The anti-abortion viewpoint, most commonly found under the larger umbrella of the more appealing term "pro-life", refers to the view that abortion is wrong, regardless of the reason, and should be illegal in most if not all cases
- /arguments: structured arguments starting with anti-abortion positions
- abortion/black genocide: some argue that abortion clinics target black women, with the goal of reducing or eliminating black people.
- Army of God: "a pro-life organization that honors those who murder abortion providers as 'heroes'" according to 
- Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
- L.E.A.R.N. Inc. and Operation Rescue: see Durham MZCC abortion truck
I've long been a believer that the only people who have a right to demand abortions be made illegal are those who are willing to spend their own money to take in a young expectant mother, pay for their medical bills and insurance costs, pay for the child's costs, and provide the woman with a stipend to help make ends meet. If someone is willing to do all of that... then they can insist abortions be made illegal.
Not a single one has risen to my challenge. =^-^=
I'll second that, to the point of agreeing that criminalization of abortion is not a valid position to take unless you are also proposing a system for providing care to the mother and child as Robert describes. There would need to be some additional conditions on such systems, however, such as "no religious proselytizing". --Woozle 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- anonymous user 188.8.131.52 said: You're both douchebags, and that asian style smilie just confirms it. If you recognized that a person's life begins at conception, your argument would be completely baseless. Because then you might as well support the mother's right to kill her child anytime before adulthood. So I guess people who are against infanticide don't have valid positions either unless they are prepared to cover the child's expenses through adulthood.
- Actually, even if I recognized that a person's life begins at conception, that would only undermine that argument if I agreed that the baby's life was more important than the mother's (which I don't). As it happens,though, I think the question of when life has or hasn't started is a very artificial distinction to make. Some people say "life begins at forty" -- obviously they're not talking about "life" in the same way we are here, but that's my point: "life" has lots of different aspects to it, and they begin at different times, and none of them is like flipping a switch. When does the brain start working? When does the heart start beating? When does the proto-baby become aware? At what point does it acquire a will to live?
- I'm willing to draw the line at birth, or perhaps at the point of viability. Regardless of that, I wouldn't want to be a baby whose mother wanted to abort me and was told it was illegal. Life's screwed up enough as it is. =^.^= (Hello Kitty loves you too.) --Woozle 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
|format=template |template=smw/show/link |link=none |?when posted#ISO |?title |?summary |?URL }}
<exec module=filed-links func=Links_forTopic email@example.com /> [refresh]
News & Views
- 2007-11-06 A Fresh Challenge to the Religious Right's View of Abortion by Frederick Clarkson: according to a new book by Gary Willis, "Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception, that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for either defending or condemning abortion. Even the popes have said that it is a matter of natural law, to be decided by natural reason."
- 2007-07-30 Libertyville Abortion Demonstration: the image on the posters hauled out of the van at the beginning of the video may be the same as this image