Why does no one seem to care?

Why is it that in America we even allow this debate to continue?

There has not been "40 million babies killed" that is just hyped up BS propagated by ill informed priests that want to keep their congregations involved in things that are none of their business.

And I do care about "saving the children", the ones that are alive and abused, or sick, or starving. We have enough to worry about with the children that are born to waste so much money and energy fighting about a personal choice issue.

How many abused babies have you rescued lately? How much money do you donate to help our live children fight cancer? How many dollars do you contribute to funds that feed the children already here?

I am proud to be pro-choice and even prouder that I actually try to do as much as I can to better the lives of the children that have been born.

Most anti-choicers are hypocrites who do nothing to better the plight of the living children and much to force others to make decisions based on the anti-choicers religious beliefs.

As a human, it makes me sick.

I share your frustration,but for some twisted reason many may feel that people and their precious souls come a dime a dozen. But actually many don't really care of the animals either, the basic problem is that people are becoming desensitized to the precious gift of life,maybe due to the over abundance of sin in this world the love of mankind is growing weak.

An entire generation of people has not been wiped out.... Don't be so silly.

Those "babies" that have been "aborted" include miscarriages and stillbirths. Those women must be evil too.

Why do you presume to speak to a situation that belongs between a woman and her physician? If you don't like abortion, then don't have one.

Better still: are you prepared to care for all those infants born to mothers who can't care for them if you manage to get abortion outlawed, or will you say, as most xtian fundies do, "tough luck, kid, you're on your own." I don't see you stepping up offering to adopt one. If you really care so much, put your money where your mouth is.

because in many cases, the animal in question is going extinct courtesy of humans, humans aren't....we'll be here for quite awhile if we don't cause our own extinction

because in many CASES young ladies who supposed to give birth to a child and killed fetus, ARE still ******* little girls who play with DAMN BARBY.

to anold: if woman can't afford to have kids then either use protection or don't have sex.

I care for the children!!! I agree with you.

The thing is, samantha, you're not considering the whole picture here. You're obviously reacting to this issue on an emotional level rather than rationally considering the facts involved. So let's look at those facts:

Nobody has the right to be born. It may seem like abortion is murder to you, but the simple fact is, nobody has the right to be born. If they did, women could be forcibly impregnated. How is this so?

Think about this: if your mother had decided not to have sex, you wouldn't be here. Every ovum is distinct (has unique dna). Therefore, every ovum that is not fertilized is a person that could have been but wasn't. Are you now advocating that women should be forcibly impregnated for the benefit of those unfertilized ova? So really, what would have been the difference between your mother not having sex and your mother having sex but aborting you? Answer: no difference at all. In either case you wouldn't be here.

A woman already has the power to decide whether or not to bear children, that is unless you're proposing legislation to require women to bear children. She already, even according to your world view, gets to decide whether or not to bring a life into this world. She can simply decide never to bring any children into this world, and all those potential children will never be born. The bottom line is, so long as you concede that women have the right to decide whether or not to become impregnated, you are conceding that women have a right to decide whether children will be born or not.

Not every society in the world gives women that right to decide whether or not to become a mother. In many, particularly Muslim countries, women have little choice but to submit to the will of their husbands when it comes to bearing children, and in China, women are limited by law as to how many children they may have.

Our society is different, and in my opinion, far superior to either of the aforementioned cultures. We give the choice of whether or not to become impregnated to women, not to their fathers, husbands, brothers, mothers, priests, or the local magistrate. Why? Because we believe in the fundamental equality of persons. That is the bedrock principle of our entire society and legal system. It is in our Declaration of Independence and it is in our Constitution. It is written across the top of our Supreme Court building, and it is the one principle that unites us all.

What does it mean that everyone is equal? Does it mean we're all exactly alike? Of course not. What it means is that our laws treat us all equally, or should try to do so (we're not perfect, but we should strive for complete legal equality). But what does legal equality mean? What legal equality means is that nobody can be made legally superior or inferior to another. It means no person can be forced to serve another (as happened with the royal and feudal systems of Europe which our Founding Fathers knew quite well). There is no power in the law that allows me to compel you to do anything or you to compel me to do anything. All obligations in the law are contingent. If you don't have the money to pay a debt, I cannot make you get a job to pay it.

But if we criminalize abortion, then what we're saying is that a woman is obligated to support a fetus. We are saying that a woman can be forced to put up with the inconveniences of pregnancy, sacrifice her rest, her health, and even risk her life for the benefit of another person (the fetus). In short, if we criminalize abortion, we're saying, "Well, everyone is equal, except for women." Well, guess what, we used to have a system not too different than that. The difference was, everyone was equal, except for black Americans.

Lest you think this is an extreme comparison, let's look at the obligations men face to their children. A father cannot be compelled by law to donate an organ, say a kidney to his child, even if the child would die without that kidney. The law cannot even compel a father to donate blood to his child. Whatever you may think of that father, the law cannot compel either of those things. Yet, you want the law to compel women to sacrifice nine months of inconvenience, pain, discomfort, the ordeal of labor, strains to her health, and possibly risk death for a fetus. Clearly you are not asking for equal sacrifices from men and women.

Typically, those who advocate the criminalization of abortion say, "well if a woman doesn't want to support a fetus, risk her health or risk her life, she shouldn't have sex." The problem there is that you're still elevating the fetus (or the potential fetus) to a position of superiority over the woman. And you're still asking for unequal sacrifices from men and women.

You most likely will say at this point, "well what about the fetus's right not to be murdered? Isn't that a violation of IT'S right to be equal." The simple answer to that is no. When we talk about a right to life, we are talking about a right to be free from being arbitrarily killed. That does not grant with it the right to be KEPT alive by another person. For instance, if you're in my house, and it's 30 below zero outside, and you'll freeze to death if I make you leave my house, that doesn't give you the right to remain in my house until it's warm enough so that you won't freeze to death. If the fetus were gestating in a box, by all means, then killing it would be murder, but it isn't gestating in a box. It is drawing nourishment and support from a woman, who has the option to have that fetus removed from her body. If the fetus cannot survive on it's own outside the uterus, that does not place an obligation upon the woman to keep it alive. I grant you there is some small room in this for the state to decide how a fetus may be disconnected from a woman's support, provided that it does not substantially interfere with her right to evict the fetus from her uterus.

And still, I can sense that you're going to come back to, "Well, she's the one who had sex. She's the one who set this ball in motion. If she didn't want these hassles, she should have kept her legs closed."

I'm not going to get into a complicated dissertation on the history of our legal system, but the simple fact is, even if a woman begins a pregnancy with the intent of having a child, she is not obligated to continue that pregnancy until birth. To force her to do so would be, again, to make the fetus superior to the woman. The fact that she chose to have sex, however much you think otherwise, is totally irrelevant. Nobody has the legal obligation to serve another, and that includes women.

I understand your distress that a fetus is killed during the process of abortion and to remedy this, I suggest you direct your energies toward finding a way to keep non-viable fetuses alive with technology. But your distress is not sufficient justification to deny women legal equality with men and children.

You are certainly welcome to try and persuade women not to abort, but when you cross that line into criminalization, you violate the most fundamental precept of our society, which is the equality of persons.