Abortion is a right that should remain

*sigh* ok, back again to the points 1. The injunction made is against the mother aborting an already living fetus. Just as we have laws which are meant to restrain the citizenry already, this law is meant to restrain the mother from killing the child. Every day I wake up the government, and I suppose the president by corollary controls my life by preventing me from doing certain things which I might otherwise do. There is a legal precedent and a moral reason for it. I would remind you that it is the government and not the president that we originally were discussing in this point of contention. 2. This contention hinges on the assumption that abortion is a better option than adoption or raising a child. This is not true. Abortion is murder, and has a terrific emotional price attached to it, more even than adoption. 3. Again assuming that adoption is a worse choice than abortion. Aborting a child essentially runs the hormonal train right of the tracks and causes emotional and physiological trauma that is unmatched by any other choice. This means the mother has life long negative consequences to deal with. Which is, as I'm sure is apparent, BAD. Moreover, worse than the apparent emotional trauma of adoption on mother and child. 4. First of all, if one in three girls is raped, then most of my friends and peers escaped a devastating statistic. Unless perhaps it was made up? However this isn't the point, the point is that the child is already alive inside, if still in a fetal state then still in a fetal state, but alive none the less. That child deserves life too. However, as I stated, using the morning after pill is an effective solution, since it is not aborting a fetus, but only preventing an embryo from implanting in the uterine wall. And AGAIN you assume that the child MUST be kept by the mother once it is born. This is not the case. 5. There is always a choice to actually have the child, and forgive the unborn and helpless life inside for the actions of another. Not to mention of course if a woman doesn't think she is pregnant from being raped she apparently hasn't ever heard of anything to do with anything ever about her own body chemistry. quite unlikely in the United States. 6. Roe v. Wade was and still is a hotly contested case, and the idea that supreme court justices have legislated from the bench is abhorrent. That isn't even the real point though, the point is that despite a fetus inability to support itself outside the womb it is in fact alive. As I argued before, a child outside the womb is also unable to maintain its own life, albeit for a longer time because of a more mature physiology. 1. I just like the first three words. "Abortion Kills Babies..." Yes it does. Denying them the same rights as you or me is bigoted. It reminds me of white people saying "them there blacks ain't people anyhow" or men saying women "aren't really citizens after all" when if fact they are. An unborn child is a child still, the brain is functioning from the moment the first neuron appears, the body is growing and adapting already, and as I said the essentially human DNA leaves little other option of how to classify it, as a living human being. 2. What argument for it not being true are you making? I don't see one. I've already stated that an embryo is not yet really alive since it isn't growing (beyond the first division) and doesn't meet the other criteria for being "alive" that everyone learns in High School (or at least it is assumed they learn). And here we are yet again blatantly assuming a point that I, I thought considerately, refuted. Adoption is a viable and actually a positive option. And to use a popular analogy, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. Applied here, a definite death is worse than two possibly disrupted lives later. 3. I'm always serious. The competition is apparently not good enough to force the people who live in slums to find something better because there isn't enough desire to escape that life because there is not enough competition. I realize this is an esoteric and very philosophic point, but it does have merit for the debate, and overpopulation is a joke. There is so much livable space that is not being used its a joke. And even more space is available in more difficult areas, including but not limited to: The poles, the oceans, the Moon, Mars, Titan. Granted that the extra-terrestrial ideas are still some way down the road, but so is the need for them, a need barely felt now but which would be heightened if we had a greater population. Another note, please at least use the handy spellchecker. I can't be certain what your arguments are if I can't read the words which comprise them.