Welcome to Gaia! ::

Sever a rift in the red-stained clouds with my torn wings.

I've never thought of that, but once you think about it they are very similar. The only difference is that an embryo is a fertilized egg.

I don't know really what else to add, but I do see how an abortion is like a period.

See, I can flutter better than you thought.

NO! it is your responsabilty to use protection. if u were raped, then u should have an abortion, cuz, well, u have no choice.

It's impossible to tell whether or not the abortion will harm the woman before it is done.

And does it not cost to give birth in a hospital?

I think without proper attendants etc. a home delivery would be almost as dangerous as an abortion.

I'm confused about this, as well. I don't see how a sudden and unplanned explosion of particles resulting in the universe is anything like a deliberate collection of DNA and tissue resulting in a life form.

Well, yeah, that is what's said...
If life evolving from a cell is to be compared to a fetus growing into an adult...
A cell is only a building block, a thing from which life is made, and to compare, a fetus only the mass of tissue from which a human will grow.

Here's a list of the most common pro-choice arguements and what I have to say to them:

1. The issue is who decides: the woman or the state. It's about freedom of choice.

My look on it: As used by abortion advocates, the term "pro-choice" is neither accurate or honest. At least three people are affected by abortion: the father, the mother, and the child. The pro-choice arguement is that only one is entitled to a choice (that is, the mother). The legal rights to become a prostitute or to use cocainne also affect a woman's right to choose, do they not? Abortion lobbyists focus the whole thing on "choice" and "who decides" because they can't afford for the public to see what's being chosen and decided. In other words, if you are implying that the issue is not abortion but rather choice, you're saying that what's being chosen is irrelevant. In 1858 during the Lincoln - Douglas debates (over slavery), Stephen Douglas made this statement about outlawing slavery: “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.” If you were to replace the word "slavery" with "abortion," you get the pro-choice arguement. Lincoln's reply was “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”

2. The Supreme Court settled this once and for all in 1973 by saying that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

My answer: Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court Justice who wrote Roe v. Wade, had it down in his notes that the Constitution contained no foundation to support their political agenda. Therefore, the Supreme Court's reasoning in making abortion legal was that the unborn baby is not a U.S. citizen. In their 1857 Dred Scott decision, they ruled that slavery was constitutional because black people were not “citizens.” We do not have to accept that abortion is a settled issue because of Roe v. Wade anymore than our ancestors had to accept that slavery was a settled issue because of Dred Scott.

3. Why should abortion be illegal if the pregnancy threatens the woman's life?

First of all, due to modern medicine, this is very rare.
Now allow me to make a comparison. If a car wreck has trapped two passengers in such a way that saving one might take the life of the other, the emergency personnel on the scene would never intentionally kill one to get the other one out. Instead, they would do everything possible to save both. In the same way, a doctor should do everything he or she could to save both the mother and the child if the pregnancy proved to be threatening.

4. What if the woman isn't financially stable to be a mom?

When a woman is pregnant, she is already a mom. Child birth terminates a pregnancy. Abortion terminates a pregnancy as well as a life. And again, giving a child up for adoption is free whereas abortion costs money. They also have programs where a family willing and wishing to raise an adopted child supports a pregnant woman financially so that when she delivers, they can raise her baby.

5. Abortion is so much safer than pregnancy.

On the contrary, abortion can be even more dangerous than pregnancy. As it is with any surgery, it is not guaranteed that an abortion's outcome won't damage a woman's health.
If abortion is really safer than pregnancy, why don't we have all pregnant women get abortions? You're saying that would save them, right?

6. You have no right to tell others what to believe. You people are just anti-choice extremists.

Well, if the politically correct term for "choice" is killing defenseless children by the millions, than pro-life people must be anti-choice.
Laws are made to control behavior, not thought or beliefs. Laws which prohibit armed robbery are not at all concerned about what people think about armed robbery, as long as they don’t commit them. That is how we view abortion.

7. What if no one wants to adopt the baby? In that case, abortion is the better option.

Anyone who uses this arguement is completely ignorant to the fact that thousands of couples out there who are unable to have children of their own would love to adopt a child. Yes, there are acutally those out there who would love your child as if he or she were their own. There are those who actually want to raise child. Giving your unwanted child up for adoption would not only be doing the child a service, but the people who are willing to raise it.

8. What about overpopulation?

Do we really need to worry about that when about 4,000 abortions have been occuring a day (which is more than the number of people injured or killed in the Twin Towers attack on 9/11 and certainly more than the total number of marines who have died in Iraq). And anyway, if you're going to use this as an excuse to kill the unborn, why stop there? It would be easy to put a legal limit on life at the other end as well, and enforce it through mandatory euthanasia at a pre-determined age. At the very least, we should immediately outlaw any medical research that’s intended to extend life. I mean, it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars every year to look for a way to make people live longer if we're overpopulating the world.
Clearly, overpopulation must not be a serious threat at the moment if such scientific research is even being bothered with.

9. Every child should be a wanted child. Abortion will put a limit to child abuse.

The right to life of a human being is not determined by whether or not some other human being wants them. The fact is, since abortion was made legal in 1973, we have killed unborn children by the tens of millions yet child abuse has increased dramatically. If parents are abusive to unwanted child, why didn't they think of getting an abortion before having the unwanted child? If legalized abortion reduces child abuse by making sure that every child is a wanted child – and since you’ve executed between 45 and 50 million children so far – where did all these children who are being abused today come from?