If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

We don't do that now. What makes you think we would start when abortion becomes illegal. Do you think we will cancel all of the social programs already in existence?

Of course we don't do that now.

I just want to know what could or should happen if abortion became illegal.

If we have obligations as an ethical society to not kill human beings at any stage of development does that obligation end there?

There are always unintended consequences with any decision. Legalizing abortion with few restrictions could be said to have the unintended consequence of promoting abortion as birth control. Ok...so it becomes illegal.

Lets explore the potential unintended consequences of that. The babies life is not the only life in the equation. The potential impact on society could be large.
 
Werbung:
palerider;17605]You are batting 1000. You don't seem to be able to get anyting right. We don't live in a democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Duuuuuude... I'm really starting to worry. This quote is a little bazaar even for you.:D

Wolves... sheep... dinner... :confused:

The United States of America is a Republic. The definition of a Republic is "a representative democracy". You may want to look that one up before you post again.


Every single point you have attempted to make has been based on information that is simply wrong and yet, you hold your position. Talk about a position of faith.

See above...

By the way. The situation, as it stands, is not the product of democracy. It is the result of 9 unelected, unaccountable, black robed judges who made the decision for everyone. Since you bloviate incessantly about democracy, you should be howling even louder than I do about the decision to make abortion legal. That is a more subtle hypocricy in your overwhelmingly hypocritcal position.

GOTCHA... I'm keepin' track! Freud = idiot... Birth control pill is abortion... Don't live in a democracy (something about sheep & wolves eating dinner)... Duly elected President appointing Supreme court nominiees that then go through a confirmation process through Congress not part of our democracy as set forth in our United States Constitution... top gun bloviates.

GOT IT! :)
 
Of course we don't do that now.

I just want to know what could or should happen if abortion became illegal.

If we have obligations as an ethical society to not kill human beings at any stage of development does that obligation end there?

There are always unintended consequences with any decision. Legalizing abortion with few restrictions could be said to have the unintended consequence of promoting abortion as birth control. Ok...so it becomes illegal.

Lets explore the potential unintended consequences of that. The babies life is not the only life in the equation. The potential impact on society could be large.


It sounds like you are asking for guarantees. Did you have any when you were born? You had a life and all of the potential for good or bad that goes along with it.
 
The United States of America is a Republic. The definition of a Republic is "a representative democracy". You may want to look that one up before you post again.

Still batting 1000. We are a representative republic. You might want to look everyting you intend to type before you do it.



GOTCHA... I'm keepin' track! Freud = idiot... Birth control pill is abortion... Don't live in a democracy (something about sheep & wolves eating dinner)... Duly elected President appointing Supreme court nominiees that then go through a confirmation process through Congress not part of our democracy as set forth in our United States Constitution... top gun bloviates.[/QUOTE]

Keeping track of how many times you get smacked down? Read the constitution. Particularly the section on the role of the supreme court. Making law doesn't appear there.

And if you don't believe that the pill causes the death of unborns, how about you prove it.
 
palerider;17744]Still batting 1000. We are a representative republic. You might want to look everyting you intend to type before you do it.

Ditto & spell & grammar check evidently...;)

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands...

re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb'lĭk)

A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order.

de·moc·ra·cy
(dĭ-mŏk'rə-sē)

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people--in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy.

Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens.


GOTCHA... I'm keepin' track! Freud = idiot... Birth control pill is abortion... Don't live in a democracy (something about sheep & wolves eating dinner)... Duly elected President appointing Supreme court nominiees that then go through a confirmation process through Congress not part of our democracy as set forth in our United States Constitution... top gun bloviates

Keeping track of how many times you get smacked down? Read the constitution. Particularly the section on the role of the supreme court. Making law doesn't appear there.[/B]
LoL :D... I have absolutely No doubt that in your own mind you are Wile E. Coyote super genius (no offense Coyote :D) and much smarter than The United States Supreme Court. Deciding whether an issue is or is not Constitutional is their job and many different issues and circumstances aren't specifically written into the Constitution but of course are still covered under it.

Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And if you don't believe that the pill causes the death of unborns, how about you prove it.

I know... I know. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! Won't allow fertilized egg to implant in the first place. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!
 
