Moral decisions are based upon those to whom the decision rests. It would be a far different debate if it was in the law which is pushing to stop legalized abortion which said "each church against abortion now, or who has expressed being against abortion in the past, must now pay 20% greater their tithing capacity in taxes to help raise unwanted children". In addition, the discussoin of morality on abortion would have ended if the law also included..."each member of a congregation of a church who has expressed anti-abortion rhetoric at any time must now adopt two unwanted children and supply their own monies in raising these children through college."

It's easy to judge someone else's morality when you don't hold a stake in it. It becomes a case of putting your money where your mouth is. Since anti-Choice people seem to be republicans who have voted to cut back on funds for the poor and single parents' healthcare needs, the "morality" of the "life" of the child seems to stop when the baby is born.

foundit:And why should we pay for your hospital care and expensive drugs when you're found with AIDS?

Again.....

Again.....

If you insist that abortion is murder and it should be stopped if possible AND the mother/parents keep the kid but can't afford to take good care of it..... then who the $#$@'s responsiblity is it to see to it that the kid has a half way decent life and a chance to succeed? Nobody? If you are gonna save babies, then you should at least help out...... What if the kid has something wrong with it and is put in a government institution with no visitors? Who should take care of it or even make it their business to go see it? Nobody?....... Yea, those are the questions that drive me---a #$@ heathen nuts......

Not too nuts, I gave up trying to change the world years ago.....

Ever hear of....adoption?

Who takes care of them now, if not the government?

Babies with deformities are rare. That's what drives me nuts when I think of perfectly healthy babies being aborted for convenience sake. Deformities, rape....the argument most heathens give, are very, very rare. Not a good "reason" to keep abortion legal. Before legalized abortion, there used to be many, many adoptions....and many, many happy parents.

You shouldn't.

And for the record, I'm disease free.
Why did you phrase it "you're found with AIDS"? With NO "if"?
Is that just another sign of bigotry and prejudice?

Oh yes.
Because as we all know, giving birth to a child carries NO expenses...


And you're comfortable with just that...
Those that are not adopted, the "government" takes care of them in a foster care system riddled with problems.

Part of the thing that gets me is how SOME on the "pro-life" side don't give a rat's ass about quality of life. They want to make abortion illegal, and let the "government" take over in adoption or other ways if the baby is unwanted or the parents can't care for him/her.

I've got real respect for the pro-life people that actually want to HELP mother and child BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the birth. And "BEFORE" doesn't count if all you do is yell at the mother as she's looking at an abortion clinic.
But to those that obviously don't care, beyond the fact that there is another child in this world as opposed to not, I think they're missing a huge point...


Do you have any clue as to how many children are in the adoption system, that never get adopted?
Do you care?

As soon as "abortion" leads to a situation where there are parents who WANT a kid, but can't get one because there are no kids in the foster care / orphan system, let me know.
Until then, all you're doing is asking for more unhappy orphans to be made...

Your argument is way off base, Sally. We're talking about taking a human life, not the babysitter's fee.

It's not always easy to stand for what's right, but when it comes to someone else's life, where do you stand? or don't you?

The idea is to force them to take responsibility for themselves and not expect someone else to do it for them. But that doesn't register with those who favor socialism over freedom. Having sex without the benefits of matrimony isn't exactly my choice, either. Why should I have to pay for the irresponsible actions of someone who won't bother to be responsible? Why should their "mistakes" be my problem? I take responsibility for my actions. No one but me pays for my mistakes.

Preventing the conception or birth of a child begins before it happens, not when it becomes a "WHOOPS!" That's what responsibility is, Sally. Having sex without considering beforehand the possible consequences is true responsibility. This is what's wrong with the present generation. They've never been taught that there are consequences for every action, and if they don't want a particular consequence, they shouldn't perform the present particular action. See how that works? If you're wanting to have sex and don't want a pregnancy, the logical choice is "Don't have sex unless you are fully protected against a pregnancy."

There are so many ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Why won't they use them? I'll tell you why. It's called "IRRESPONSIBILITY!!!"

You define it as a human life.
Others may not.


"responsibility"?
If they get pregnant, and they believe the best choice is to abort, then they take the time and $$$ to abort the child.
That's responsible.

I watched a "30 days" special where a pro-abortion woman went and lived 30 days in a shelter for pregnant women, ran by an anti-abortion crowd. It was FILLED with women who were having children they COULD NOT PAY FOR.
Is that "responsibility" to you?


Actually, it's YOU who has a problem with the "consequences" involved.
Not them.

They get pregnant. They deal with the situation and have an abortion.
Or they don't.

The problem is that YOU DO NOT LIKE how they deal with the situation and the "consequences", so you ignore the fact that they ARE DEALING.

Take it however you want to take it, foundit! As I'm sure you always do....take it however you want to. You're the one who believes whatever you want to believe, not necessarily the truth. Is that not a sign of "bigotry and prejudice"??