-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 8/1/12 9:37 AM, CW wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:18:08 -0600, Just Wondering
Physical risk, perhaps. Men have no say in whether their their
unborn daughter's mother can take her life, but if the mother
chooses to let the daughter live, the father has financial and legal
responsibility.

It's the woman's body that is of concern here. I wonder how quickly
opinions would change if men who were the ones that gave birth?
================================================== ==================
Very quickly.


That doesn't explain the millions of pro-life women.
I bet the woman inside the womb would be pro-life if she had a choice
in the matter.

It would be ideal if we could just make life so that pregnancy would
result ONLY from a conscious decision made with total consent between 2
people. Unless we find a way to sterilize people in a reversible manner,
that will not always happen.

As of now, use of effective contraceptives could and should be higher.
Since totally effective contraception is a(?n?) utopian illusion as well,
we get collectively saddled with unwanted pregnancies. Fortunately, with
increasing education and availability of contraceptives, the number of
unwanted pregnancies is decreasing. There is hope!

While the preferable solution to an unwanted pregnancy would be a birth
at full-term with adoption by a loving family, that isn't always possible
(even if the paperwork was easier). Moreover, using any female as a
forced upon incubator is reprehensible. Even considering that she might
have gotten pregnant by "negligence". Also, there are many medical
reasons for terminating a dangerous condition, which unfortunately almost
every pregnancy can turn into.

So pregnancy is a blessed state, but only if consciously conceived (pun
intended).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid