Distracted Boyfriend

Or at the very least, back the environment of poverty, addiction, and overflowing foster homes that you're helping to create.

I hope you and the kids that you have no doubt adopted and fostered have a nice day.

Go and ask a foster child, or child in state care if they would rather be dead.

That's not the point at hand. I merely stated that I'm happy that you, with your strong views, have surely adopted and fostered many suffering, neglected, and previously unwanted children. Kudos to you, really. A true good-Samaritan committed to making a difference.

LOL....that is the issue, that of a child having a life or being deprived of a life. Your recalcitrance to acknowledge this obviates when you attempt to move the issue to child adoption. I do not have to adopt to maintain a child's life should not be ended during the mother's pregnancy.

But you do need to accept that the viewpoints you have can and do result in unwanted children entering an already bloated system, OR, result in children being born to unfit mothers. It can't be argued. Not in all cases, obviously, but in many.
Is a life of misery, pain, and abuse for babies that don't know what they did to deserve it, truly better?

Because it is all such a hazy part of science, I don't think it's the government's duty to just decide what's right, and tell us what we believe.
If you personally think that a child is a person before it is born, that's awesome, and by all means, don't support abortion. I respect your right to make that decision. But at the same time, if somebody DOESN'T believe a child is a person before it's born, then who are we to tell them otherwise?

A human is undeniably a human when it is born; when it leaves the parasite stage and becomes a scientifically 'alive' organism. That isn't up for debate.
But as for whether or not that "life" begins earlier is a personal belief system. I'm not going around telling people that they have to become Buddhists. It's a different branch of the exact same tree.

No I do not have to accept any such thing. Children are born to unfit mothers regardless of abortion laws. Abortion laws do not cause such things (bad mothers), nor have they been demonstrated to produce or exert an increase in parents giving up their children. In fact statistics rebut this narrative, as abortion has been widely available for the last several decades and children in care of local state governments has increased in spite of wide availability of abortion procedures.

Nor does the existence of abortion laws create lives filled with struggle. Life is a struggle for nearly all of us, whether our parents "wanted us or not". Abortion is not some mercy procedure that alleviates a child from a hard life. It simply deprives them of life and any potential the child has.

It is no "hazy part of science" either. There is clearly a living being inside a pregnant mother. To contend otherwise borders on insanity. No medical professional would say a child is not a live inside the mother. The fact that abortion is used to ABORT A LIFE verifies this. You can't argue there is no life in the mother, but you want access to a life ending procedure. The argument is contradictory on its face.

I no longer consider you a rational person in this debate, as you refer to an unborn child as a parasite (parasite stage). This is a blatant attempt to dehumanize unborn children to claim they are not really worth what you and I are worth.

It is already a choked system--that is what I've been saying. So imagine just how many more children will be born to such circumstances (state care, foster system, homelessness, etc) when abortions are no longer available. You think there has been an increase in children in government care in the recent past? Nothing compared to what it will be in the next few years.

And you are correct, whether or not it is "living" is not the hazy part of science, I agree. Perhaps I misspoke. It is whether or not this "living thing" is deserving of person-hood, rights, and considerations of that and above the undeniably living thing that it is feeding on. Just because something is living, does not mean that it is a person. By uprooting a seed, you have not cut down a tree. You have uprooted a seed.

And do please note that I was merely referencing the literal definition of a parasite, which is 'an organism that feeds off the nutrients of another'. When you break it down, the literal actual language, and put all connotation aside, fetuses are parasites.

I agree that this conversation is over. I'm very sorry you feel that the bodies of the nation's women are your own to regulate.

What about the women inside the bodies of woman? I'm very sorry you feel that the bodies of the nations women are your own to kill. Don't you care about women?