3 Ways To Make the Pro-Life Argument To People Who Don’t Care About The Child

We’ve all been there, in conversation with an abortion supporter, showing them as best we can the obvious reality that life begins at the beginning, when it becomes shockingly clear that the facts make no difference. While pro-choice rhetoric has happily softened from ‘abortion-on-demand-no-regrets!’ to ‘abortion as a morally significant event‘, it doesn’t seem to be morally significant in any particular direction. Simply put, many are able to ignore the striking fact of the unborn child. Ultrasound images bounce off their eyes. Embryology textbooks – it seems – evade their grasps. They grow faint and distant at any confrontation over where life begins. Are we to give up on these individuals?

No. The beautiful thing about Truth is that it is a thing overflowing; it applies to more than just the immediate issue. Thus, if we cannot meet these individuals in their avoidance of the child, we can meet them in their stance of care for the woman. Similarly, the terrible thing about Evil is that it is a thing that truly sucks. Abortion is a black hole that pulls in and tears apart not just a human person, but our society, our culture and most importantly, women.

Here then, are three arguments to make in defense of women, and thus against abortion.

1. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. This truth, evidenced in prestigious, peer-reviewed cancer-research journals is a very important truth to disseminate. Why? Because the anti-breast-cancer movement – in its walks, marches, fun-runs, pink ribbons, shirts – is one of the most pro-woman movements in existence. Breast cancer is a modern plague on the women of our society, and abortion is augmenting its power. To support women – one assumes – is to be against that one disease that so effects women, to stand strongly against the cancer that has caused such tragedy in the lives of our sisters. To be pro-abortion and simultaneously set against breast cancer is to say that the lack of a child is worth the risk of terminal illness. I don’t claim that this position cannot be maintained – perhaps one could weigh the various costs of feeding a baby versus having chemotherapy treatment. No, I simply claim that this position chips away at the pro-choice foundation, that their’s is a movement in defense of the woman.

2. Abortion makes women sad. I do not mean that in some vague way. A study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, synthesizing data from 1995 to 2009, shows that “women who had undergone an abortion had an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.”

From the European Journal of Public Health 2005: Researchers examining deaths among the entire population of women in Finland found that those who had abortions had a 3.5 times higher death rate from suicide, accidents, or homicides in the following year. Suicide rates among aborting women were six times higher compared to women who gave birth and two times higher compared to women who miscarried.

Have you ever brought up the issue of abortion, not knowing some one has experienced it? Now there’s a heartbreaking situation, akin to speaking flippantly about the death of a family member to someone who has experienced such a loss. I can only speak from experience: Away flies the tolerant “we all have our beliefs, you your own, and me mine” position. Instead, post-abortion women react violently, shakily, and tearfully, full of anger, or guilt, or both. If abortion makes women sad, which seems to be readily apparent, then once again, the pro-choice movement is placed in the awkward position of claiming to have the health of women as their highest priority, while attempting to increase the availability of that-which-makes-women-sad.

A study that has never been carried out: Suicide rates in mothers who were strongly considering abortion, but chose life. Why not? Probably because it would be a very boring study, with lots of not-depressed mothers being not-depressed.

3. There are other women in existence! And no, I’m not talking about the fact that most children aborted are girls, though it is an interesting question to ask: When, exactly, do women’s rights begin? I’m talking about mothers who want to adopt! A 2008 study by National Center for Health Statistics found that 33.1% of women have at some point considered adoption. Of that number 4.9% were currently seeking adoptions. That’s 901,000 women looking for babies. By most recent statistics, there are approximately 129,000 children seeking adoption. Now I’m no mathematician, but that’s 772,000 women who want to adopt a child, but will not. It seems that if we killed less of our children, this would not be a problem. Shoot, even if we take the women who were currently seeking adoptions AND had already begun taking steps – 560,000 – there aren’t enough children to go around.

Why, oh why, do we put women at risk of cancer, depression, and in the terrifying position of violence against their own children, when there are so many women looking for children to adopt? It seems obvious that between hurting one woman and helping two, the most pro-woman action one could take would be to counsel a woman to consider adoption. The most pro-woman action one might take would be to rapidly reduce abortions in America, and thereby increase adoptions.

