Abortion: Your Views...

[Muramasa89]

Translation: You're okay with abortion.

Thanks for pointing out what I already said for everyone else.

Rape victims? What makes them special? The mother is carrying a child that she doesn't want. Whether the child is the result of rape or the result of irresponsible sexual habits, it's a child that she doesn't want. Is it alright for a mother to kill her unborn child if she doesn't want it, or is it not?

What makes them special? Well. Define special. Just since when did a rapist take the time to slip a condom on before raping the poor girl, then before he heads off, says kindly "Don't forget the contraception!" Carelessness is your own fault. Being raped is not.

Cases where the birth will kill the mother are extremely rare

Said it yourself. Rare; but still liable to happen.

And if it's not wrong to kill an unborn baby with a "deformity", when does it become wrong? When the child is born, and doctors see the true extent of the "deformity" -- or realize that there is one, something they couldn't see before birth? Or is it alright to wait a few years to give the kid a chance and see how it does, then cut it into pieces and suck it through a vacuum?

I suppose I should have maybe elaborated a tad more... A deformity that would affect the child's life substantially. And as you say, "When the child is born", that is way beyond the point of abortion. S/he is safe from abortion then, and if s/he was to be cut up and sucked into a vacuum then that (in the eyes of the Law) is murder. Abortion is murder to some, others don't think so as much. I'm one of those people.

Life-threatening diseases? Like I said, either an unborn child is a human life or it isn't. If it isn't, you don't need "certain circumstances" -- if it is, it's wrong, period. Even if you wanted to place limits on it, they would have to be universal. If it's alright to kill an unborn child because they might have a life-threatening disease, then it's alright to kill a five-year-old child because they have a life-threatening disease. Or a fifteen-year-old. Or a fifty-year-old.

It is different being born with it, rather than living to your examples of fifteen and fifty then recieving it. The child being born with it wouldn't even live to the majority of his/her life.

What else you got ... when the child cannot be supported by the parents? That doesn't narrow it down at all. First, there's such a thing as adoption -- you know, where a biological parent doesn't have to slaughter their own child, but doesn't have to raise it either. Second, the people who have the most irresponsible sex are the people with the lowest incomes.

Yes there is adoption. If only every child got adopted, eh? I did originally only put that point in for lack of a better one, but you've addressed it now anyway. I don't need the means to defend this; I agree with you. To your second point, maybe in your country, though I needn't see a point arguing this after agreeing.

All in all, out of the millions of abortions performed in America every year, about one-and-a-half percent are done for health reasons or for rape. That means that 98.5% of abortions are done for convenience.

Then that goes to show how many people don't care about abortion and think they can simply abort a baby after not giving a crap during sex. I've already said I was against people being careless and having an abortion, you gave me a fact that I was supporting and already knew.

You're giving these circumstances, but then you say it's alright when it's an accident. That pretty much means it's allowed in any situation, according to you. And did you forget about adoption?

I did reply to this before... But before I noticed I was busy replying to someone, so I couldn't edit.
You misunderstand me; I did not say it is okay as an accident.