The option of abortion leads to more pregnancy, that's why. And when they get pregnant, they succumb to their emotions and decide to keep the kids. Statistics back this up; there was a huge rise in crime from the first abortion era cohort to reach teenhood to early adulthood.
Anyone catch Cavuto? There was some "Men's rights" proponent on there arguing for "Mens' Right To Choose". The argument goes that if a man doesn't want the women to have his child, he shouldn't be liable for child support payments if she goes ahead and has it. Even though I'm pro-life, if you're going to have abortions, wouldn't this be the fair way to do it? If a woman shouldn't be unfairly saddled with the burden of a child she doesn't want, why should a man?
The legal argument is that the child, once born, is an innocent, and should not be punished for either/both of the parents' decisions -- bad or good. Prior to birth, however, only the woman's and the embryo's/fetus'/child's rights are at issue.
Obviously this advocate is arguing for a change in legislation, but thanks for your legal clarifcation anyway. Just out of interest, what do you think about his position? Or was the above your clever way of stating it?
ok, so now the catholics are on record opposing contraceptives and abortion and adoption unless its done exactly as they want it done. frigging closed minded idiots. http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...options_over_issue_involving_gays_1142014098/ Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays By Associated Press | March 10, 2006 BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law requires them to consider gays and lesbians as parents. The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for about a century. But it says state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachers on homosexuality. "The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the twentieth-century," the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. "The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work. "But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve," they said.
some anti abortion people would allow an abortion when the life of the mother is threatened on logically solid ground. for those of you who have not taken the time to think the argument through I will provide the basis. Although this is not necesarily my argument. Not all homicide is illegal. One may kill in protection of life such as self defense. So the argument would be if the life of the mother is in danger you may take the necesary steps to save her life Now to get philosophical. The catholic church I believe would say that if you are taking steps to save the life of the mother and the fetus dies that is o.k. but you should not just kill the fetus. However, that is not what my take on the abortion law says. It says you could kill the potential citizen to save the life of the mother. Seems pretty liberal to me don't you think.
maybe you are forgetting that this is the same church that is infested with gay priests and has yet to fire them all. a gay can be a priest and rape children but a gay couple can not be allowed to adopt a needy child?
and you point is. Since the American parishes are infested with criminal gay priests it should change centuries of doctrine.