Murdering a baby should never be an option.
Just because she does not get an abortion does not mean the kid has to live a bad life by a bad mother - she can always give the baby up for adoption, and be adopted by able, loving parents.
I am pro-life to the nth degree. I plan on having no natural kids in favor of adopting as many kids as possible for that said reason. All pro-lifers should live by that mantra, and adopt as many kids as possible. 90%+ of all abortions are done not for health, but the fact the kid is unwanted. Pro-lifers need to work to change adoption laws, and destroy abortion by making it the most illogical choice by ensuring the baby is wanted - even if not by it's natural mother.
At one time in history, blacks were considered less than humans too - property - just like unborn babies. This argument is one in the same. Cut it any way you want, but when your terminating life that can exist outside the womb, your still killing a human.
And it's also a shame that in hospitals (as well as everywhere), so much respect is placed on the expecting mother - warnings are posted everywhere to ensure that no ill effects are transferred on the baby. Despite this, we still murder them if the mother has a change of heart. Babies aren't property. They're people.
Do you have any idea how poorly run the adoption and foster care system is? Its just plain pathetic. I'd almost rather be aborted myself than have to go through what some of those kids do.
At least you plan on adopting kids, so you are sticking to your guns. You are practicing what you preach, so I can't fault you for that.
I don't think the argument that blacks and fetuses don't have constitutionally protected rights is anything the same...one is based on racism and pseudo-science whereas the other is based on personal choice and a person's due process rights. We don't prosecute people for drinking alcohol while they are pregnant and doing whatever else they want to their body, even if it causes a miscarriage. How is abortion any different?
I also don't see why people think that science is necessarily on their side either who are pro-life. I mean scientifically speaking, life doesn't begin at conception. The egg and the sperm were both alive already. There was no magical transformation from living to dead. Its just two cells that turn into a glob of cells that will grow into a larger organism. Development begins at conception, but life doesn't begin at conception.
Did you notice that in my post, I said that 'Pro-lifers need to work to change adoption laws'? I understand that adoption laws are poor, as well as the system that the kids are in. If abortions are correlated with poor adoption/foster care, then it's paramount that those laws are changed to ensure that human life isn't snuffed out for selfish reasons.
If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? Does it begin when the baby's heart beats at ~9 weeks? Is it when the thalamus develops and the baby can feel the pain at 8 weeks (of which, most abortions happen around that time. It's not like the baby doesn't know what's going on when it's getting ripped apart)? Is it at around the time of the youngest surviving premature baby at 21 weeks? I don't get how it's scientific to say that a fetus isn't a human, and property of someone when it's inside the womb, and magically gains all the rights as a nation's citizen when it's delivered.
When should the cutoff be to when you can legally smash a baby in the face with a hammer to kill it? 6 months? 1 year? Before it leaves the hospital? Say your pro choice, but answer that question for me, 'cuz I'd really like to know.