Amber Bohnett wrote:

I am a non-believer and I still think abortion is wrong, so you see it is
not just a debate with religion. When people do it because they feel that
they do not want to put up with raising a child or that they are not
prepared for it, they should not be allowed to destroy the life of another
human being to rid themselves of the responsibility that they themselves
caused to happen.
[snip bullcrap]
In some cases abortion
could be considered necessary, such as rape(how many women would want that
permanent attachent to their attacker which they did nothing to provoke?),
incest(for the risk of mental problems and physical deformities), or
possibly losing your own life carrying or delivering your child(what can you
do for your child if you are dead?). I feel these are the ONLY exceptions
doctors should allow for abortions to be carried out.

How so? First you claim that abortion is "destroying the life of another
human being", then you proceed to claim with a straight face that it is
perfectly acceptable to destroy the "life of another human being" if his
father happens to be a rapist. Doesn't that strike you as a little hypocritical?

All other reasons for
abortions, whether it be one night stands or sex with a serious partner,
that you do not want to accept responsibility for because you are too damn
lazy or selfish, deserve no less than utter rejection.

So don't do it. No one is forcing you to abort if you don't want to.
However, you can't have it both ways - protect the "life of another human
being" when it suits your parochial definition of the day, then "destroy" it
when you happen to feel like it.




--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House