Im sorry that the pro-life people only care about the child until birth and then dont care. Because they think our s***ty and underfunded adoption/foster care system can burden the children when they already cant.
They actually don't. They'd happily make an exception for rape and then act like it's all merry and then forget that the supposed child they're clamoring for got "murdered". They only want to spite people who carelessly have sex and it's just a remnant of the anti-sex before marriage idea that religion has embedded in us.
There is nothing wrong with having sex, just TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND HAVE THE CHILDREN YOU CREATE WITH IT
I mean, if you are unable to reliably, emotionally and financially support a child, like most people who have abortions, aborting it IS the responsible choice. And don't say adoption when the foster system is already crowded and corrupt.
Exactly this. And responsibility is a whole different argument than "child's life".
You fail to see this from the pro-life perspective though. You fail to see that from the pro-life perspective, to people who believe life starts before birth, you are saying that murder is the responsible choice. You are saying that if you cant support a child its ok to create one and then kill it.
To me, who believes a baby is a baby before the moment of birth, it sounds like you're saying its ok to have babies, but then if you cant support them you can just kill them later. You would find this appalling with newborn babies but you don't see how to a pro-lifer this is equally appalling.
and you seem to think wildly having sex and getting abortions is ok. Which is just...what?
Nobody ever said women cant have sex! They just said women cant have sex and then aborot the baby. And obviously this would go for men too but men are not typically a part of the abortion discussion.
But it's ok to murder an "innocent baby" just so someone doesn't have to bear it if it's not "her fault". Yeah, this is why we shouldn't be looking at it from a pro-life's perspective. Because they are emotionall, illogical and anti-reality. It's like people campaigning for the rights of sex dolls.
I agree this is a tough question. But there's nothing emotional about this. Or at least no more than it should be. Would you not be just as emotional if we were talking about newborn babies? I mean, here's my question. Do you believe a woman who cannot care for a baby who was just born, and cannot give that baby a new life...should she have the right to murder it? remember that this baby wil have a horrible life if it lives. The foster system cannot support it. The woman cannot support it. Would it not be illogical to keep it alive? IF not, how is it different, besides that IN YOUR OPINION, a fetus is not considered 'alive' until it is born? ---
Shelton undoubtedly wants Cena's championship belt. And Cena undoubtedly wants Shelton's black heritage.- looseiver