Oldschool777 : Yeah, I get what you mean. I just wanted to point out that letting someone live is different than letting them survive. You did point that out pretty well with your refrigerator joke. There is no right answer since it's a personal decision on most cases and let's be honest with our thoughts. You can't really decide what's best for others and you most certainly cannot tell how they will react to their life after that decision. All I can say is that people try to push their righteousness on others because they are compelled to believe that their answer is the only right answer.

On that ideology,  we go back to a simpler one which is why is that an issue. Simply because we cannot really take care of our orphans and abandoned children. If we really have a problem with abortion then we should at least adopt a child to help those organizations have better funds and less children to take care of themselves.

In simple terms, If you hate abortion then prove that the alternative is better by making it so.

Lovelesscatxxo : So your argument is to kill the fetus because it's potentially going to have a difficult life? The poor have difficult lives now. So we should just kill them too, just in case? Come on...

Children should get what they need, yes. Agreed. The solution is to give them what they need, not to kill them. That's like saying "This frozen pizza is disgusting" and then throwing it away before you've finished cooking it.

Oldschool777 : Of course I would pay to live in a fridge, if that's all that was left. But I wouldn't kill the man next to me so I could get a little elbow room. Your solution is just to kill the unwanted. That's intolerable.

But you give a second, less monstrous argument. You say "I would rather a trained doctor do it than some jack@$$ with a coat hanger or the old donkey punch method to kill the fetus." While this is slightly better, don't confuse yourself, you're still killing something because you find it inconvenient. I applaud you for having moral inclinations toward the mother, but lets relate this to the original argument: population control. Wouldn't you want the deaths of the mothers too, so that they never make any more children? With a dirty hanger and some whiskey, you could get a two for one deal on death. If we're concerned with just reducing the population (or reducing it's rise), wouldn't that be the better option for you?

But I'll assume the population control argument was simply picked because it is unique. Perhaps you really do care for the future and the presently pregnant. Here's the question: is the kind of future you want one in which we kill humans for convenience? If yes, I don't really know where to start with you. But if no, you're not as far away from the pro-life position as you think.

Txgangsta : We(humans) have killed for far less than elbow room.

Look,I might be an @$$hole,but I am not a total sociopath. I just do not want people reproducing willy-nilly. And people in some parts of the world do that and continue to do that without any thought on how they will provide for the children. In some cases,the kids would be better off as wards of the state. I just want people to use their brains for 10 seconds,(I know,that is asking a lot.)and think,"Do I really want a kid,can I afford to take care of it,am I willing to decimate my bank book and surrender years of my life?"

Txgangsta,I do not kill for sport or for convenience. If I kill,I kill out of necessity. I am pro-choice. The mother should have that option to terminate the pregnancy if she deems it necessary. I do not know if you are married,and if you are or were,let me ask you something. Let us say the love of your life is pregnant. You later find out that the baby will be born with severe developmental issues and top of this $%^& sundae,the birth would endanger the life of your beloved. Would you save the baby,whom you know will have the deck stacked against it as high as the Chrysler building,or save your loved one?

Maybe I am being a little mean spirited,maybe I am being vile. Which is bad considering it is Valentine's Day. And forgive me for going off topic here,but I have nothing against St. Valentine. One of the legends is that he was caught secretly marrying Christians and Roman soldiers and was stoned and when that failed to kill him,he was beheaded. I have something against the candy companies,the greeting card companies,the flower companies,the jewelry companies for turning his name into a cash ploy.

Txgangsta : First off, my argument was not about the problems that pro-life can cause which is a lot bigger than you think. You're basically saying it's OK to create life and throw it away which sounds less pro-life than what pro-lifers are going for. At this point, it's not simply a choice because if abortion is not allowed then there is only one way to look at it which is breeding. We're not better than animals if we can't choose why or why not do we conceive.

Second, my argument was about adopting those living babies that people cannot take care of. In pizza terms, who would want a frozen pizza in the first place? Fresh pizza is so much better and mostly demanded. Only a few do prefer frozen over fresh, but that doesn't make frozen pizza more likable to the rest which ends up wasting a lot of frozen pizza to fill the storage rooms. In simple terms, you can't expect the children to take care of themselves.

I think everyone should decide what they do to their bodies and the life within it. I do however, think that they should pay for it themselves and not in any way or shape covered by any insurance at all unless in the case of medical or rape situations. I also think that it should remain in their record and have a maximum amount of abortions for those who do it just because and once they reach that limit, the government should have the authority to force that woman to have surgery and never be able to conceive again- it should be done so as soon as possible and should take away any possessions whether a house, car, or have the IRS freeze their income taxes to pay for the surgery. In the case of the woman leaving the country and having an illegal abortion elsewhere then, she should be charged and prosecuted. I just don't see the point of back to back abortions for the same woman. 

It's funny how some threads drift off topic. Like this thread, for example. It started off as a discussion about abortion but then it gradually drifted into other off-topic discussions like:

Population Control - Has some reference but it almost took over this entire thread. Really?
Renewable Energy Resources? - Has absolutely no reference for this thread and I'm assuming exists because of population control.
Religion - Has no reference here either but somehow shows up in almost every conversation that exists. Still trying to figure out why that is exactly...

Anyway, abortion seems like a private issue between a couple ( or single mother ). I know that if I was the father and she wanted an abortion, then I'd be pretty pissed off. But the baby is not in me, it's in her so... idk, I've never been in that situation before. It's definitely a complicated subject for sure.

jlove92 : I think that limit should be 1. If one were to get an abortion, then I would assume that they would go to great lengths to make sure that this would Never happen again ( unfortunately, I can only assume that ) and there should be some Major consequences after multiple abortions.

I feel that abortion is just plain wrong. To me, abortion is the exact same as murder. The baby is not just alive once it is born. Life happens the moment sperm and egg touches. The proof is in the heartbeat. The moment they come in contact, there is a heartbeat. 

And lets be honest, if the baby wasn't alive yet, why does it feed off of the mother's nutrients and food while in the womb? It still has to survive is why.

Now I honestly could not care if you favor abortion, or if you are pro life. For me, I am pro life, and nothing will ever change that. And that's putting my Christianity aside. That's not what you asked about, so I am leaving it out.

Whatever you choose to support, is ultimately your decision. And as humans we have to respect that, regardless of if it is wrong, or not.

In the end, I still believe that there should be at least a choice in the matter. Abortion can also save lives depending on the situation and case. If it is murder, then they should know when exactly the fetus starts living and set a law on it being murder. Of course that means people will need to set a system that takes care of those new born babies because obviously the mother will not be capable of taking care of it whatever the case. Maybe there will be a few cases where the new born is kept due to a change of heart, or adopted by a loving family, but if we're talking about abortion, then that will make say a million of babies in the states alone each year. They could rise up the abortion fee and make it even harder for people to abort their fetus, but that might just make things worse in my opinion.

Let's assume the world as a whole has about 40 million because even Russia almost reached 3 million 14 years ago. How are we going to take care of that amount of orphans without actual care? Now the records went down and the latest I've found was at 2013 which dropped to only one million, but that would only rise a bigger question which is where are those abortions? The answer is probably a local alley, taken out by some shady person for a cheaper payment and thrown into the nearest disposal. It sucks to think about, but there's always that to think about when you try to ban legal abortions and ones that develop hygienic and clean processes. 

I think that it should be the parent's choice. While I would say it should be allowed up to a certain point, I can't, because the cost of actually having a baby is very expensive. 

Kruzer : Not to drag the thread further off topic than it is, the reason religion makes it's way into every topic is because, when you get down to it, most decisions and positions on issues are related to morality.

Oldschool777 : The scenario you gave between my hypothetical wife and my hypothetical retarded child is misleading. You're asking me to choose between one of two lives. Of course the question is hard. But likely, I would submit to mild danger for the sake of the child.

I do not kill for convenience.

I also do not like people reproducing willy-nilly. I wouldn't have a problem with *mandatory* birth control for public school students (junior high, high school, and college). I'm fine with regulating birth control efforts because most pregnancies are unplanned. I'm fine with limiting tax benefits to only a set number of children (meaning if you have more than the set number, like 4, you don't get tax breaks for the fifth one). These are all means I'm willing to use to help families (and women in particular) to have happier lives. Abortion is not an appropriate solution.

Txgangsta : How is it misleading? There are times when it is a high risk pregnancy and you must make those choices. Granted,I pray you never have to make that choice,but the potential will always exist.

Sometimes you must make a choice. No one ever said it would be an easy one.

Holy $%^&,you and I agree on something? You and I are usually at odds. Thank you for at least seeing some reason here,many babies are unplanned and a lot of times,it falls onto the state to care for it,be it adoption or social services. The tax breaks would be a minor deterrent at best. Social services would still get the ignorant people help with the child. Abortion may not be a wanted solution,but it is a solution.

Kruzer :
Population control: Abortion and this go hand in hand.
Renewable energy resources: Unless you were born in a cave and raised by apes,you have consumed resources. Think of it. The baby monitor to hear you. The heating and cooling. The energy for your devices. Need I go on?
Religion: Most if not all religions frown on abortion. A lot of people follow different faiths. People conceive and their future child may be of their denomination.
 
There is no easy or set answer. We all must look inside ourselves and decide what is right. Who is to tell us what is right or wrong,when they do not know us?

Oldschool777 : We're usually total opposites, haha. I'm glad we have something to call common ground.

The misleading point to your argument is that it strawman's the pro-life argument. We can't pick between two lives. There are two lives. The claim of the pro-lifers are that human life is inherently valuable, regardless what kind of damage or lack of development the life has. I would eventually choose to save my hypothetical wife, but not because I rely on any claim within the pro-choice argument. Truly, the claim that use to choose my wife over the fatal child is pro-life - my wife's life is also inherently valuable. I do not demand people sacrifice their lives for others when it is not prudent. Within the scenario you gave me, as the risk increases, it becomes less and less morally prudent to advise my wife to carry the child to term. I must also value her life, and eventually I would choose to C-section prematurely, even with a statistical chance of death for the child at 100%.

Txgangsta : That is true,you and I are like oil and water,we do not mix. But I am glad we can see something in common.

Life is a choice. That is something people do not understand. We can choose and at times must make a heart breaking choice. I hope you never have to make that choice. I would not wish that on my mortal enemies.

I can't say that any choice is the right choice anymore because in the end, we do not know why abortion is practiced by the individuals that need it or demand it. I sympathize with pro-life ideals of it being murderous and on the long term prevents a live from living, However, I also agree with the idea of abortion being a solution to many problems including endangerment. You can't expect someone who might be permanently affected to go through with having a baby born. If we look at the big picture, pregnancy can naturally cause a mother to lose her life while giving birth. 

I'm not saying abortion should be completely acceptable, but I'm saying that they should put restrictions on when can you do an abortion like when it is in the first months or if it can harm the person having it. If we ban abortion as a whole, then people will go around that law by having abortions the old none hygienic way which is known to give a serious case of death sometimes.

People get abortions usually for circumstances beyond their control and even when that happens they still get the choice of doing it or not so why not just accept abortion as a medical practice that saves lives? Of course I agree that the idea of it being completely unrestricted and available for any case is a bad example of life preserving so hopefully, people will at least try and make it more sensible.