Sorry guy. We are a representative republic. Just ask the founders.

"I know... I know. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! Won't allow fertilized egg to implant in the first place. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! "

Still batting 1000. There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists as an egg. It is a human being from that point on and any outside agent that causes it to die has killed it.

I know you want to be right but you just haven't done your homework on the abortion issue or apparently, the structure and nature of our government.
 
palerider;17798]Sorry guy. We are a representative republic. Just ask the founders.

You do know all the founders are dead... right? Actually it is also sometimes called a representative democratic republic. Which is by definition the same thing as a representative democracy. But I'll be glad to post where I got the words I used... and low and behold it was some founding fathers! OOPS!

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay articulated this conception of a republic in their 1788 essays that were later compiled as The Federalist Papers. These essays, intended to support the ratification of the federal Constitution in New York, distinguished a republic from a pure democracy, describing the latter as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." In the context of The Federalist Papers, a republic differed from a pure democracy only in that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." According to this interpretation, a republic was a representative democracy. As Madison pointed out, the representative principle militates against the irresponsible exercise of majority power, for it makes a large republic possible, and it is difficult in a large republic for any faction to become a majority. According to these authors, a large republic would foster the formation of many factions, and this sheer multiplicity of interests in turn would create shifting coalitions, which would hinder the formation of an oppressive or irresponsible majority. Furthermore, because of the checks and balances and separation of powers between different branches and levels of government, any upstart tyrannical faction would encounter many legal and institutional roadblocks.



"I know... I know. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! Won't allow fertilized egg to implant in the first place. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! "

Still batting 1000. There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists as an egg. It is a human being from that point on and any outside agent that causes it to die has killed it.

I know you want to be right but you just haven't done your homework on the abortion issue or apparently, the structure and nature of our government.

When does the fertilized egg implant?
By : Sophia Levis

When the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins to produce hCG it is called implantation. This typically occurs between 6 and 8 days after ovulation.

The egg is fertilized in the outer part of the fallopian tube, generally within 12 hours of ovulation. After it is fertilized, the egg travels down the fallopian tube. The fertilized egg grows as it travels. It doubles, the grows to four cells and then to eight cells as it enters the uterus.

Implantation occurs in the upper third of the uterus. Implantation sometimes can cause bleeding or minor spotting. This is considered normal. You may be able to use Basal Body Temperature to determine when implantation occurs.


OUCH!
Hey Wile E. :D Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay articulated this conception of a republic in their 1788 essays that were later compiled as The Federalist Papers.

Funny you should reference the federalist papers since you have obviously never read them. Here, let me introduce you to the words of the founders:

Federalist 29 - In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition.


Federalist 48 -The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.

Federalist 51 - 51 In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government.

Federalist 63 - 63 The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them.

Federalist 83 - 83 The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government.

Hey Wile E. :D Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You already got slapped down once for using non scientists as references for scientific matters. Are you incapable of learning. Here again, you post words from a non expert as if they proved something. If you want to know facts, you go to a medical text book.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc (fertilized egg) is not used in this book."Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

Ouch!!
 
palerider;17865]Funny you should reference the federalist papers since you have obviously never read them. Here, let me introduce you to the words of the founders:

Exactly... The Federalist Papers...and what was the interpretation of that, which I presented...

In the context of The Federalist Papers, a republic differed from a pure democracy only in that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place. " According to this interpretation, a republic was a representative democracy. The United States government is not an absolute or pure democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a representative democratic republic.

Your problem I keep seeing you repeat is that you know the analogies are correct but in some grandiose self important way can't help yourself but to try and find some flaw that makes you feel better about yourself.

No one ever said the word Republic isn't used in the federalist papers or the Constitution. What was presented was the documentation of the intent behind them... come on you know that. You can read that. And the really bizarre thing is that even though the text book definitions of Representative democratic republic and Representative democracy... are exactly the same thing you choose to argue over it. It really is just a bizarre trait. Cow/bovine exact same thing. :)


You already got slapped down once for using non scientists as references for scientific matters...

Oh pleeeease! Come on Wile E.

