Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well...I don't blame you for trying to be defensive but don't worry...no one's going to kick you out for being a fence sitter or even if you were prochoice. We even have a few prochoice members actually. Most of us are pretty civilized and understanding.

We already have quite a number of topics available for reading if you want to get an idea where most of us stand. You'll find that many of us are prolife in a sense that respects both mother and child as opposed to just the child. We want to see things improve for both parties.

If you have any questions, we encourage you to ask. smile

Thank you for your kind welcome.

I have had scientific proof that fetuses, until weeks from birth, do not feel pain. I have very trusted sources.

But why, may I ask, if there are women willing and ready to have abortions, what is so bad?

Thank you for understanding me and my defensiveness. I assure you, I have great reason for it.

Personally I don't care about the pain factor. Simply because someone can't feel pain in their leg, doesn't make it okay to chop of their leg, now does it?

Pain =/= right to life.

Why is it a bad thing if a woman aborts? Because it's a seperate human life that she's choosing to abortion, plain and simple. You can go on about relative morals however our laws dictate that killing another human life is wrong, which is why I believe abortion should be illegal.

If killing other humans was not illegal I'd be pro-choice, as it wouldn't make sense to be pro-life.

You can also go on about "her body" however there are many times you cannot do whatever you want with your body. These are times when what you're doing with your body can harm someone else. Why does the law bend for abortion then?

Yes, they feel pain by the second trimester. In fact, many neurologists believe they feel more pain in the end of the second trimester to the beginning of the third trimester than a newborn since they have developed the full feeling neurologically but without the protective sheathing.

I think if you're going to kill a human, at least do it painlessly. Doesn't make it right, but it's at least making that person's last moment on earth as painfree as possible.

My parents are required by law to feed me and clothe me and care for me. They need to work to do this. They've spent much more time than 9 months constantly working 6 AM to midnight to provide for me and for my siblings. Should they kill us now to prevent the burden? Why should they be made to keep us alive if we're a drain on their resources for the time being? Are we physically harming them? Not much. Few aches and pains from running around, guess they've gotten sick a few times because we drag in illnesses from school, but nothing that in the long run will harm them. If there was no way to pass the responsibility of taking care of us onto someone else, should they then legally be able to shoot us?

No. We don't do more than cause temporary trouble. It might hurt them, but the solution is not to kill us, because we are human beings.

It is not doing any service to a child to abort it. It is not prochoice. It is proMYchoice. That child might be wanted. That child might not be. That child might be better off dead to some people, but that child should choose for him or herself whether life is worth living. It is like killing someone who has lost a limb so that person doesn't need to deal with the suffering.

Private adoption agencies actually prevent a lot of that if you pick carefully. A lot of agencies are VERY strict on who adopts...you can't adopt children of a different race because that might damage them in some way, you can't adopt if you own large dogs, you can't adopt if you wear a pink shirt on tuesdays...okay, the last one I definitely made up. The reason is all money, same reason abortuaries push abortion as the best option...the more who are in need of a service, the more money is needed to help them, the more money the government gives, which is then skimmed so that only a portion goes to where it's supposed to be going....they can cut corners too to scrimp on money, and do. It's just a mess. But private adoption agencies or just adopting out privately even to some couple you know who wants children, it gives you more control. You can actually place your child somewhere that you know he or she will be cared for and loved.

[ Message temporarily off-line ]

Actually, depending on your intended goal of leaving your child in the adoption system, it can either be wonderful, or a shot into the dark. Either way, the problems we too often see, namely trait-influenced adoption, and not being adopted at all, doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least give your child a shot at life. If you have to choose to live a parentless childhood (and that doesn't mean you won't, in turn find someone else to take the role of a parent or mentor) or non-existence which one would you pick? Here's one, we'll ask one of the children in an adoption agency, if they're all suicidal, we'll know it's a bad decision.

There is no need to thank anyone; it's not very respectful to flame someone for their beliefs, is it? I'm personally just happy to interact with you, you're polite.

You wouldn't go into an adoption center and kill children just because population is a concern; you would look for other ways to get all of those kids taken care of. You wouldn't look a three year old in the eye and say she's better off dead, then shoot her, just because she is an orphan. Of course I'm just assuming this, I might be wrong, but you seem like you care about people and want to do what's best for them.

To decide a human life is worth less because of how old that human happens to be is discriminatory. If the money our government spent funding abortions was instead used to fund relief in countries with these issues, the problem could be cut back on a lot. Sexual education, housing, contraceptives, education could be provided. There are other ways to help a situation like that than killing someone who hasn't done anything to warrant the death penalty.