"No-choice", "pro-choice", etc.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> >

> >CLAIRE

> >

> >Why shouldn't it have any bearing on the abortion argument? It is immoral and selfish for someone to want to abort a baby because she can't even wait nine months and then give it up for adoption.

> >

> >What about women who have brought deformed or retarded infants into this world, and then relied on assistance from the state? Atheists on this list have complained about these babies using up our tax dollars. If they have the right to complain about  these children, then why can't I complain about women who can't even consider giving up their baby for adoption to an infertile couple

> >(instead of aborting it).

> >

> >~Claire

> >

> JOHN HAMILTON

> If a woman chooses to have a child and give it up for adoption that is fine, but you are talking about *forcing* women to have children.


DAVE G.
Exactly our point. Women should have the *CHOICE* either keep the child,
give it up for adoption OR chose abortion. To abort a deformed/retarded
child IS a merciful act.

• Previous message: "No-choice", "pro-choice", etc.
• Next message: Fw: Ian's treatment of Claire
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]