Yet again you intentionally miss my point...

zygote
Ovum (egg) after fertilization but before it undergoes cleavage to begin embryonic development.This article is © Research Machines plc 2004. All rights reserved. Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines plc.

Once an egg has been released, the sides of the fallopian tube periodically spasm aiding the egg in traveling down the tube towards the uterus. If the egg fails to be fertilized during this time, it will break up once it reaches the uterus. Additionally, since your thickened endometrium is also no longer needed as there is no fertilized egg to implant itself into the lining, the lining will shed over a period of three to eight days. This discharge is what makes up your menstrual flow.

Thesaurus: Noun 1. fertilized egg - an animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages but in lower forms terminate in commencement of larval life

I could go on forever. But again my only point is there is such a thing as a fertilized egg. Anyone can Goggle fertilized egg and see it referenced a hundred times or more. And not just in commentary but in medical research documents. Can you call it something else? Can you describe it in different ways... sure. My point was very simple though. There is such a thing as a fertilized egg. That was it.

Beep Beep>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh and I have another question now from the wife. Since you've made it clear your opinion that Birth control pills are performing an abortion. And since you believe so strongly that even microscopic life should not be "killed".

You could never be satisfied with just making abortion illegal to be consistent and not hypocritical you also would want Birth control pills to be made illegal with all the penalties you strive for to be enacted upon them also.

Now this is her and not me but she says if you say no then your whole long argument is a sham.

And if you say yes everyone should be very afraid of you and you should seek mental health counseling immediately. :eek:

Again this is from a woman... not me.
 
Exactly... The Federalist Papers...and what was the interpretation of that, which I presented...

I gave you what the founders said, not an interpretation of what they said. Throughout the federalist papers, they describe the government they were instituting as a representative republic. Interpret it how you will, but any interpretation other than representative republic is wrong.

Your problem I keep seeing you repeat is that you know the analogies are correct but in some grandiose self important way can't help yourself but to try and find some flaw that makes you feel better about yourself.

I am sure that is what you think. The fact is that I correct you when you are wrong. If you were right, or using apt analogies, I would not be correcting you.


Yet again you intentionally miss my point...

I got your point and yet again, it was wrong.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. The term is outdated. Modern technology has rendered it obsolete. When fertilization is complete, a new human being exists, not a fertilized egg.

The reference I gave you is from an actual medical school textbook. Note the date. Your infomation has been outdated since at least 1996.

I could go on forever. But again my only point is there is such a thing as a fertilized egg. Anyone can Goggle fertilized egg and see it referenced a hundred times or more. And not just in commentary but in medical research documents. Can you call it something else? Can you describe it in different ways... sure. My point was very simple though. There is such a thing as a fertilized egg. That was it.

And you would be wrong forever. Every textbook on embryology and human developmental biology states quite clearly that when fertilization is complete, a zygote exists, not a fertilized egg. A zygote is a human being. The term fertilized egg is used by people who don't grasp the biology so that they can feel like they do.

Oh and I have another question now from the wife. Since you've made it clear your opinion that Birth control pills are performing an abortion. And since you believe so strongly that even microscopic life should not be "killed".

Human beings, not microscopic life. Why can't you say what it is rather than hiding behind the language?

You could never be satisfied with just making abortion illegal to be consistent and not hypocritical you also would want Birth control pills to be made illegal with all the penalties you strive for to be enacted upon them also.

If roe is overturned, it will be because personhood has been established for the unborn. I don't often go into this but if personhood is established and roe is overturned for that reason, it will not be possible for any state to allow abortion either. Justice blackmund, in the roe decision, admitted that if personhood is established for the unborn, that the framework of roe will fail because the unborn will be entitled to 14th amendment protection. No state can allow women to simply kill human beings that have the protection of the 14th amendment.

If personhood is established and with it, 14th amendment protections, any contraception that is not strictly contraception will also become illegal. Pharmaceutical companies will have to develop a pill, or implant, or injection that prevents ovulation as its means of operating without creating an inhospitable environment in the uterus should a woman ovulate and become pregnant anyway since creating an inhospitable environment that results in the death of a person with 14th amendment protection would be manslaugher at the very least.

Now this is her and not me but she says if you say no then your whole long argument is a sham.