Though I understand why there exists the rather insane idea that the better choice for all women would be an abortion: Abortion brings in cash. Who is going to pay for all those Planned Parenthood ‘don’t-defund-us’ campaigns if everyone’s putting their children up for adoption?

So there you have it. Three effective ways to make the pro-life argument to people seemingly unconcerned with the moral question surrounding the unborn child. I plan on bringing up a few more, so if there any you would like discuss, just let me know!

77 thoughts on “3 Ways To Make the Pro-Life Argument To People Who Don’t Care About The Child

  1. I don’t know why you think that repeating your untruths over and over again will suddenly make them truths. Must be analogous of faith I guess.

    The claimed link between abortion and breast cancer has been found to be invalid.

    The link between abortion and mental illness and suicide is associative, not causative.

    Turning women with unwanted pregnancies into incubators for others – nice.


      1. lol, the evidence is out there. I have already demonstrated previously that the links to ‘evidence’ for  the alleged abortion/breast cancer connection provided on this site are biased, outdated and superseded.

        The mental health/ abortion study stated itself that the reasons had not been identified.

        Do some legwork instead of just swallowing what your like-minded propagandists feed you.


          1. lol, claims initiated in this post with no evidence. The originator of the claim needs to provide real evidence.

          2. So in other words, no evidence, huh? lol…

            When facts matter to you, you look for “real evidence.” Being too lazy to do any research yourself, while accusing someone else of not having the facts to back up their position, is… Well, that’s what YOU do, right, Tom?

            A few minutes of searching allowed me to track down some of the relevant papers. There ya go. Of course, since you’re committed to your ideology, you most likely won’t actually READ them, but there they are.




          3. Groan, links to the same old outdated and refuted articles.

          4. Can you provide a reputable source for that statement?

            Didn’t think so.I’m sorry, but from any sane perspective, Elise’s links to real, researched, scientific sources beat your “lol, the evidence is out there”.

        1. Tom, could you offer some evidence that the link between breast cancer and abortion is invalid?


      2. Since both Tom and his critics are too lazy to go looking, I’ve dug up some evidence. Your welcome.

        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201At 1.5 million people, it’s the largest study ever conducted into this issue. It shows no link between abortion and cancer.

        I could go find others, but I think I’ll just say that the World Health Organization, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, among many others, have all looked into this issue and the many studies on it and said there was no link. Oh, and the scientific community, too. There’s this thing called a scientific consensus that there is no link. Yep.

        Basically, the studies that link cancer and abortion used self-reported data, while the studies that counter it use medical records.

        Medical records are well known to be much more accurate and reliable than self-reports, which are like glorified polls.

        It is worth noting that childbirth, at least, is uncontroversially linked to cancer risks. So you could use the same sort of “it causes cancer” argument to argue FOR abortion.

        If both abortion and childbirth are linked to cancer risk, though, it may simply be pregnancy itself that increases the risk of cancer. After all, it taxes the body a lot.If, as data shows, childbirth is linked to cancer and abortion is not, well, then that would mean abortion decreases cancer risk. Ironic!


        As for the second point, the link to sadness…Guess what? Taking medicine is linked to sadness, so does medicine make people unhappy? No, sickness makes people unhappy. People who take medicine are more likely to be unhappy because they are more likely to be sick.
        That is what we mean by it not being causative. In fact, the reason for sadness is pretty obvious. People who get abortions have had unwanted pregnances. The likely cause of sadness is probably the experience of having an unwanted pregnancy, not the abortion.

        Forcing them to carry it to term won’t change the fact that their pregnancy is unwanted, they don’t suddenly become a person who wants to carry it to term and have a baby, so they don’t end up in the happy mothers group.

        The study that purports to link abortion and sadness would have to look at people who wanted to get an abortion, but were forced not to (by parental consent laws or whatever) and see if they ended up happier. My guess is forcing them to carry it to term would make them more upset, who wants to bet?

        Finally, in reference to Tom’s use of the term incubators, which a lot of you have jumped on: he’s merely pointing out how forcing them to use adoption dehumanizes them.

