The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

In my opinion, if you are to perform a mercy killing, it should be done as painlessly as possible and with consent. With a fetus, it can neither feel pain, nor is it concious. That’s good enough for me to say it’s up to the mother. Whether her reasons are as simple as “I’m not ready for a child” or as serious as “this birthing could kill the both of us”, it’s not my business and I have no reason to make it my business. [/quote]

Okay, a couple of questions about this:

1.) How does a human’s ability to feel pain or her state of consciousness justify the taking of her life? Why do these criteria matter, specifically?

To clarify, I believe we both agree that the organism we are discussing is, indeed, an individual human being. You are one of the ONLY posters currently on this forum who both supports abortion but is also willing to recognize that what is being killed is not, nor is it equivalent to, a mass of cells, tissue, sperm, organ, tire iron, Illuminati decoy, Thetan, or anything other than a complete, individual human, with the exact same potential to grow into a walking, talking, tap-dancing human, same as any of us. Your willingness to admit this, along with a couple of other things recently, while others posters squirm and redefine words and back track and bravely run away has caused me to respect you quite a bit more than I used to. One more time: I appreciate your candor.

Now, with this in mind, and to take one of your examples: What is so special about pain? How does pain itself come to be the determining factor in the life or death of an individual human? Moreover, and still related (and to add yet another parenthetical, please correct me if you do not agree with any of this), how can a so-called Right to Life even exist if we can find a loophole in which this “right” suddenly doesn’t count? That would be more accurately called, "the privilege of life, " a term which I’m sure will affect an irritating but almost certainly temporary rush of cognitive dissonance within the brains of our resident abortion proponents.

  1. On what basis do you justify the termination of human life at this stage of development but not another? If you do not agree that it is also justifiable to kill someone in a coma, knocked out, under anesthesia, in a deep drunken sleep or similar, then your argument lacks a certain distinction that rectifies this disparity. If the right not-to-be-murdered is afforded in toto to the big human but the small one has to “earn” this right by…wait for it…not-being-murdered for the first three months of her life, then your argument lacks an important premise.

What, exactly, is the difference in kind between big homo sapiens sapiens that affords him a special protected status that small homo sapiens sapiens is not equally entitled to?

Edit: dang tags

402

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is “The Abortion Thread” and this question is about abortion. To all the pro life people here. Of which I am most unwaveringly one myself. What if there were 100% scientific consensus that every pro death argument had been verified in their studies. 100%. The pro abortion folks are right.

ALL the science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that every last argument put forth by the abortionists is correct. Now what? Don’t go coppin out on me with something like “well that would never happen”? It HAS. What do you say?[/quote]

Interesting post.

To address a couple of points from the last few pages:

I have probably spoken to way more women about their abortion experiences than any of you. Women my age (almost 47) are pretty forthcoming. And not ONE has ever expressed regret for her decision.

The comment that women suffer more mental angst post-abortion than post-rape is extremely offensive to me. Have any of you ever been raped by a man? I didn’t think so. I’d like to
see the evidence on that claim.

[/quote]

Who said this? Where? If it was said, I missed it.

Good grief. Are you serious? Please tell me you do not have any children of your own if you actually view human life in this manner. The miracle of the conception of a new human life, her growth inside of what should be the safest place in the entire world, childbirth with all its agony struggle and the final tiny, struggling, fragile, wet, wrinkled, squirming, screaming beautiful little creature that finally justifies it all.

And you can’t even call it a human because it’d mean you would have to face the monstrous act you are here promoting for what it really is, the wholly selfish, narcissistic choice to snuff out the life of a new little human being who doesn’t even get to have any say in the matter whether she lives or dies because, well, because it inconveniences you for around 9 months.

Parasitic form of life. Wow.

[quote]

Thank you to all of the men who support a women’s choice and have expressed that here. As I’ve said, I never had an abortion nor ever will, but I appreciate that women in the US have options and that those options are available to all.[/quote]

And from me, thank you to all of the men AND women who work to protect the lives of those of us who cannot protect their own. Believe it or not, people like me do not hate women. That’s just more fallacious horseshit. We are defending our fellow human from murder. You don’t get any options to murder humans.

And while you are addressing points, care to address mine yet?

I’ll try and ask you one more time and see if you’ll actually answer this time instead instead of muttering about how terribly unreasonable I and my pro-life ilk are. Please, be reasonable yourself, and answer the question I have asked of you so many times now:

When, specifically, does a conceived human become a human being?

If you want to win people to your side, you need to at least be able to present your reasoning when challenged. So, is it or is it not an individual human being from the moment of its conception?

I’ll be waiting for that answer. Hopefully not as long as I’ve been waiting already.

403

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Women are very emotional, why don’t we take some time to discuss other things that could cause women unnecessary trauma and guilt. We should then try to make those things illegal for women only, they will thank us later.[/quote]

Emotions have nothing to do with whether some thing is a human life or not. This discussion goes back to the notion of the woman being ‘the second victim’ in abortion. The fact that the action is a trauma for the mother is the reason behind the sentiment.

How the woman feels about it, though, is technically irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if the life you are willfully taking is a human life and is it ok to take a human life at certain points. Everything else is second.[/quote]

Being that a 3rd party is involved only because women don’t have knowledge to perform the procedure on themselves, if they were able to do it without a 3rd party what should the punishment be if abortion was illegal? By your statement above you indicated there would just be 2 victims and no one who committed a crime, so whats the need for a law in the first place?[/quote]

That’s a total strawman…First and for most, it’s either a human life, or it’s not. I say to take an innocent human life is wrong. You guys say it’s ok to take a human life so long as that life doesn’t meet certain criteria. Hence, the human life is devalued because being a human life is not a sufficient reason alone to allow it to live. [/quote]

So what do you think the prison sentence should be for a women who has an abortion? If it was to be made illegal this would have to be answered.[/quote]

We already answered this, dude.

RTFT.

404

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I was assaulted by a man when I was 27.[/quote]

Did you survive?

405

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
most rape victims have spoken on how it took them longer to deal with the abortion than to heal from the rape itself.
[/quote]
This.[/quote]

Heh. You sure?

406

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I could hardly finish reading this it is so sad.

Did you read this, raj? This is just anecdotal evidence, though, right? And if her story isn’t a complete lie, her reaction is nothing more than religio-cultural programming, right?

What a terrible act abortion is. [/quote]

Yes anecdotal evidence and appeal to emotion fallacy.

I’m sure I could find a hair-transplant horror story and you can conclude that hair-transplants are also terrible acts.[/quote]

Pretty sure there aren’t too many men writing letters to their skin grafts. Yet, we very often DO hear of stories just like the one above. Yet, you have already trivialized the loss that thousands, millions of women, even, have felt as little more than a misguided emotional reaction to societal pressure.

If you really believe this, then why do you have such a limited stance on justifiable abortions? What’s the difference, right?

Exactly what is your point in doggedly pursuing this side track? All I can gather from everything you’ve typed is that abortion is no big deal and that the women who whine about them should suck it up, and that there aren’t that many women who give a flip about having their child ripped from their womb.

We haven’t even touched on evolution and how women are genetically programmed to protect the carriers of their genetic information, that is their children, even unto death. Maybe that only kicks in after the child’s “life” begins. Which was…wait, when was that again?

407

[quote]kpsnap wrote:
I was assaulted by a man when I was 27. It took me a long time to get over that fear that walked with me every step. I couldn’t grocery shop (or go anywhere) for quite some time unless I could park right in front of my destination. I carried a huge bottle of mace with me everywhere I went for a number of years.

I don’t know one woman who had an abortion (and I know plenty) who had any angst rivaling that.

I say I would never have an abortion, Pat, because the reason to do so never presented itself in my life. If it had, I would certainly have explored the option.

I’m done in this thread.[/quote]

I am sorry you got assaulted at 27. I don’t know what that has to do with this discussion, though.

None of that has to do with the fact that abortion is the willful taking of a human life. The truth of the matter is very, very few abortion happen as a result of assult, rape or incest. So if you want abortions for them, fine, give me the 99% that are for selfish reasons.

408

Pennsylvania “House of Horrors” law closes one abortion clinic, five others stop surgical abortions
by Operation Rescue staff Tue Jun 19, 2012

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, June 19, 2012 (Operation Rescue) - In the wake of abortion scandals involving accused murderer Kermit Gosnell and unlicensed abortionist Steven Chase Brigham, Pennsylvania has passed a new abortion clinic licensing law that is set to go into effect today. The new law will require abortion clinics to submit to inspections and meet minimum safety standards.

One abortion clinic, Allegheny Women’s Center, voluntary closed on June 15, 2012, rather than comply with the law. Five others will be forced to stop all surgical abortions as of today.

A recorded telephone message at Allegheny Women’s Center in Pittsburgh informed callers that the abortion clinic closed “due to circumstances beyond our control.”

Last year, two abortionists at Allegheny Women’s Center, John Barrett and Alton Lawson, were arrested for illegally prescribing drugs.

Out of Pennsylvania’s 22 abortion clinics, only one, Hillcrest Women’s Medical Center in Harrisburg, actually met all requirements and received a full license. Thirteen clinics, including all Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in the state, received provisional licenses will continue to supply surgical abortions on a temporary basis for the next three to six months. If the clinics do not meet all of the requirements by that time, they will no longer be allowed to do surgical abortions.

Two abortion clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania or the University of Pittsburgh have been placed under hospital regulations. The new law does allow the five clinics that must stop surgical abortions to continue to dispense abortion pills.

“All but one clinic could not initially meet all the standards. That fact alone speaks volumes to the shoddy conditions that exist at abortion clinics, not only in Pennsylvania, but across the nation,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation, who has long supported clinic regulation legislation. “These laws are important tools with which we can hold accountable an abortion industry that has run amok for over three decades.”

Gosnell and eight of his employees were arrested in January, 2011, and charged with numerous related to illegal late-term abortions. Gosnell and three of his employees were charged with murder for killing viable babies born alive during late-term abortions amid squalid conditions.

New Jersey abortionist Steven Chase Brigham, who is unlicensed in Pennsylvania, was banned from owning abortion clinics in that state. His last two abortion clinics there were ordered to close in April.

409

One last question before bed:

A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?

What’s the difference, right? No big deal.

Same question for the child at 30 weeks.

Same question for the child at 40 weeks.

410

The Abortion Case No One is Talking About

Jun 19, 2012 / By: Mike Spielman

In January 2011, Jennie Linn McCormack was arrested in Pocatello, Idaho. Her crime? Killing her baby by lethal injection. After receiving a tip from a neighbor, police found the baby’s frozen body wrapped in a plastic bag and laying on the mother’s barbecue. When asked what happened to the dead child, McCormack incredulously responded, “How can you question me about my personal stuff?” To this, the officer replied, “Well, there’s legal and there’s personal.” And clearly a dead baby on the backyard grill has legal written all over it. Or does it?

The reason Jennie Linn McCormack is not in jail today is because the pills that caused her baby’s demise were not injected by the baby; they were injected by the mother. McCormack killed her child by self abortion, and the criminal case against her was thrown out. Abortion, after all, is a private, legal affair, right? Not exactly. Though abortion is federally legal in all 50 states, “private” abortions are generally against the law. A 1972 Idaho law states that all abortions must be performed by a doctor, and all second-trimester abortions must be performed in a hospital. Did I mention that McCormack was five months into the pregnancy when she aborted her childâ??using abortion drugs that aren’t recommended past 7 weeks gestation? Adding to the legal conundrum is Idaho’s more recent “fetal pain” law which forbids most abortions past 19 weeks.

All of these statutes will be put to the test next month when McCormack’s civil suit goes to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. She and her attorney are challenging the constitutionality of forbidding the interstate sale of abortion drugs to non-physicians. If necessary, McCormack’s attorney says he will take the challenge all the way to the Supreme Court.

But despite the high stakes, the case has garnered little national attention. NPR speculates that pro-life organizations are hesitant to condemn aborting women and are quietly avoiding this case because there is no abortionist to point the finger at. They quote Marjorie Dannenfelser, from the the Susan B. Anthony List, as saying, “We do not think women should be criminalized. Criminal sanctions or any kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists, and not for women.” On the other side, NPR suggests that abortion-rights groups would much prefer a more sympathetic plaintiff and a more sympathetic Supreme Court.

In the meantime, McCormack complains of being ostracized in her community. She eventually quit her job at a dry cleaner to avoid the whispers and nasty looks and stopped going to her Mormon church after hearing a sermon on abortion that she felt sure was aimed at her (if only that sermon had been preached before this tragedy occurred). “They can sit there and judge me,” McCormack says, "but itâ??s not the easiest choice to ever have to make. And it was all -â?? a lot of it was about my children. I couldnâ??t put any more on them, or me.â?? McCormack has three surviving children and notes that the older two seem to feel ashamed of her.

Like so many others, McCormack had an abortion because she thought it would make her life better. And even though she seems to feel little remorse for killing her unborn child, her life has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. I do not say that she is getting what she deserves. I do say that she is the tragic product of a warped and immoral legal systemâ??one which conditions mothers to believe that it is normal and natural to terminate children who are an inconvenience. McCormack had aborted in the past without any hoopla. Why should it be any different for her when she aborted at home? Is the end result any different for the baby? Is it any worse to abort a viable baby than to abort a non-viable baby? The National Abortion Federation assures us that it is not.

It’s easy to condemn the apparent callousness of Jennie Linn McCormack, but at the end of the day, she is right. If there is nothing wrong with abortion, then there is nothing wrong with what she did. She should be free to self-abort to her heart’s content. But if there is something wrong with abortion, then it suddenly becomes clear why McCormack’s actions are so nauseating. Abortion is an act of violence that kills a living human being, and that is true no matter where or when the abortion occurs.

411

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Women are very emotional, why don’t we take some time to discuss other things that could cause women unnecessary trauma and guilt. We should then try to make those things illegal for women only, they will thank us later.[/quote]

Emotions have nothing to do with whether some thing is a human life or not. This discussion goes back to the notion of the woman being ‘the second victim’ in abortion. The fact that the action is a trauma for the mother is the reason behind the sentiment.

How the woman feels about it, though, is technically irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if the life you are willfully taking is a human life and is it ok to take a human life at certain points. Everything else is second.[/quote]

Being that a 3rd party is involved only because women don’t have knowledge to perform the procedure on themselves, if they were able to do it without a 3rd party what should the punishment be if abortion was illegal? By your statement above you indicated there would just be 2 victims and no one who committed a crime, so whats the need for a law in the first place?[/quote]

That’s a total strawman…First and for most, it’s either a human life, or it’s not. I say to take an innocent human life is wrong. You guys say it’s ok to take a human life so long as that life doesn’t meet certain criteria. Hence, the human life is devalued because being a human life is not a sufficient reason alone to allow it to live. [/quote]

So what do you think the prison sentence should be for a women who has an abortion? If it was to be made illegal this would have to be answered.[/quote]

We already answered this, dude.

RTFT.
[/quote]

Not everyone may share the same opinion on it, I’ve already seen 2 different answers because I did read the thread. His comment indicated the woman was a victim which implies she should not serve jail time.

412

[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:

A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?

What’s the difference, right? No big deal.

Same question for the child at 30 weeks.

Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]

Most people would say it is not ethical, this is why the first trimester is a more accepted answer which is a big difference from 20+ weeks.

413

[quote]ephrem wrote:

A blatant lie.[/quote]

If you don’t like this sort of garbage, then kindly don’t do it to me by implying that I allow my religion to do my thinking for me. You know better and I thought we had built up a mutual respect, if not a friendship.

Now, can we drop the silly jabs and go back to being friends who don’t agree on anything political, philosophical, or religious, please?

414

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:

A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?

What’s the difference, right? No big deal.

Same question for the child at 30 weeks.

Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]

Most people would say it is not ethical, this is why the first trimester is a more accepted answer which is a big difference from 20+ weeks.[/quote]

And, specifically, what is this difference that is so big?

415

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Women are very emotional, why don’t we take some time to discuss other things that could cause women unnecessary trauma and guilt. We should then try to make those things illegal for women only, they will thank us later.[/quote]

Emotions have nothing to do with whether some thing is a human life or not. This discussion goes back to the notion of the woman being ‘the second victim’ in abortion. The fact that the action is a trauma for the mother is the reason behind the sentiment.

How the woman feels about it, though, is technically irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if the life you are willfully taking is a human life and is it ok to take a human life at certain points. Everything else is second.[/quote]

Being that a 3rd party is involved only because women don’t have knowledge to perform the procedure on themselves, if they were able to do it without a 3rd party what should the punishment be if abortion was illegal? By your statement above you indicated there would just be 2 victims and no one who committed a crime, so whats the need for a law in the first place?[/quote]

That’s a total strawman…First and for most, it’s either a human life, or it’s not. I say to take an innocent human life is wrong. You guys say it’s ok to take a human life so long as that life doesn’t meet certain criteria. Hence, the human life is devalued because being a human life is not a sufficient reason alone to allow it to live. [/quote]

So what do you think the prison sentence should be for a women who has an abortion? If it was to be made illegal this would have to be answered.[/quote]

We already answered this, dude.

RTFT.
[/quote]

Not everyone may share the same opinion on it, I’ve already seen 2 different answers because I did read the thread. His comment indicated the woman was a victim which implies she should not serve jail time.[/quote]

Uh, the topic was covered pretty extensively over at least two pages, if not more, by pretty much every member of the pro-life side involved in this thread. What do you want us to do, write out our answers one more time just for you, since you had someplace to be, or something?

416

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:

A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?

What’s the difference, right? No big deal.

Same question for the child at 30 weeks.

Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]

Most people would say it is not ethical, this is why the first trimester is a more accepted answer which is a big difference from 20+ weeks.[/quote]

And, specifically, what is this difference that is so big?
[/quote]

I asked this earlier but maybe you missed it but it might help better answer your question which you keep asking in various forms. What is your scientific definition of a human? Is it a specific DNA sequence, something less/more?

417

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:

A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?

What’s the difference, right? No big deal.

Same question for the child at 30 weeks.

Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]

Most people would say it is not ethical, this is why the first trimester is a more accepted answer which is a big difference from 20+ weeks.[/quote]

And, specifically, what is this difference that is so big?
[/quote]

I asked this earlier but maybe you missed it but it might help better answer your question which you keep asking in various forms. What is your scientific definition of a human? Is it a specific DNA sequence, something less/more?[/quote]

My answer is:

  • It must be alive.
  • It must be autonomous.
  • It must be human in nature (I.E. DNA)

If you have those 3 things you have a human life. You cannot have a human life if any of those components are missing. There is nothing you can do to make it not a human life when it meets those requirements and you cannot say that something that meets those 3 requirements are not a human life.

418

In the spirit of this thread and the overall lack of common sense of the Anti-Free Will side of this argument, could I ask you guys to prove something to me? Prove to me that abortion rates will drop in the US if abortion is made illegal, and while you are at it prove to me that the rates of child abuse, neglect and abandonment will decrease.

Hell since you will be busy finding facts to back up those claims, show me how the additional 1.6 million children born in the US (since nobody will have abortions) will be cared for, and by whom. SO it is simple, you see abortion as a problem, you are also all (or almost all) voting for a Presidential candidate that wants to reduce teachers, police, and firefighters, and is against women’s health agencies and contraception so explain to me how we will educate and protect those unwanted children once they are born.

Tip: Abstinence is not a solution it is a talking point.

I expect to hear no answers (because you have none) several deflections (par for the course) some name calling and of course at least one “It’s not my problem/fault.”

You will find out (through research) that abortion rates are higher in countries where it is illegal or more restrictive. You will find out the economic and social cost of 20,000,000 unwanted children over 10 years and you will ignore it all, thump your bible proudly and say, “Abortion is a sin”, or if you are an atheist “abortion is murder”, the end result is the same, you want to trade one solution for a set of problems that you admittedly cannot solve.

419

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:

A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?

What’s the difference, right? No big deal.

Same question for the child at 30 weeks.

Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]

Most people would say it is not ethical, this is why the first trimester is a more accepted answer which is a big difference from 20+ weeks.[/quote]

And, specifically, what is this difference that is so big?
[/quote]

I asked this earlier but maybe you missed it but it might help better answer your question which you keep asking in various forms. What is your scientific definition of a human? Is it a specific DNA sequence, something less/more?[/quote]

My answer is:

  • It must be alive.
  • It must be autonomous.
  • It must be human in nature (I.E. DNA)

If you have those 3 things you have a human life. You cannot have a human life if any of those components are missing. There is nothing you can do to make it not a human life when it meets those requirements and you cannot say that something that meets those 3 requirements are not a human life.[/quote]

Okay lets start with the first human that ever lived. What would you call their parents? which are obviously not human since their offspring was the first and not them.

420

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
In the spirit of this thread and the overall lack of common sense of the Anti-Free Will side of this argument, could I ask you guys to prove something to me? Prove to me that abortion rates will drop in the US if abortion is made illegal, and while you are at it prove to me that the rates of child abuse, neglect and abandonment will decrease.

Hell since you will be busy finding facts to back up those claims, show me how the additional 1.6 million children born in the US (since nobody will have abortions) will be cared for, and by whom. SO it is simple, you see abortion as a problem, you are also all (or almost all) voting for a Presidential candidate that wants to reduce teachers, police, and firefighters, and is against women’s health agencies and contraception so explain to me how we will educate and protect those unwanted children once they are born.

Tip: Abstinence is not a solution it is a talking point.

I expect to hear no answers (because you have none) several deflections (par for the course) some name calling and of course at least one “It’s not my problem/fault.”

You will find out (through research) that abortion rates are higher in countries where it is illegal or more restrictive. You will find out the economic and social cost of 20,000,000 unwanted children over 10 years and you will ignore it all, thump your bible proudly and say, “Abortion is a sin”, or if you are an atheist “abortion is murder”, the end result is the same, you want to trade one solution for a set of problems that you admittedly cannot solve.[/quote]

If/when abortion is made illegal, I think it would be important to set up public and private agencies which will support women during pregnancy and help them adopt them off or raise the child through a certain amount of time.