Sorry, you won't find any inconsistencies in my argument. I have done my homework.

And if you say yes everyone should be very afraid of you and you should seek mental health counseling immediately. :eek:

Again this is from a woman... not me.

You call names and make impotent little jokes, she simply attacks the person. Nice family you have there. No debating skills, but then no family has everything, right?

There is no hypocricy in my position. The pro choice side however, is riddled with hypocricy since your postion requires that you single out one group to whom you must apply an entirely different set of rules.
 
I gave you what the founders said, not an interpretation of what they said.

Me too plus the interpretation. And like I said it's a ridiculous argument because the two things by definition are exactly the same thing... which I also provided. Rabbit/Bunny... exact same thing.


There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. The term is outdated. Modern technology has rendered it obsolete. When fertilization is complete, a new human being exists, not a fertilized egg.

The reference I gave you is from an actual medical school textbook. Note the date. Your infomation has been outdated since at least 1996.

Another opinion that you're entitled to hold I guess. There are documented medical and medical research testimonies that do not say that... the one I posted was from 2004. I encourage everyone to Goggle "fertilized egg" and see if they come up with only a blank screen or only information dating back before 1996. They won't but we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

And you would be wrong forever. Every textbook on embryology and human developmental biology states quite clearly that when fertilization is complete, a zygote exists, not a fertilized egg. A zygote is a human being. The term fertilized egg is used by people who don't grasp the biology so that they can feel like they do.

Okaaaaaay? Whatever?
zygote
Ovum (egg) after fertilization but before it undergoes cleavage to begin embryonic development.This article is © Research Machines plc 2004. All rights reserved. Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines plc.


Human beings, not microscopic life. Why can't you say what it is rather than hiding behind the language?

Are you serious. You can't be serious. Human beings have to be microscopic life at some point. You're saying they're concieved full size? Whatever... believe what you want.

If personhood is established and with it, 14th amendment protections, any contraception that is not strictly contraception will also become illegal. Pharmaceutical companies will have to develop a pill, or implant, or injection that prevents ovulation as its means of operating without creating an inhospitable environment in the uterus should a woman ovulate and become pregnant anyway since creating an inhospitable environment that results in the death of a person with 14th amendment protection would be manslaugher at the very least.

Finally, there you go! Thank you! Everyone can now finally see the real you and what you want. Your not only out to stop abortions you're out to put women in jail for manslaughter for taking traditional Birth Control Pills.

Now everyone sees behind the curtain to how far reaching this attitude really is and where this argument truly leads. Now anyone reading this can visualize just what life would be like for women and teenage girls if you ever got your way. You just did more to help pro-choice in one paragraph than I ever could.

Wife was right.
 
Me too plus the interpretation. And like I said it's a ridiculous argument because the two things by definition are exactly the same thing... which I also provided. Rabbit/Bunny... exact same thing.

Another opinion that you're entitled to hold I guess. There are documented medical and medical research testimonies that do not say that... the one I posted was from 2004. I encourage everyone to Goggle "fertilized egg" and see if they come up with only a blank screen or only information dating back before 1996. They won't but we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. [/COLOR]

Not opinion. Fact. Information from medical textbooks is not opinion as opinion is not taught in medical school. The sort of information that you presented is opinion. I used the edition of the book from 1996 to demonstrate that this is not new knowledge. The 2006 edition says exactly the same thing. Would you prefer that I use the same words and cite the 2006 edition of the book?

And exactly what do you think googling fertilized egg and getting results proves? That it is possible to get incorrect information from the internet? Try googling "no such thing as a fertilized egg" if you want to get accurate information as opposed to just information. The first hit you get will be from a scientific text on the topic of syngamy . Here is what it says about fertilized eggs:

"Early in the evolution of eukaryotes, a new method of recombination appeared... syngamy. Most textbooks will refer to this process as fertilization. I hope you will leave that out of your vocabulary...pehaps saving it for when you are discussing compost or fertilizers. Males are fertile without a female contribution and vice-versa so we do not make each other fertile. There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg"...once syngamy has occurred it is a zygote... no longer any kind of egg. Hens that have been visited by roosters do not lay eggs...they lay zygotes (or young embryos) in a shell. The only hens that lay eggs are those who live in factory farms that never see a rooster; no amount of incubation will result in their hatching. I think you have the picture! "

http://plantphys.info/Plant_Biology/lifecycle.html

Are you serious. You can't be serious. Human beings have to be microscopic life at some point. You're saying they're concieved full size? Whatever... believe what you want.

