Rc Rachmiel offers cheap web hosting domains, SEO packages, web design service, & hosting providers. Visit the site for more information.cheap web hosting providers

Thanks for you comments, Chelsea. To try and answer your question: simply put, there are some things we should not allow others to choose. For instance, we shouldn't allow other to choose to own slaves, we shouldn't allow others to choose to beat children, we shouldn't allow others to choose to rape women. There are a whole host of things we shouldn't allow others to choose to do. Pro lifers just recognize that we shouldn't allow others to choose to kill unborn babies either.

Second point you make. Technically speaking, yes, all aborted babies go to heaven anyway; but all newborns thrown in trash bins or killed in some other way go to heaven too. Does that mean we should legalize killing newborns for the sake of "choice"? I don't think so.

God doesn't har#@*%! people.
God allows people to choose their actions.
So why do you har#@*%! people?
Why don't you allow individuals the opportunity to choose?


And if you want to get technical then all babies go to heaven anyway.

I shall look forward to the day you congratulate us.

And I am glad that I am able to view the world objectively, and draw lines between a human life and a bundle of cells with fewer nerve endings than my big toe or perhaps an aggressive tumour. When the day comes that abortion is banned through the actions of poorly coded websites put together by the grandchildren of fellow parishioners, TV commercials written in powerpoint and protests that do little but drive the nut jobs out of the woodwork, I shall personally congratulate you on your efforts. I wish you luck.

And I'm sure convoluted half-truths were used to deny the personhood of Blacks many times as well. You can go off on your little tangents all you like. The fact remains that the baby in the womb is alive and is human, thus a "human being." I'm just glad I recognize this simple fact and will end up on the right side of history. You, on the other hand, will go down as one of the oppressors. One of those who used insufficient justifications to deny the humanity of the weakest and defenseless among us for selfish reasons.

A simple search for "Suicide rate illegal abortion" will yield a plethora of results, most of which come from doctors rather then the biblical scriptures cited by most pro life organizations.
As for the once again stellar comparison you made, this time between someone of African decent and a fetus being considered fully human, you are correct in stating that in the past, Africans were denied the rights of "full humans". When did it become acceptable to consider a human less then human? Most slave owners quoted Genesis 9:25: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." Luckily both science and morals have triumphed over biblical scripture on that particular p#@*%!age. The root of the anti-abortion cause can also be found in the bible "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him;" (Exodus 21:22-23). As one can plainly see, the bible condones considering a human life less than human, while simultaneously considering all life sacred. Since the writing of both p#@*%!ages, we have discovered some interesting things, such as the heart being nothing more than a cardiovascular pump, and the brain being responsible for cognitive functions. Science has proven the humanity of Africans, which I'm sure both you and most of the world would agree with. Science has also proven that a fetus is incapable of even such a simple higher brain function as the perception of pain until the 26th to 34th week of development (because you enjoy citations so much, shall link you to the medical practitioner board of Victoria http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs/archive/report/report3.htm) The point to this lengthy rebuttal is this; All current law in Canada is based in part on the original book of law, namely the bible. Just as science is able to prove that certain laws considered ethical at the time the bible was written to be unethical(slavery), science is able to prove ethical what was once considered to be unethical(abortion). You may believe what ever you see fit to believe, but to force your beliefs on others and attempt to overwrite science with dated morals and ethics makes you no better then those that take the freedom of others.

1) I would chose to punish the abortionist for actually killing the child. When abortion was illegal, women were rarely or ever punished for the act. I suspect the same will occur after it is criminalized again.

2) Please cite your "fact" that suicide rates increase where abortion in the case of rape is illegal. Even if true, the fact that people who kill other people kill themselves because of it is not sufficient justification for legalizing the killing in the first place.

3) You want facts?

a) Life begins at conception. Abortion terminates an existing life.
b) The people, the courts, the politians have all been wrong before. Remember when we determined that Africans were "less than fully human" and "non-persons"? Remember when we said that women were non-persons? Well guess what, we are making the same mistake again when it comes to children in the womb.
c) Abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in Canada for any reason or no reason at all.
d) There is no difference between a "human being" and a "person." They are one in the same.

I do appreciate your counter argument, however the flaws in it are so blatant, I will have to address them on a point by point basis.
1)You state that you do not understand the principle I am appealing to. Clearly that is the case, as I am not appealing to any principle, I am simply stating a fact, that a woman who wants an abortion will get one, one way or another regardless of the illegality. How would you choose to punish a woman who got an illegal abortion? Force her to adopt a child?
2)You then go on to state that rape will always happen. A sad but unfortunate truth. Although I find it interesting that you would bring up rape in an abortion forum, as rape is the largest argument used against your cause. The withholding of abortions from rape victims would change nothing aside from a spike in the suicide rate, an historically proven fact.
3)Laws are in place to protect innocent victims from unjust acts. The definition of victim is as follows "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident." The key word in that definition is person. Despite your arguments, Canadians have decided through the governing process that person hood does not occur at conception.
4)Government exists to protect society as a whole, the protection of individuals is simply an obvious extension of this core goal. As a result, laws are frequently enacted that protect or fail to protect those that commit unjust acts, but benefit society as a whole, in fact the entire notion of the corporation is based on protecting the maker of decisions from the legal implications of that decision.
I look forward to a rebuttal, may I recommend the inclusion of factual information to better support it?