        It’s like someone saying “We should free the slaves!” and a slaveowner countering, “Don’t call them slaves, you’re dehumanizing them! They are simply servants who work for no pay.”Calling a slave a slave is not an insult, it’s simply pointing out how they are being dehumanized by the behavior of others. The slaveowner who treats his “unpaid servants” poorly is the true savage, not the freedomfighter who calls a spade a spade and says “free the slaves!”

        To force women to carry a baby to term and put it up for adoption is to *treat* women like incubators; they are women, not incubators, and if you believe this you should not *treat* them like incubators.

        At least, that’s what Tom was implying. I actually don’t think it’s that bad. They still act as people in every other way, they just fulfill extra pregnancy duties for the pro-lifers in addition. Perhaps they should be paid by the family that eventually adopts, for performing the pregnancy?


        1. “To force women to carry a baby to term and put it up for adoption is to ‘treat’ women like incubators.”

          No, it’s to treat them like the mothers they are.  Since when did a mother become an incubator?  I never hear pro-choicers going around calling women who want their children incubators…they’re mothers, of course.  But whether or not you want your child doesn’t change what you are or what they are.  If you don’t want to be a mother, you shouldn’t have free sex, whenever you want, without appropriate precautions.  If you do have sex, you are accepting the possible responsibility that may come with it.

          And yes, actually you are right…many families who adopt do pay all the medical bills, prenatal vitamins, maternity clothes, etc. for the woman who carries their baby.


    1. Top scientist finally admits abortion-breast cancer link

      Why do abortion supporters continually call pregnant women “incubators?” It’s a degrading term with misogynistic tones. Carrying a child in-utero does not make a woman a machine, it makes her a Mother. 🙂


      1. Did you even read your link? Over 100 scientists said there was no link between abortion and breast cancer, and one said that there was. Of course, the article focused on the one.


    2. Also, try to not be a jerk.  I mean really, finding a way to insult both pregnant women and adopting women in one sentence?  Congrats.

      I hope my sex starts to see through this crap and recognize that the people who could even conceive of referring to us as mere “incubators” (you said it Tom, not those awful pro-lifers) are probably not our friends.


      1. Actually, telling women they should continue with an unwanted pregnancy is the insult.


        1. Is it? How insulting of me to tell murderers that they shouldn’t kill people.
          And even if it were insulting, that does not mean you get off scott-free for being a jerk to half of the population.


        2. Women should keep there legs shut if they don’t want to have a baby.  Women who have abortions are disgusting and should be ashamed.


    3. Tom,
        Why, may I ask, are you on a pro-life site if you are so firmly pro-choice? I understand you thought something might be “convincing”, but since you obviously found it not to be so, why are you remaining to only instigate an argument? Argumentativeness and insults (” Must be analogous of faith I guess”) is almost never an effective way to bring someone around to your position. That, by the way, was an insulting stereotype that isn’t true. 
        Now, I won’t try to convince you to believe in God or become pro-life, because I know it won’t be effective, but please at least be a polite pro-choice atheist. By the way, if the link between abortion and mental instability is associative, what are they a common response to?


      1. I just think it wise to see misinformation and biased ‘stories’ to be spread in the public domain without them being challenged.

        As to your last question, the originating study actually stated that this had yet to be investigated.


        1. This would be great if you had, you know, some information. Or something crazy like that.


        2. I’m so sorry you feel the way you do, your life has obviously never been touched by adoption. I’m glad my mother’s abortion failed, or I wouldn’t be here to let you know my story. I’m 18 years old and I speak in the community about adoption and sex education for junior high and high school students. tonight i’m speaking at my university. Too bad you will never appreciate the true value of life. 

          A non religious woman, who just cares.


      2. >
        if the link between abortion and mental instability is associative, what are they a common response to?

        I imagine that they are mentally unstable because they, you know, got pregnant and didn’t want to?

        Also the lifestyle that leads to unwanted pregnancy is probably a cause. Think about it.


