Yeah i agree that people react differently. But even those that felt great, probably did so because a burden being lifted. Not because the process of an abortion felt good.
Honestly.. I would rather have a girlfriend have an abortion than have her give up a child. In any case how can any one of us evaluate whether a mother is getting an abortion to keep a child out of misery or whether she's doing it because she doesn't want her butt to get fat....
The problem is that nobody is qualified to speak for unborn foetuses. So anti abortionists only speak from the they believe is right. Not from the standpoint of actually KNOWING what the foetus wants. Why does their personal belief supersede the personal belief of somebody who wants an abortion. Enforcing personal belief upon other equal members of the state... is that not against the constitution?
What they do have in common is that they afford the right of the involved parties to establish their own personal belief and behave according to them.
So abortion is ok in certain cases. Who decides what these cases are? Can a court decidce whether a teenage girl is capable of handling the raising of a child? Just an example. The point is not what is right and wrong. the point is that nobody is more qualified to make a decision about having an abortion other than the mother herself. This is not a matter of enforcing abortion on women that we deem incapable of motherhood. Its about accepting that we can't decide what is right and wrong in her case and therefore she must choose herself.. and live with that choice.

We constantly hear the pro-abortion crowd screaming, "What about in the case of rape or incest?!?!?!?!" but 95+% of all abortions are done merely because a woman doesn't want to be pregnant at the time.

It's a matter of convenience.

And let's not keep using the same old tired rhetoric of "Contraceptives fail!", because even that accounts for only about 2% of all pregnancies.

Abortion ends the life of a pre-born baby. And it's only conscience-salving rhetoric by people who HAVE to use terms like "zygote" and "fetus" in an attempt to deny what's really happening. It's the exact same de-humanizing practice of calling enemy soldiers "Japs" & "Gooks", because then it's easier for soldiers to kill them.

I said this to you in another thread and i shall happily repeat myself here dear friend:

I have NO clue where you get the idea that women get abortions because they are convenient. Explain how they are convenient please.

As far as i know, a surgical procedure is not convenient. As far as i know hormonal disturbances are not convenient. As far as i know, emotional turmoil is not convenient. As far as i know nothing about an abortion is CONVENIENT. It may be felt that it is necessary.. but i have never ever heard it being called a convenient method of contraception. Where did you hear that? I would appreciate it if you could clarify that before you use this argument again.
THe method of conception really has nothing to do with the debate about whether women should have the right to choose or not. It's not anybody else's call to make
Nobody is out to destroy human fetuses. This is not a campaign against them. This is a campaign FOR the right to choose. Two interlinked yet separate issues.

Abortion is a very traumatic experience precisely because it is a potential human we talk about. But like i said, the discussion is about who decides the fate of the unborn child. Should it be the mother, or should it be a stranger on a moral high horse

"Once a fetus has a heartbeat you can't kill it" you say?
And you are aware that a fetus has a beating heart by the time it is forty-two days along, right hkjabwa
??
As far as 'scraping tissue off the uterus', an embryo is no more just tissue than you are. Just like you, he or she is a living being who exhibits all the features of life,
the principal one being metabolism.

Could you please tell me who said anything of the kind?
As I wrote yesterday, your efforts to conflate divorce and elective abortion have not been - and will not be - successful.
Why?
Because one is the manipulation of a contract. The other involves the taking of a life.

Your position is certainly ambiguous: at the top of this same post, you wrote that the fetus cannot be killed once she has a heartbeat (which is six to seven weeks along)...
At the bottom of the same post, you contend that it can be open season on her as long as she is inside the uterus of her mother (which is all nine months).
Not to worry -
Your confusion and backpeddling are quite typical of the advocates of abortion-on-demand.

Excuse me? How on earth are you qualified to tell us that "the senses have not yet come alive" ? Even the most dedicated proponents of elective abortion acknowledge that by 18 to 20 weeks (the midway mark of the pregnancy), all the cerebral cortex connections are in place for fetal sensitivity to stimuli...
Doesn't matter anyway.
Even if a fetus had no "senses" he or she would obviously still be a living human being during that time.

I never for one moment said that abortion felt good. What I AM doing is arguing against this portrait you try to paint of every abortion being a matter of tormented white knuckled soul searching for the woman.
It just is not true, particularly now that abortion is so easy.
Many, many people tend to think something is morally alright once the law says it is legal.
That is unequivocally the case with elective abortion.

You would rather that your flesh and blood be exterminated than to have them grow up in someone else's care? Interesting.

