I would like to say that statement is ludicrous, the whole debate centres around the fact that the foetus can and will (if left to its own devices) turn into a human life, hence trying to abstract the issue and remove that fact from the arguement voids any discussion being held. The whole debate is based on the morality of whether the abortion is infantcide or whether the procedure is comparable to a gall stone removal.
If you take the "child" out of the equation then yes abortions are a great way to extend your career but that would take the issue of morallity and throw it out of the window, which as stated is the whole point of the arguement in the first place.
This debate/arguement/discussion is simply "pro choice" trying to sidestep the issue.

not necessarily. Not every pregnancy results in a vaible, live birth of a child. The human uterus is actually quite an inhospitable place and despite the best efforts of medical science roughly half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).
that is your opinion and while I disagree, I respect your right to have it. To you, in your opinion, the whole debate is about morality but I am not an advocate of boiling any one issue down to one thing. There are many facets to the issue which you do a disservice to by cutting them off. Also, you will always have opposing "morals" on this issue as some feel it is just as immoral to compell a woman to keep a pregnancy she does not want or would not choose.
not only is morality not the sum total of the base of this issue but neither is "extending your career" the only reason a woman may choose to obtain an abortion. This issue is far from being black and white.

perhaps it's just a response to the "pro-life" camp attempting to focus only on the z/e/f with no regard to the actual woman involved. However, I don't believe it boils down completely to that either.
Peace,
jenn

A z/e/f will not always turn into a human life (if left on its own devices).

Their are many times that a z/e/f is better off not continuing on with the pregnancy, just like the pregnant female is better off not continuing on with the pregnancy, it can work both ways.

Being pro-choice does not mean that we are 100% for abortion, it means that we are 100% pro-choice. None of us lives with all of the pregnant females 24/7, we do not know what goes on all of the time.

Sincerely,
sandy

What a waste of a post.

yes I know what pro choice means and to the best of my recolection I have never stated that pro choice was 100% for termination.


I have many friends that are pro choice but would not dream of having a termination themselves so if I have ever said that pro choice were 100%termination then please show where and I will apologise.

then are you not just as quilty by responce?
The way I see it is that if someone has something to say and says it then no it isn't a waste of a post.

Kourtney I thought that you were keen to get the debate forum back on form with comments like that obviously not.

Look back at what he said and then respond to me again. I didn't call anyone names. I stated the obvious. It was a waste of a post, it was insults, and it was pathetic.

Kthanxbye.

I did not say that fishx said anything about pro-choice being 100% for or against abortion. It is just that it is the way that some pro-lifers act, it was just a comment.
Sincerely,
sandy

Well, I have never heard this argument being used. Please state where this is coming from....
Of course the fetus matters. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any debating, argumenting and the "choice" wouldn't be so hard to make. Actually there really wouldn't be any choice, now would there?

apologies it was my mistake I misunderstood your post.

No problem here. Apology accepted.
Sincerely,
sandy