"David W. Barnes" <VoteKerry@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
news:040520042048167051%VoteKerry@dbarnes.com...
Even without abortion women would have a choice in
childbirth,
except for cases of rape. A woman, except when raped, chooses to
take a chance on becoming pregnant when she chooses to have
sex. If she wishes not to have children, a woman can either use
birth
control efficiently or not have sex at all -- there is the
choice.
Therefore,
it is eroneous to frame the issue as "Pro-choice" vs
"Anti-abortion."
The issue is, indeed, an issue of pro-abortion-choice vs.
anti-abortion.
Nope. It's Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice, plain and simple.
Just because you seek to factor in another variable doesn't
change that.
Unprotected sex 'is' a matter of responsibility and whether one
chooses
to
take the risk of creating life. Seeking to abort a mistake due to
poor
choice has nothing to do with society or your hate for those of us
who
insist on people being responsible.
Sounds rather pompous. Why the hell are you to say what other
people should choose?
I don't say what other people should choose. I say once the choice is
made
to have unprotected sex, the consequence of 'poor' choice should not be
another poor choice which is not the antiseptic choice the pro-death
crowd
paints.
And what of the child? Do you gave a damn about the child?
llllllllll We are discussing abortion, mainly in America - all children are
well cared for or certainly no worse off than 'wanted' children from many
other countries.
--
**** The fact that the greatest scientists, to their utter dismay, can't
breath life into a dead body or create a perfect animal and breath life into
it - is PROOF of a higher intelligence! ****
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
.
