'Not bring a child into the world'? What sugar-coating of the horrorible reality: the child...YOUR child...IS in the world - in your uterus. And you are chosing to kill your child because of your own selfish reasons.
If it doesn't her life in danger, yes. It's at least that simple. You're trivializing this so as to avoid understanding. Not this lifer. No, that's the spin your brain puts on it. But what you don't look at that underlies the fear and anxiety (rape excepted) is the feeling of betrayal she only feels because she didn't have sense enough withhold her favors from a scoundrel - or because she judged him as a scoundrel and therefore won't give him the opportunity to bear his share of the burden by telling him she's pregnant. There is an easy way to avoid those, and STD scares to boot. Should the answers to these questions all be undesirable, which of the resultant circumstances would fail to meet the definition of "inconvenience" in your OP? Your thinking tends to be overly literal. Maybe that's a side effect of your religious upbringing.
Lots of women have no damage, no stretch marks...but according to OKgrannie - pregnancy is a great risk and damages your body beyond belief. Despite the fact that most women give birth...and women live longer then men. Pro-abortionists don't like science.
My thoughts exactly. I think it is also an attempt to seriously demonize the women who are choosing abortion by making them appear as if they are just so selfish for not dropping everything and giving up on their dreams to raise an unexpected/unwanted child. Lifers don't really know what it feels like to experience an unwanted pregnancy, at least not the ones here I've noticed. I mean the Crisis Pregnancy Center commercials I see on TV even play on the fact that women are scared out of their minds when they have an unwanted pregnancy, not this whole "You just don't want it because it's an inconvenience you selfish (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)!"
There is no child in utero. Children are ages birth to 5 years generally. Child in your uterus is an oxymoron. You can't have a child present until you give birth.
Selfish reasons? Every child conceived intentionally was done so for "selfish reasons." Every child conceived unintentionally, but borne anyway, was done so for selfish reasons. Every possibility of birth that was thwarted by birth control was done so for selfish reasons.
True. Humans are are very selfish creatures. Everything thing we do we generally do because we want something from it. Whether it be material like money/objects, or emotional.
None of this emotional appeal garbage really matters. Either abortion is a horrific deplorable act that should be prohibited, or it isn't!
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm Before the 19th century, most US states had no specific abortion laws. Women were able to end a pregnancy prior to viability with the assistance of medical personnel. * Beginning with a Connecticut statute and followed by an 1829 New York law, the next 20 years saw the enactment of a series of laws restricting abortion, punishing providers, and, in some cases, punishing the woman who was seeking the abortion. * The first US federal law on the subject was the Comstock Law of 1873, which permitted a special agent of the postal service to open mail dealing with abortion or contraception in order to suppress the circulation of "obscene" materials. * From 1900 until the 1960s, abortions were prohibited by law. However, the Kinsey report noted that premarital pregnancies were electively aborted, and public and physician opinion began to be shaped by the alarming reports of increased numbers of unsafe illegal abortions. In 1965, 265 deaths occurred due to illegal abortions. Of all pregnancy-related complications in New York and California, 20% were due to abortions. A series of US Supreme Court decisions granted increased rights to women and ensured their right to choice in this process. No decision was more important than Griswold v Connecticut, which, in 1965, recognized a constitutional right to privacy and ruled that a married couple had a constitutional right to obtain birth control from their health care provider.
Yet you keep posting it, over and over and over... It is not, but you can pretend it is anything you wish.
I am positive Otter is a mother of 4. Whaler though, I am not sure of at all. One moment he's a man the next she's a pregnant woman. I am baffled.
Since you answered the question wrong, I am disapointed, but yes I am relatively happy, thanks for asking .
Not gonna lie, lol, I had to look that one up and even now I am having difficulty understanding what you are asking me. xD But you did remind me of an Eddie Izzard skit, "Cake or Death!"
Well I am glad. I think we can all use a bit of cheeriness after perusing this forum at times. lol I might go and take a break in the off-topic chat before we get back to our battle to the death on abortion Whaler.
There are lots of considerations in the choice to have a child. Poor women and/or women who are unmarried or unhealthy have some serious obligations to the child they may bear.
