I do not lump all anti-abortion people into that category. In most cases abortion is barbaric - in some cases it is the best but difficult choice. The key here is how and who decides the exception. Do we want the government or any particular religious group to do that or do we want the woman and her family to do that? Easy answer for me. This country was founded upon the principle of individual freedom and restrained government with a separation of religion from that restrained government. If you don't approve of abortion, don't get one even if it means your wife dies as a result.
even if it means your wife dies as a result. >>
dies? most women do not die from being pregnant, it they do die, it's "during" childbirth way too late for an abortion. A woman may face a greater risk having an abortion than by carrying the baby to term.
But you have. Twice, on this thread alone.
In the future I hope you'll refer to those opposing a woman's "right" to lay down her body and sacrifice her child for the convenience of society as "disgusting, arrogant religious zealots (your words) AND agnostic, vegetarian feminists."
As I said in my earlier message I don't wish to get into a debate on the matter, just ask that you stop using the tiresome and false stereotype. However I might suggest that you revisit the topic with an open mind -- give it some original thought.
"Do we want the government or any particular religious group to do that or do we want the woman and her family to do that?"
The government has already ruled in and said that the family has no say in this matter. Unlike ANY other medical procedure, youths (who are BELOW the age of consent, and often experiencing a pregnancy by an adult statutory rapist/molestor) are free to decide to commit the act of infanticide without notifying anyone.
Dueling and slavery were legal at the founding of this country. Abortion was not.
I wouldn't say that there is justification for any of them.
As "bad" as it is for a rape victim to be "forced" to bear a child she did not consent to, why should the child suffer the greatest tragedy as a result? Should that same "tragedy" be expanded to include cases where the child happens to have a birth defect or simply be of the "wrong sex" or the sire of an ex-lover (fell out of fashion)?
Acts have consequences.
Abortion and suicide are permanent solutions to temporary problems. Where is the shame in bringing the child of a rapist to full term? Not asking the victim to raise this bastard child, there are plenty who will take over. Or is rape a hereditary condition? If it is, then rape should be as legal a sex act a homosexuality (it's nature!).