1. Misery? You mean the misery of most adopted children? Please show me evidence that the majority of depressed persons and suicides are adopted people. Because I know two adopted people who are as happy as anyone can be.
That misery excuse is palaver, hkbajwa.

2. Fat butt from having children? I see Biology 101 has failed another abortion advocate...a fat butt is either in your genes or it is not. You don't get one from having children.

No offense but this is ludicrous. Of course it is "right" not to kill another human being except in self defense. You mention our not knowing what the fetus wants? Can you actually be contending here that feti wish to be killed?
I must disagree,
and apparently so must M. Gandhi, who said that all living beings from the most unaware up to the most aware... want to stay alive.

It just shows me how backed into a corner the proponents of elective abortion are, that they would actually try telling us that the fetus might want to be killed.

Yes, so maybe we should rescind all laws against murder, rape and pederasty too. After all, we would not want to enforce our personal beliefs on others who don't agree.
Right, hkjabwa?

If divorce and elective abortion can be conflated on those grounds, then to be consistent you would also have to include murder, rape and pederasty as I mentioned just previously.

Has nothing to do with a teenage girl: teenage girls often give up the baby or get colossal help from relatives.
YES abortion is regrettably necessary in certain cases...who decides? How about the law which applies to everyone else: no killing except in self defense?
That okay with you?
If the baby - through no fault of his own - is threatening the life or grave health of the mother...then and only then should it be legal for his life to be taken.

Final note.
Hkbajwa you seem confused about Jefferson's use of "convenient".
He is clearly not saying abortion is more convenient than conventional birth control.
He is saying abortion is more convenient than pregnancy, especially pregnancy when giving up for adoption is planned.
And as anyone can easily see, he is right.
FYI,
there is far more hormonal disturbance involved in pregnancy and childbirth than there is in abortion, so please stop writing as though the abortive mother has this terrible load of hormonal imbalance compared with the procreant mother.
Not to mention all the other changes and adjustments that go with pregnancy which are not attendant on abortion.
Secondly,
Jefferson is correct about how the "hard cases" like rape and incest are always pulled out by pro abortion persons.
But in truth they account for only a tiny speck of the forty five million abortions which have taken place since Roe.
Many prolifers like myself do realize that rape and incest must be included as exceptions in any abortion restriction legislation, just to get the damned thing passed.
However,
thousands of women have given birth to the offspring of rape and loved them just like their other children, so it is certainly not self evident to me that a pregnancy from rape MUST be aborted.

Ok .. i concede on all points. Let's talk about implementation.

There are 5% of women who have abortions for "justified" reasons. I believe that you agree that they have their rights also, even though they may be a minority.

Who determines what is a justified reason for abortion? Basically who determines whether you are part of those 5% who are allowed an abortion?

Who will codify the rights of an unborn? A fetus concieved by rape or incest should still have the same rights as those feti concieved due to carelessness. So will those feti have separate rights or no?
If they do, then what gives a court the right to take away those rights to survival in favour of the mother's "feelings" about the mode of conception? In fact what gives the right to a court to decide to take away the right to survival of a fetus even if the mother's life is in danger? It's not the fault of the fetus. Why is the survival of a grown lady more important than that of a fetus?

Again i stress that this is not an argument for abortion. As stated repeatedly i think much can be done to prevent abortions. Sex education, counselling, awareness campaigns etc. Mothers can be given all the information that a court would base its decisions on. However the court can never know all what the mother knows about the pregnancy, its repurcussions social medical and emotional.

My contention is that since each abortion is an individual case, no legislative process can ensure that all factors are weighed properly. In such a case there is only one person with all the relevant information and it should be the right of that person to make the decision. That would be the mother.

Alternative!
An Intrauterine Device (IUD) is a small object that is inserted through the cervix and placed in the uterus to prevent pregnancy.

http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/iudinfo.htm

You are so "right"!
http://images.google.com/images?hs=l...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Okay smartass, how many Iraqi children starved to death - every day - as a result of the United Nations sanctions?

So you're feeling oh-so-sanctimonious because you have some pictures of dead Iraqi children. So tell me... How many of those dead Iraqi children were killed by suicide bombers and IEDs? Do you have ANY idea, or are you blind and ignorant enough to just ASSume that their deaths are due to American military action?

And by the way, those very same pictures on that website could come from any and every skirmish and war - which is NOT a justification - but it's a "heads up" for those of you who need to pull your head out of the sand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/35065.stm
http://www.peace-action.org/camp/justice/iraqfs.pdf
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=86
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/iraqemb.htm