Are you saying that they are not human beings until some point at which you can see them unaided? The term microscopic life without adequate description evokes bacteria and parameciums living in pond water and attempts to distract from the fact that we are talking about human beings.

Finally, there you go! Thank you! Everyone can now finally see the real you and what you want. Your not only out to stop abortions you're out to put women in jail for manslaughter for taking traditional Birth Control Pills.

Traditional birth control pills are abortifacients. They mostly prevent ovulation but when a woman ovulates and becomes pregnant, they create a hostile environment which results in the death of the child.

Do you think that there is some moral difference between dying due to being torn apart and dying due to being put in an environment in which you can not live? Explain that logic. If the personhood of unborns is established, they will have the protection of the 14th amendment meaning that they can not be killed without first having due process of the law. Contraception is fine, abortion is not.

Now everyone sees behind the curtain to how far reaching this attitude really is and where this argument truly leads. Now anyone reading this can visualize just what life would be like for women and teenage girls if you ever got your way. You just did more to help pro-choice in one paragraph than I ever could.

Sees what? That I am not a hypocrit? Tell me what is the difference between killing via surgical procedure and killing via drugs? And once again, I see no reason that a more perfect contraceptive drug can not be developed. Are you under the impression that what we have is the best that we could hope for?

Wife was right.

Since you have been wrong on every point you have tried to make, and have been dishonest in your characterizations of my arguments, I fail to see how you are qualified to proclaim anyone right.
 
That is the lamest of all arguments 9sublime. Tell me something that has been stopped by making it illegal. Following that logic, there should be no law against anything because someone is going to do it anyway.

Unenforced and unenforceable laws SHOULD be taken off the books, laws like that lull people into believing that something is being done about the problem when in reality it isn't.

If Catholics believed in reincarnation I'd suspect that Pale was the return of Nicolae Ceausescu, the Romanian dictator who decreed a death penalty for any woman who had an abortion. It didn't work very well, in fact it was a disaster because ol' Nico did exactly what Pale is recommending: pass the law making abortion illegal and THEN try to figure out how to deal with the hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. Ceausescu couldn't figure it out and when the population revolted and put him to death there were orphanages all over the country overflowing with sick, neglected, starving babies that no one wanted. Pale always tries to make it a discussion of why an innocent should be killed, but the discussion is really about the lesser of two evils, aborting fetuses that no one wants or forcing women to carry and birth them first and then letting them die by inches in a culture that hates welfare and has continually reduced money for the care of infants, children and pregnant women. Ronald Reagan is the poster boy for this attitude with his belief that: Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

I don't know how many abortions are done each year in this country, but I do know that the systems for caring for unwanted children are stretched to the breaking point right now and if we do as Pale's emotional appeals ask, then we will dump tens of thousands more unwanted babies into a system that doesn't want and cannot care for the ones that is has right now. It will be just like in Romania, an unmitigated disaster--for which women will receive the majority of suffering and blame.

I think that the idea of new and better birth control products is a good one, but let's get them online before we ban the tools we have now. If the religious people and Pale, are so unhappy with things as they are now, then they should put political pressure on the government to fund more research and give money themselves for research.
 
Again I challenge you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

And I challenge you, Pale, to provide some credible science that states that only human life has the inalienable right to exist. You made the statement, so back it up.
 
Werbung:
Its hardly a lame argument. You are trying to ban abortion because of the sanctity of life, but if you ban it, children will die and so will their mothers in unsafe abortions.

Which is what happened in Romania, thousands of children were orphaned when their mothers died from back-alley abortions due to new, unwanted pregnancies. Instead of one death we now have two, and a bunch of children with no mother. Two wrongs don't make a right, neither do three or four. We have to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies before we ban abortions or we will simply make the situation worse.
 
Back
Top