Here comes Shawn with another unpopular political quandary...

Absolutely!

In a twisted way, yes. But the difference would be that would be done in self defense, where abortion on demand is abortion for convenience.

Oh, and profit. Don't forget that juicy profit. *Planned parenthood salivating*

I wish abortions were never desired, or needed, also. I kind of posed the question because both sides of the issue are missing something the other might add to actually contribute to lowering abortions. I'm uneasy with punishing abortions by law, because that may lower the number we know about, but there will still be women wanting them, not merely for "convenience", but sometimes, in their minds, for compassionate reasons, in places where it is so traumatic to be, or to raise a child, often alone. So economic growth reduces abortions. But abortion rates are much lower in economies where people do not have as many serious financial worries. Studies also show that abstinence only programs don't reduce pregnancy, but when given all the information about parenthood, birth control, and std's, pregnancy rates go down. I also posed the question as a variation on the "evil stranger with a gun" scenario some people use when we say we don't choose to have guns in our house. I feel having a police force at our call is sufficient, and the "stranger in the house" is a very low statistical likelihood (as is a pregnant woman in public wielding a firearm). Anyway, thanks for responding.

Thank you for your consideration. I agree that education about the possible results of sex would logically drive down pregnancy rates. I think the biggest issue pertaining to abstinence is our society's lack of discipline. We don't raise our children anymore. We're not allowed to bring them up. Anyway, have a nice day. :)

you mean like China?

Well, if one aborts a male fetus, does that make one anti-man? Think about it; it does not make any difference whether it is a male or female being aborted, males DO tend to contribute more(calm down and let a bit of research quench your hate comments, look at it from a historical viewpoint; who did the heavy lifting and MOST of the heavy thinking throughout history, eh? Men, you CANNOT deny that fact.) to society, I mean, look at the U.S. Military's training standards for women; it's a ****ing joke! Women will be expected to perform as well as men in combat, so taking it easy on them could to the death of soldiers because they weren't conditioned properly. And now the Marines say they want to have MORE women, and lower training standards EVEN FURTHER! It's a ****ing outrage! If they ca- oh, I'm sorry, got a little carried away. Keep your hate comments and counter-arguments to yourself; especially counter-arguments, because I realize women have contributed a fair amount to modern society, but the fact that we men have done more is undeniable. :)

There's truth in what you say. Overall in history, men have done more, but one may argue it is because men have had more opportunity to do. It cannot be denied, however, that while there are many similarities, men and women are different both physiologically and mentally. We're different, but I like to think, equal. Now as to the original point of this meme: the "war on Women". Liberals will have you think that saying that a woman can't abort their baby (let's call it what it is) that you are taking away their choice, thus declaring war on Women. This is pure tommyrot, poppycock, hogwash. What if the fetus is a female? Is there not also a war on them?

Just felt like ranting.

I always enjoy a good rant. :)
You should find plenty to rant about in my other submissions as well. And don't forget to upvote your favorites.

It's a war on women... fetuses.

I'm in the middle there....pro all life and also for empowering women by helping them and supporting them in caring for their children, which sounds too socialist to my more conservative friends. But I also agree that it's not a "war". Stuck in the middle.

It hurts being on the fence, but often times the middle is the best vantage point. Caring for others doesn't belong to Socialism. Not at all. We're allowed to care for others as Conservatives. Case in point, Christ teaches us to do so, but nowhere does Christ say "Government should force us to care for others". That's where a lot of people get confused.

Christ doesn't say much of anything about what any government should or shouldn't do. He leaves that up to His followers to work out. We're mostly fine with the level of Socialism we have now in our country, and we were fine with a 40% income tax for the most wealthy when the GI Bill was building our country in the '50's. The income gap was not nearly as wide as it is now. But it is a good question as to what morals the government can or should impose on its citizens.