at the moment I need no proof it was an overall comment because pro life are always houndedfor proof yet pro choice never seem to get back to us if we ask for proof it is just skirted over and forgotten

Its funny how I provide a $hitload of urls??

Its funny how alot of us provide urls and yet you say we have no proof thats a laughing stalk.

alright, I see. I just didn't like your generalization about pro-choicers or prolifers and wanted to do something about it. We are not all evil people. :d

I feel that you have judged pro-choice people wrong as we are not whining biatches, at least I am not, and I know of most of the others aren't I feel that being pro-choice makes you more open minded and understanding to each situation and non judgemental I am not 100% ffor abortion I am for choice, my abortions were medically necessary, if someone wants an abortion or needs an abortion then it is there choice, I am not here to judge them as it might be necessary in many ways, I also have 2 grown children which was my choice. Choice does not always mean abortion. I also feel it is wrong for females to have a baby just to get in the welfare system where they can get free housing, free medical, free grceries, free this and free that, I feel if they get it then everyone else should(equal rights, not whining). Their are a lot of pro-choice people that have kids or plan to have kids and their is no abortion that comes easy unless it is a tubular pregnancy and sometimes they are not easy.

Good darn point!

Pro-lifers use shock-therapy with images... We can too. I think the saddest and most poigniant one is the first one... That poor child.

these images prove nothing in favor of abortion. What it shows that we as human family can do more to help those in need. Abortion will not fix the starvation, food will.

I didn't say that abortion would fix the problem of starvation. I'm just pointing out that there are worse things that can happen to a child than never being born.

It would certainly be better if the ladies in the .Third .World countries stopped getting pregnant in the first place if they can't afford to feed their children.

I realise it's not that simple though but then neither is it as simple as saying abortion is the answer.

no what would be more humane than abortion in this case would be to spare just £2 a month to help these children£2 a month would cover basic immunisations food and water for one child for only an etra£3 a month you could then educate this race into becoming self efficient in the use of the resources that they have to hand.


But hey to pro choice abortion solves everything doesn't it?

apparently, to some, money solves everything. If your answer is so simple, then why hasn't the christian children's fund, or any of the hundred other "pennies a day" organizations made much of a difference? Because it's hard to find anyone who'll manage the money properly without pocketing half of it for "expenses."

the catholic church has done a tremendous amount of short-term good in a lot of these third world countries, but in the long run they perpetuate the problems they're trying to solve. By refusing to provide and teach about birth control, and threatening to cut off aid to villages who allow others to do so, they've ensured that overbreeding will continue to be rampant. You'll probably hear me say this often, but overpopulation is the cause of many of the world's problems.

I don't think abortion solves everything, but I do think it would spare certain children a lifetime of misery. I believe that life is sacred; every aspect of life, not just survival. I'd rather see a child aborted before it's born than suffer like the children in those pictures. The quality of life is more important to me than the quantity.

the catholic church has done diddly shyte for third world countries whats sending a little money if you are not willing to educate them into properly using the resources that they do have?


£5 pound a month to propergate their land and lay water pipes to feed water and immunise them that is all it would cost monetary wise we already have workers set up out there waiting for the funds to put this project into action.

If you consider all life sacred can we count on you to volunter time or finance to give them quality life? Or are you going to stay safely on your high horse and endorse abortion rather than actualy do something to help improve the life that these people have?

Now over population I will argue sorry but we have enough spare agricultural land to re populate the earth 20 times over and still be comfertably of all we need is able bodied volunteers to help educate and lay pipes fopr the third world countries.

they don't have a choice, as their oppressive, male-dominant societies sell them off to mates as soon as they hit puberty and they're forced to start popping out babies soon after. It's part of the very fabric of their society.

Even moreso, continuing war and sanctions cause these famines, most importantly the iraq war. Not to mention the in-fighting and civil wars of the areas.

Even if abortion was available and free in these countries, it's very likely the males would not allow it.

But there are starving american children too, so don't think this is isolated to nigeria and elsewhere.

my point exactly.





there is no excuse for this in the .Western world and abortion is not the answer. Proper sex education and free access to contraception are better ways to stop women having children they can't cope with. Some women are just stupid though and will continue to play with fire and get knocked up without thinking of the consequences.

where do you get these figures? Unpopulated land is not "spare agricultural" land. Countries like nigeria and rwanda are among the most densely populated in the world, with thousands crammed into every square mile. This attitude that "there's plenty for everyone" is wrong, plain and simple. There's barely enough to provide for the people who already exist, but it's hard to convince someone whose kitchen is crammed full of goodies that there's a huge problem out there. Seeds and irrigation pipes aren't going to change that. Until people learn to control their breeding habits, it's only going to get worse.


Eirie made an excellent point about male-dominated societies treating women like brood mares. They fight birth control (including abortion) at every turn because having a crowd of children proves what virile, manly studs they are. Never mind that half of them drop dead from starvation and disease... You can always have more.

when you come from a position of asserting a positive in a discussion, the burden of proof rests upon you.

If "prolife" individuals did not always try to assert their opinions as actual facts, you lot (as a whole) would not be asked for proof of your statements as often as you are.

the cut goes both ways hun

except that we always provede real proof when asked. You can't even prove your religion, which is the basis off your entire life, morals, and thinking style.

lmao who said I cannot prove my religion?
And most pro choice do not provide proof when asked full stop real or otherwise.

Actually, I think nobody should be forced to "prove" anything in regards to this issue. Both sides are laden with opinion and personal ideology. Asking someone to prove the merit of their personal beliefs is arrogant and inflammatory.

Abortion wasn't legalized to encourage people to kill their unborn children. It was legalized because the government finally decided that the wisdom or evil of that course of action boiled down to an individual's personal code of ethics. Legalized abortion was an admirable act of giving americans more personal freedom, as well as providing a safe option for the truly desperate. However, you can't make everyone happy. Some people believe that freedom should conform to what they think is right, but is that really freedom or just fascism disguised as compassion?