Hello

Yes.. Not giving every red cent you have to charity so that you can live in a heated home is selfish.. Understandably so.. Hey we're all human, but still selfish. We arent' saying that's a character flaw.. But everytime you could have done something for someone who was without but instead do something for yourself.. You're being selfish.

Again.. That doesn't mean you're a bad person.. It just makes you a better person if you do do that.

Ok once again money does not =child.

Politically speaking, abortion is an issue that involves competing rights. On the one hand, you have the mother's right not to be pregnant. On the other hand, you have the baby's right not to be killed. The question that must be answered is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Abortion advocates argue that outlawing abortion would, in essence, elevate the rights of the unborn over and above those of the mother. "how can you make a fetus more important than a grown woman?", they might ask. In reality, outlawing abortion wouldn't be giving unborn children more rights, it would simply gain for them the one most fundamental right that no one can live without, the right to life.

If a baby is not to be aborted, then the pregnant mother must remain pregnant. This will also require of her sickness, fatigue, reduced mobility, an enlarged body, and a new wardrobe. Fortunately, it is not a permanent condition. On the flip side, for a pregnant woman not to be pregnant, her child must be killed (unless she is past her 21st week of pregnancy, in which case the baby may well survive outside the womb). Abortion costs the unborn child his or her very life and it is a thoroughly permanent condition. This is what's at stake, both for the child and for the mother. It is not an issue of who is more important, but rather who has more on the line.

As it stands today, american women have the legal right to obtain an abortion in all 50 states, through all nine months of pregnancy, for virtually any reason at all. This has been true since january of 1973 when the supreme court declared that autonomous abortion rights are built into the constitution, and that any legal barriers which prevent mothers from aborting their children are unconstitutional.

The opportunity to make such a sweeping declaration came via two companion cases, one from texas and the other from georgia. The texas case, roe v. Wade involved a pregnant, single woman, "roe", who was suing the dallas county district attorney, henry wade, to prevent him from enforcing texas' abortion prohibition. The georgia case, doe v. Bolton, involved a married woman who wasn't pregnant, but was suing on the hypothetical threat that pregnancy would pose to her health.

Since the verdicts handed down from these two suits become the legal framework for abortion rights in the u.S., we are left with a system that was not arrived at by vote or by legistlation or by amendment or through public debate. Abortion was legalized through judicial decree, through the decision of seven, non-elected supreme court justices (who all happened to be men). Overnight, unborn children lost all protection under the law, and mother's were granted the right to abort for any reason they so desired.

Prior to this (as noted in the resulting majority opinion), abortion laws were decided on a state-by-state basis, and most states made it "a crime to 'procure an abortion,' ... Except with respect to 'an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.'" in other words, before 1973, the majority of states only allowed for abortion if continued pregnancy was going to kill the mother. Therefore, the supreme court ruling on roe and doe not only took abortion law out of state hands, but it handed them a verdict which was in direct opposition to almost all prior abortion legislation.

How, then, could the court have ruled in the matter it did? The peg on which the entire verdict hangs is personhood. Justice harry blackman stated in the majority opinion of the roe decision that, “if this suggestion of (fetal) personhood is established, the [case in support of legal abortion] collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) amendment.” why didn't the court see unborn embryos and fetuses as having a claim to personhood? Because the court, "at this point in the development of man's knowledge," could “not resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” when “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.” the bottom line according to the court: the unborn aren't persons because we don't know if they're human.

While this claim of, "we just don't know when life begins," was demonstrably false in 1973, it is even more nonsensical today. We do know when life begins, and it's time to do something, in the service of love, to right what has been a massive wrong. When laws victimize the weak and the vulnerable (rather than protecting them), it is time to change those laws.

Give it a rest, steen. You are going to have a tough time convincing prolife people here that abortion is justifiable no matter what excuse you throw out.

I was 18 when I fell pregnant, im 19 now with a 2 and a half month old. Im glad I didn't get an abortion. But if a woman chooses to get an abortion, its her body, and her choice, and she shouldn't be looked down upon for choosing to do something thats none of anyones buisness.

So yes, babies are a gift from god and bless the world. But what about the mother? She was a baby, isn't she still a blessing from god? Shouldn't she get to choose what happens to her body without being judged? I think so.

Nice to meet your kourtney!! It's nice knowing that people are out there, who have gone what your going through!! Me~as an imperfect person cannot judge others for there actions.....And yes god still loves the women who has an abortion just as dearly as he ever did.....As long as they ask for forgivness and repent, then any sin, can be forgiven......It would just be a matter of ackowledging "wrong" behavior! As I was saying, I as a human cannot judge others, however it's important for human beings to sometimes "point out" other peoples mistakes if they go unnoticed....Not judge, just sort of call them out on it......Sometimes it's not the womens choosing~it's higher than that.....God has had a purpose for every human being since the begining of time!!

I don't believe in god and I don't believe abortion is wrong so I have no reason to repent.

Well see, it being "wrong" is merely a matter of opinion. Pro-lifers think its wrong, and pro-choicers think its okay. I don't understand why people fight overt his subject, pro-lifers arn't going to change pro-choicers, choices, and vise-versa. So i'll support a woman in anything she does, unless shes harming her self.

So you're pregnant? Are you married? Is the dad still in the picture? Im just asking because you're very christian-like, and i'd figured you'd be married. If not, thats cool too.

My babys father is still in the picture and we're getting married next year. :)

kourtney