    4. Wow, how pro-woman of you! I love it when people call me an incubator!

      Also, the associative v. causative argument works either way. Either abortions create mentally ill, suicidal women, or women have abortions because they are mentally ill and suicidal. I don’t know about you, but if someone says, “Hey, our group is scientifically right!! Also, a huge ton of us have documented mental disorders!”


  2. Nice points! Especially the last one  was a nice perspective. Also,
    not sure if you found sites like this but http://www.secularprolife.org/ is a nice non-religious resources so that close-minded people don’t assault you with the “bible thumper” argument…. though I think it silly because not just the bible, but the Torah… and I believe the Qur’an even specifically addresses the word “Embryo” (I know right? they don’t say baby but embryo! I believe Sura 23:13-14 addresses it – it’s quite graphic…) So abrahamic religions that covers the majority of the world…and then if we take Buddhism – they believe generally that life begins at conception and that destruction of life should be avoided….Hinduism – traditional Hindus practice the path that is chosen is one that causes the least amount of harm to mother/father/child/society and the destruction of that soul’s current incarnate body would be harmful. That covers a lot of it – then the above covers seculars  (not to mention the medical and socio-economic arguments agianst). So it gets to the point…. where does the argument for abortion come from – we can’t point to Catholics and say that they’re the religious wet rag in this party – because many theists and non-theists see ACTUAL truth when they are honest with themselves. I guess some people were absent when God was handing out the brains… (haha, sorry I apologize, I’ll go to confession for that comment :D)


    1. I’ve been aware of secular pro-life for some time. I actually thought it may have something that would give me cause to contemplate my position.
      Unfortunately it is inundated with theists, their articles and their approach to things. As you yourself have demonstrated above.
      Nothing in the least bit convincing on their site.


      1. Yeah, Tom… When you’re so dead-set in your position that you refuse to consider actual, you know facts… There’s really nowhere to go from there. You most likely won’t accept reason because you’ve already decided that abortion, infanticide, and whatever else, are better than the dark, nebulous “alternative.” Which YOU assume can be no other than a life of poverty and rejection. The truth is that you pretend to care about “unwanted children’s” futures because it sounds nicer than just admitting that you want to be able to engage in sex without risking having to pay child support. 

        I won’t lie and deny that I’m a believer. But my position on abortion isn’t informed by my religion. My position on abortion is informed by actual, undeniable biological facts. And by a reverence for human life because I happen to be human. It’s not a religious position.

        My religious position on homosexuality is that homosexual acts are wrong. But I don’t take the position that I should interfere in another person’s choice of sex partners, as long as they are consenting adults. Consensual sex typically doesn’t victimize another person, so it’s really none of my business.

        Then there’s abortion, which results in (at least) one butchered human being and (most often) another who is emotionally wounded for life by the experience. That’s not a “religious position.” That’s a fact, and there is no shortage of evidence to attest to that.

        So go ahead and stick to your guns. Just don’t sit there and pretend that YOUR position is the one with facts and logic on its side. It clearly is not. The funny part is that you know it. You don’t even bother to argue because you have not one fact favorable to your position. You just sit there with your eyes squeezed shut and your fingers in your ears, all proud that your mind and heart are sealed tight against anything that might sneak in and corrupt your perfect blissful ignorance.


  3. You have made good points here, another approach could be to point out how the unborn child has its own life and the mother does not have a right to decide another human’s value. 
    Naturally, pro-choicers will argue that the unborn is not human so it doesnt have any value but even by arguing that, you are assuming the right to decide who should have personhood and who shouldn’t.  If there is any uncertainty about who is a person you have to err on the side of caution and not kill them, you shouldn’t let people have the right to decide who should be able to live.

    To people who don’t care about the child, you can just ask them, does personhood matter?  If it does matter then you should be against abortion because you’d be at risk of killing a person.

    If it doesn’t matter then you are basically saying that you are okay with killing a person.


  4. To be pro-abortion and simultaneously set against breast cancer is to say that the lack of a child is worth the risk of terminal illness.

    If you actually find it rational to argue that women should have children to provide some possible future health benefit to themselves, why stop there?  A woman might also someday need a blood transfusion or a bone marrow or kidney transplant.  By your logic, having a baby is a great idea because you might need its spare parts sometime.
    When, exactly, do women’s rights begin?  I’m talking about mothers who want to adopt!
    Well, when do they begin?  If you are saying that a childless woman’s desire to adopt gives her the right to put a pregnant woman’s body to a use that the pregnant woman does not want (carrying a pregnancy to term), then you’re not going to get a lot of traction with pro-choicers.  Nor do I believe that most women who want to adopt would consider themselves entitled to a forced surrogate.  If you’re not claiming that childless women are entitled to someone else’s unwanted child, then “women’s rights” don’t really have any relevance to your argument.  Such as it is.
    Now I’m no mathematician, but that’s 772,000 women who want to adopt a child, but will not.
    It’s higher than that, because many of the children seeking adoption will not be adopted because they aren’t what potential adoptive parents want.


    1. “It’s higher than that, because many of the children seeking adoption
      will not be adopted because they aren’t what potential adoptive parents

      Still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it. I know a mom who found out that there was a chance she might be having a daughter with Down Syndrome. She was very worried how she would cope, as she had other children and wasn’t sure how she would handle one with special needs. Then she discovered that there are parents on waiting lists to adopt children SPECIFICALLY with Down Syndrome, because they are typically happy, affectionate children.

      I know two foster mothers who are in the process of adopting sibling groups, including infants who were born addicted to drugs. My neighbors have adopted one boy with Cerebral Palsy and microcephaly, and a group of sisters, one of whom has developmental delays, sensory disorders, and life threatening episodes of apnea due to her mother’s drug use during pregnancy. They’re planning to adopt another daughter soon.

      I have an aunt and uncle who waited FOUR YEARS to adopt their first baby. It wasn’t because they wanted a “white baby.” They finally were able to adopt a little baby boy who happened to be black, and then they later adopted his little brother.

      It is true that some adopting parents have understandable hesitations to bring into their homes children who have behavior problems from the abuse they have suffered at the hands of their biological parents, especially if they already have children who might be affected. The answer here, then, is to promote adoption for at-risk babies, not eliminate them. Abortion has not in ANY way reduced the numbers of abused children in the world, and that is evident to anyone with access to a newspaper or television set.


      1. But a large problem is that most couples only want to adopt babies. The older children in the system are therefore often overlooked. How do I know this? Well I just happen to have a sibling who was passed on by many couples simply because she was “too old,” (she was only 10 when my parents adopted her). In addition, speak to adoption lawyers and look at the facts, there are still hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system. 


  5. I agree with much of what’s written here.  However, I think that removing emphasis from the child is a bad strategy for ending abortion.  Items one and two are not necessary or sufficient reasons for outlawing it.  There are other legal activities that have health risks, with more documented evidence.  Smoking is still legal despite the undeniable harm it causes.  I do agree that women considering abortion should be aware of these studies however.

    Item 3 also doesn’t work for people who don’t care about the child.  If the child is morally insignificant, then there is no difference between choosing to abort and choosing not to conceive in the first place.  However, it is indeed worth mentioning that there is a perpetual shortage of babies to adopt.  More women would choose life if they knew these facts.

    So while I appreciate the author’s creativity in finding novel ways to make effective dialogue with abortion proponents, the title of his piece is wrong.  There is only one way to make the pro-life argument to people who don’t care about the child: convince them to care about the child.


    1. Trust me, the one about the shortage of babies for adoption never works. 


    2. You’re right…I don’t care that there is a shortage of babies to adopt.
      And you’re not going to convince me to care about a child that I don’t want. 

      There has not been ONE single pro-life arguement that that I’ve come across that has convinced me to not go through with my aborton. 

      My abortion is scheduled in 3 days…I’ve been weighing pros and cons.  So here’s your chance pro-lifers, convince me why I shouldn’t terminate my pregnany.  Here’s more about me:

      I’m only about 6 weeks pregnant, meaning fetal age is only around 4 weeks.  Which it isn’t much more than a lump of cells, not even resembing a baby yet.
      I’m married and my husband and I don’t want kids.  We are both in our 30’s, we both have college educations and successful, professional careers.  We take precautions to not get pregnant (this is the first time I have ever been pregnant in my life),  unfortunately, I got pregnant.  We have no desire to be parents.  I feel sorry for those couples who can’t conceive, but I have no desire to be a surrogate. At this point, abortion seems like the best option. 
      If you want to try to convince me otherwise, now is your chance.  Telling me I am a murder isn’t a very convincing arguement. And preaching to me about God won’t work either since we aren’t really religious.  Trying the “mental instability and high risk for suicide or depression” isn’t going to work either because I don’t want kids…ever.


      1. I think the only thing I could say to you is that I hope you consider how alive the baby inside you really is. Sometimes things we don’t expect, want, or plan for happen for a reason – and often the very thing we think we don’t want is what we look back on years later and know was the best things that could have ever happened to us. I believe you are pregnant for a reason. You call your baby not “much more than a lump of cells,” but have you ever really looked into the fetal development at each stage – including your own baby’s age. It’s simply amazing. Your baby’s heart is already beating and his or her brain waves can already be measured. It’s interesting that many people think that brain death is often the measure of death, but brain life/measurable activity is not the measure of life. Would you be willing to read over this paper? I think it’s one of the most amazing explanations of the pro-life positions and the undeniable humanity of the unborn child: http://www.dakotavoice.com/Docs/South%20Dakota%20Abortion%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf. I just hope that you will consider how much your baby would love to have a chance at life, and how much good this baby could bring to you when you least expect it… Thanks for listening.


  6. Present facts — facts about the child in the womb, facts about the impact on women and don’t worry about converting pro-aborts.  Present the facts and by doing so, you expose the the abortion advocates as the extremists that they are.  Because only extremists would refer to women as “incubators” and children in the womb as “parasites”.  And only extremists would argue that denying a woman an abortion is more violent that dismembering a fetus.  People who wouldn’t injure a dog (or a sea turtle) don’t bat an eye when it comes to torturing helpless human beings.  That’s extremism.


    1. It’s actually a fundamental difference of basic values.

      Pro-lifers value “human life” which values a single-celled zygote but has no qualms about enslaving dolphins for entertainment (unless it’s combined with other values).

      Pro-choices normally value “human happiness” or even “happiness of sentient beings”, which does not value the zygote because it does not think, feel pain, have happiness, any desires (even the desire for life), or a subjective experience.

      The problem with saying that zygotes can potentially have a human experience one day is that every sperm/egg combo can do that, and the natural conclusion is that we should force women to give birth constantly so that as many potential human lives get a chance as possible.


      1. First, you have no idea how many pro-lifers may or may not be against enslaving dolphins.  Secondly, they’re animals, not persons.

        There’s a reason the right to life is before the right to pursue happiness in the Declaration of Independence.  When anyone’s right to happiness is exalted above someone else’s right to life, things go south really fast.  It’s just not American.

        Finally, it’s pretty silly that you focus only on zygotes.  When a “zygote” is present, women almost never even know they’re pregnant. It’s far more accurate to talk about an embryo or a fetus…both of which have qualities that even you would likely consider extremely human.  Check these sites out:  http://www.ct4women.com/pc_development.html and http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week.


  7. When does our society allow women to grieve the death of their child when it has convinced them that to kill their child is acceptable behavior?  RachelsVineyard.org is an excellent place to go to get healing, as a person needs to turn to Jesus Christ to receive His forgiveness and mercy.  How many souls are scarred by this tragedy and suffer indefinitely because their conscience screams “Why did you kill your child?” and the mass media says it is a fundamental right in our society to kill one’s own children.  To ignore the sad satistics of the mental trauma abortion does to a mother, is to turn your back on souls deeply wounded and in need our our empathy and compassion.  Planned Parenthood, the pro death mass media, and those individuals who support their agenda, ignore the mental trauma done to the mother like they ignore the child’s right to life.  The mother is also a victim.  A victim of deception. 


  8. Giving three reasons against abortion are great – but I just don’t understand the 3rd one!

    Surely you can explain better that the demand for adoption is greater than the demand for abortion?


  9. To completely empty out the orphanages, I think every pro-life person should be given an orphan every single year for the rest of their life.  No picking and choosing.  They will have to take the orphan regardless of age, race, gender, mental problems, health problems, or handicaps. They will have to accept the orphan no matter what their income is and raise them till the orphan is 18. No money should be wasted on providing for the pro-life adopted parents, because as long as they are alive, that’s all that matters.  Quality of life means absolutely nothing. Living is absolutely everything. If someone dies in such horrible conditions, well, it was just God’s will.


    1. Well said!!!  I think that is the best arguement I’ve heard yet.


  10. Just because I am pro-life doesn’t give me the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Don’t like that they use our tax money to fun abortions? Elect someone different. Just cause I think drinking is bad doesn’t mean I get to take the booze from someone else. I am pro-life but also pro-rights.


  11. Only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services each year are abortion-RELATED (this includes women who simply have an appointment to discuss this option). It is literally their lowest source of income, so you are painfully exaggerating when you state that “abortion brings in cash”.

    Your article is filled with purple prose and other logical fallacies, which is extremely unprofessional, manipulative, and thus begs any free-thinking reader to question your integrity as a writer.


  12. Great article, very convincing. There is one thing I don’t know how you justify though. If there are more parents looking to adopt than there are children to be adopted, why are there so many (129,000 by your words) children in orphanages? I do not understand.



    If Roe v Wade were repealed today, the annual cost to the taxpayer is $1.3 trillion. Remember, these are unwanted children, and they can’t just be thrown away. They’ll be handed over to the state. (Or they’ll be shuffled around and mistreated and eventually end up in an orphanage or foster care or juvenile detention.)

    Annual abortions a 1,400,000
    Avg years of care
    b 18
    Avg # in care a*b = c 25,200,000
    Annual cost per child d $50,000
    Annual budget c*d = e 1,260,000,000,000

    (Rounded, that’s 1.3 trillion!)

    And that’s before counting the cost of building the orphanages it will take to house them. Foster Care is already overloaded.

    In Mexico and Brasil abortion’s illegal and hoards of unwanted kids roam the streets begging, stealing, prostituting, drug dealing. That what you want?

    This is the reality your politicians are hiding from you.

    Think before casting your ballot.


  14. People will go to any means to justify abortion, so as to, take an easy way out, not face responsibility and guilt of wrong choices. Yes a women has rights. Do young girls found by law to not make mature decisions understand what they are doing? BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UNBORN CHILDS RIGHT??? THey are defenseless! Who will stand up and protect them? We are supposed to defend the weak!!! Forget about your -self and think of the unborn child.


  15. It is difficult to assess whether there has been a change in the demand for children to adopt in the last 30 years.There are no national statistics on the number of individuals and couples seeking to adopt children—most adoption data are limited to finalized adoptions (12,14,15). If the percentage of women who have ever adopted is used as a proxy for demand, analysis of data from prior cycles of the NSFG indicate that demand may have declined—the overall percentage of women who have ever adopted a child has declined slightly since 1973 (16).


  16. It is difficult to assess whether there has been a change in the demand for children to adopt in the last 30 years.There are no national statistics on the number of individuals and couples seeking to adopt children—most adoption data are limited to finalized adoptions (12,14,15). If the percentage of women who have ever adopted is used as a proxy for demand, analysis of data from prior cycles of the NSFG indicate that demand may have declined—the overall percentage of women who have ever adopted a child has declined slightly since 1973 (16).


  17. It is difficult to assess whether there has been a change in the demand for children to adopt in the last 30 years.There are no national statistics on the number of individuals and couples seeking to adopt children—most adoption data are limited to finalized adoptions (12,14,15). If the percentage of women who have ever adopted is used as a proxy for demand, analysis of data from prior cycles of the NSFG indicate that demand may have declined—the overall percentage of women who have ever adopted a child has declined slightly since 1973 (16).


  18. You are a man. The only thing you are “putting women through” is an unwanted pregnancy. This option that effects roughly 1.6 billion women a year will never be or become your decision. Studies also show that more women and stress and depression before having or deciding to have an abortion than afterwards.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *