human as embryo's or fetuses is ludicrous. He could use the same argument against infants. The reality is that this is an issue for a reason and more and more people are starting to realize that. That is no coincidence.Quote:
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Belarus
Bosnia-
Herzegovina–PA
Bulgaria
Cambodia*
Cape Verde
China°–S
Croatia–PA
Cuba–PA
Dem. People's Rep. of
Korea°
Fmr. Yugoslav Rep. Macedonia–PA
Georgia
Greece–PA
Guyana†
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro–PA
Nepal–S
Netherlandsv
Romania*
Russian Fed.
Serbia–PA
Singapore***
Slovak Rep.–PA
Slovenia–PA
South Africa
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey–‡SA/PA
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vietnam°
Again, most Europeans do not understand American laws and protests regarding the issue because you have more balanced laws in your own countries. If you had undemocratic laws that were very morally questionable, you would have similar issues with them I'm sure - unless you are telling me you don't question arbitrary laws given to you by your judicial system, in which case I view your criticism of our cause as legitimate.
My statement was correct, wasn't it? Shining democracies + ex-soviets/revolutionaries
Oh, and Malta and San Marino don't count, they're way too small...Quote:
Albania - democracy, might get it from former yugoslav commies
Armenia - former soviet, now a democracy
Austria* - democracy
Azerbaijan - former soviet
Bahrain - one exception, this is a muslim state in the gulf
Belarus - former soviet turned despot
Belgium* - democracy
Bosnia-
Herzegovina–PA - former commie
Bulgaria - former commie
Cambodia* - second exception, a corrupt democracy in asia
Canada° - democracy
Cape Verde - democracy
China°–S - commie
Croatia–PA - former commie, now democracy
Cuba–PA - commie
Czech Rep.–PA - democracy
Dem. People's Rep. of
Korea° - commie
Denmark–PA - democracy
Estonia - former commie
France* - democracy
Fmr. Yugoslav Rep. Macedonia–PA former commie
Georgia - democracy, former commie
Germany* - democracy
Greece–PA - democracy
Guyana† - third exception, a latin democracy
Hungary - democracy, former commie
Italy–Δ/PA - democracy
Kazakhstan - former commie
Kyrgyzstan - former commie
Latvia - former commie
Lithuania - former commie
Moldova - former commie
Mongolia - former commie
Montenegro–PA - former commie
Nepal–S - fourth exception, another asian democracy/kingdom
Netherlandsv - democracy
Norway–PA - democracy
Portugal–‡PA - democracy
Puerto Ricov - US vassal
Romania* - former commie
Russian Fed. - former commie, now "democracy"
Serbia–PA - former commie
Singapore*** - fifth exception, another asian democracy
Slovak Rep.–PA - democracy
Slovenia–PA - democracy
South Africa - democracy
Sweden** - democracy
Switzerland - democracy
Tajikistan - former commie
Tunisia - 6th exception, a muslim democracy/dictatorship
Turkey–‡SA/PA - democracy
Turkmenistan - former commie
Ukraine - former commie, sort of democratish
United States–v◊PA - democracy
Uzbekistan - former commie
Vietnam° - commie
Off-topic, but afaik, it was never a Catholic teaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Sort of , it is a strange take it or leave it "teaching" , many priests (over here anyway) took it and passed it onto their parishoners as a teaching of the church .Quote:
Off-topic, but afaik, it was never a Catholic teaching.
Which was a bit of a bugger for their parishoners who lost a child before baptism .
Hmm, do I dare throw my :2cents: into the ring...?
Ah, what the heck.
Roe vs Wade? Not so good, imho. Think the court overstepped its bounds a bit, on account that the constitution states that things it doesn't cover should be left to states. Right to privacy? Well, I think its kind of a twisted argument there, on account that they kinda lost some of that when they conceived. Ask any parents with smaller children, and I'm sure they'll say they wish they had more privacy. ~D I know mine did. :evil:
As for the moral issue...egh. I'm a bit conflicted. Personally, I think killing is one of the most atrotious things a person can do. On the other hand, allowing a person to just suffer because of a genetic defect feels just wrong too. When I get married, I must admit, if I found out my kid was gonna have some kind of serious birth defect, I'd say there's probably a 98% chance I'd abort the child. But that's years ahead of me, for now.
However, I must admit that I often get very annoyed with pro-life groups, as every one that I've met has only been concerned with abortion. War? Nah, not important enough for our efforts. :confused: In recent years, my high school(which is Catholic) has really gotten me riled up. We have a HUGE pro-life group. It is easily the biggest non-athletic club at our school. The club Pres does our schools announcements every day(except a few days when his idealogical mini-me of a younger brother does them), in addition to being the student body president as well. I can never get him, nor the club, to get any sort of interest in acting against the war, despite that, you know, people tend to die in it. Furthermore, our school, who claims to champion human dignity and the value of life, actually has FORBID an anti-war group from being formed at the school, so those folks have to do it on their own at each other's houses(btw, there's only four people who participate in it). So far the only reason I've ever been able to deduce from mostly elusive teachers is that the school doesn't want to appear anti-American. Well, GAH!
I appreciate your feelings and I respect them. I also appreciate that you see the Roe decision for what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
In reality, issues of compassion and humanitarianism need to hook you at a young age. This usually happens due to one focal point - for me that was the issue of abortion. It opened my eyes to other issues regarding both human decency and failings.
The abortion fight keeps me firmly grounded to my compassion. I focus on the life and health of children and the ceaseless struggle for their healthy and loving upbringing; whether this is protecting them before they can voice their opinions or protecting them from abuse and starvation.
This is my humanizing strong point. I am, in Ron Paul's words, and "unshakable foe of abortion". Due to the strength of other movements and my personal involvement in the abortion movement, that is my bulkhead and focus - I am devoted to it first and feel that I best serve the well being of children by focusing my efforts toward ending or severely limiting the practice.
As I learn to better multi-task other issues will grab my focus as well.
The DNA is the fundament which experiences shape. The same experiences will have different outcome on "different DNA".Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
That would not be related to "the 1/3 argument". If the couple does not have sex, no children will come into existence. If they abort it, it will neither.
So when people receive their DNA, they receive their humanity or "personhood" in your interpretation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Faulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
-Without sex, no child will come into existence - True (but technically false - there are now others avenues of creation).
-If they abort it, no child will come into existence - False, the child has already come into existence, depending on a reasonable physical an philosophical definition of the words existence and child (which is not impacted by location).
No, the person they are/become is the sum of DNA and experience. If you alter one of the two factors, the outcome is bound to be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Is this a child, a human being?:Quote:
-If they abort it, no child will come into existence - False, the child has already come into existence, depending on a reasonable physical an philosophical definition of the words existence and child (which is not impacted by location).
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
to me, it looks much like an embryo.
Moderator's Note: Viking's spoilered image is OK, to illustrate his point/question, as it relates to the "when is a human a human?" issue currently under discussion.
Tread carefully, however, in this area. Images of post-abortion "tissue", or graphic descriptions of such, will not be allowed.
Thank you for your attention. Please carry on. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Actually - that picture is of an ectopic pregnancy at less than 5 weeks.
Here is a 7 week old.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Is This a human being? If not, what kind of mystical creature is it? Their DNA and their gender are determined at conception
In a few days, our 7 week old here will have nipples
Sounds like the typical pro-abortion mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
ops.
Quote:
Here is a 7 week old.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Is This a human being? If not, what kind of mystical creature is it? Their DNA and their gender are determined at conception
In a few days, our 7 week old here will have nipples
While it is starting to look like a human, I cannot agree that killing it is murder. A DNA and gender does not make a person. This mystical creature is a human being in development; it isn't a human just yet. Bah, discussing this is discussing semantics for the most part: it will rarley lead anywhere. :stupido:
It isn't murder. Murder is a legal term. Killing the unborn is homicide and should be considered murder by the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. You are also a Human being in development. So am I. All that that illustrates to us is that we are growing human beings.
If DNA and gender don't make a person, what does? I have established my opinion and beliefs about when a person is a person, you have not.
I'm arguing a consistent point. Words or no words my point is that you shouldn't get away with killing people, regardless of where they are or what body parts they have or don't have. It is an abhorrent, de-humanizing killing that the law allows. There are others and we will address them all.
The pro-abortion argument is covered up by semantics because the underlying point is weak.
c'monQuote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. You are also a Human being in development. So am I. All that that illustrates to us is that we are growing human beings.If DNA and gender don't make a person, what does? I have established my opinion and beliefs about when a person is a person, you have not.
I am growing, but I have a personality, a face and I can survive outside the vomb.
You are killing an embryo, not a person. An embryo has no personality, has no ability of thinking; it has nothing that constitutes a person but DNA and a gender.Quote:
I'm arguing a consistent point. Words or no words my point is that you shouldn't get away with killing people, regardless of where they are or what body parts they have or don't have. It is an abhorrent, de-humanizing killing that the law allows. There are others and we will address them all.
The pro-abortion argument is covered up by semantics because the underlying point is weak.
A gender by genotype, but the phenotype of gender can take longer to fully develop - and indeed sometimes isn't even clear when born.
~:smoking: