Replies

I must have flunked biology. I always thought a woman had control over what's in her womb. I hadn't realized that a baby could plant its little self there ex nihilo.

I have always laughed at the argument of "forcing a woman to carry a baby to term makes her a ward of the state". By that logic, forcing you to care for it for 18 years makes you a ward of the state. The lack of logic in these arguments is almost astounding.

No, if she has the option of abortion she has no grounds to make that argument on. She had the option of ending the pregnancy. If she goes to term she has no basis on which to claim that she shouldn't take care of the baby.

I have always laughed at the argument of "forcing a woman to carry a baby to term makes her a ward of the state". By that logic, forcing you to care for it for 18 years makes you a ward of the state. The lack of logic in these arguments is almost astounding.

If you really want to see the pro-aborts go ballistic, bring up the subject of a male abortion. In male abortin, the father files a document renouncing the life of the child including all the rights and priveleges pertaining to paternity of said child (even if the kid grows up to become a gazillionare) and all responsibilities as well. The father can file the paper at any time during pregnancy when it would be legal for the mother to get an abortion. You can even slap a $300 filing fee on it.

I bet you can guess what the "pro choice" crowd thinks of that idea.

Shalom.