Help me understand or attempt to convert me to your side of the argument.
Let me first off say, I have been pro-life since High School. I have done tons of research on the issue, and seen videos of what an abortion actually entails. It’s not a pretty site to see. My best friend is pro-choice for the first trimester. He and I have spirited, but friendly debates on the issue.
Here’s why I have major problems with the Pro-Choice side of the argument:
Everybody understands that when you have unprotected sex, you may get pregnant. It’s not a guarantee, but there’s a possibility.
If somebody is not ready to be a mother or a father, why are they having unprotected sex? Why didn’t the woman take the morning after pill? Why didn’t the man wear a condom? Why wasn’t the woman on birth control?
People can urge, this isn’t my business all they want. But when another human life is at stake, it’s our business as a society that claims to be moral and respects the dignity of human life.
When I ask reasonable pro-choicers about whether or not life begins at conception, they all agree it does. Their issue stems from the government telling the woman what to do with that human life during the early stages of pregnancy.
Everybody agrees that a freedom is not a freedom, if it hurts another person. You cannot argue that a husband has the freedom to beat up his wife, because the woman has the right to live without getting hurt or mentally/physically abused. If my next door neighbor buys a new red mustang, I do not have the right to take his keys and go for a joy ride, and then later claim, it’s my car now. But according to Pro-choice logic, a freedom is not a freedom if it hurts somebody else, UNLESS we’re talking about a pregnant woman.
More over, no pro-lifer is arguing that the biological parents MUST raise the child. I say give it to an infertile couple. Give it to a homosexual couple. Give it to a trans couple. Why is destroying a human life the best or the most logical solution?
