Adoption is very difficult process, and is expotentially more difficult with children in foster care or orpahages. Before the criticism of people who are doing good, I think it's something to worth considering.

I see your point, I would however point out if we can murder something that is not yet alive, we stop a process which is creating live. After something is alive it is murder nonetheless whether it's human or anyting else. Happens to be we are humans and we consider ourselves way more important than any other form of live. If we are goig to judge based on purely potential we could also argue about the use of protection in the first place. Which makes sure a fetus will never be formed in the first place (which is way better than killing an unaware and uncounsius fetus, dont get me wrong). I do see the ethical problems with legalizing abortion and people shouldn't just get one, because it is convenient, there are better constructions for that. Even though that's a entirely different discussion. For people who don't have another solution than having an abortion it should be legal until the fetus is a self aware being, since you can't murder anything that isn't actually alive yet in my opinion.   

What legislation isn't based on opinion? 

That's not the problem of the woman considering abortion. They're not obligated to act as baby incubators for childless couples. Those need to take these issues up with Congress. The fact remains that there are already 400,000 children in the system that are available for adoption.

Your post is a criticism of people looking to adopt, not a statement on anything. I never suggested it was the problem of the mother either. >_>

I'm against abortion and I can't stand the anti-scientific arguments of pro-choicers, who say "it's my body, I can decide what to do with it". Yes, you can decide what happens to your body, you have the absolute freedom whether you wanna shag with a dude or not, whether you wanna use protection or not. But the main reason for having sex isn't pleasure, but making babies, so if that happens - you have to live with the consequences of you actions. The baby inside has its own, unique DNA, so it's NOT YOUR BODY. Your body is comprised of cells with your DNA. It's not for you to decide the fate of a separate organism. You had your choice when you decided to land on that d***.

The very fact that you can't exactly know when the life of the human being starts shows that you shouldn't abort it in any stage or you're risking killing a person.

The human life should be protected. Product of a rape or not, it's a human being and you mustn't kill them. Plus, it's not women's body. The baby has its own body.

No.

It IS the woman's body that's being used against her will. We don't even force DEAD people to give up their body parts that could be used to save lives unless they checked off that box, so to suggest a woman must be forced to carry a product of rape with her for nine months without her consent is pretty horrific to me. That is victimizing her twice. Not only was her body violated during the act, but now she must carry the physical, emotional, and financial burdens of it afterward.

Let me see if I have your position right.  Suppose we know that human personhood begins somewhere from Week 23 to Week 28 of fetal development.  You say, "Because you can't pinpoint the exact moment, even Week 10 abortion is no good."  Is that your position? 

It's a criticism of the "adoption" argument with regards to forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. If people want to adopt so badly, there are already kids out there that are waiting to be adopted.  Clearly those kids aren't being adopted.