Well so you are being impractical and naive. The world is not an altruistic place and you cannot change that. So you have a problem, and instead of finding a solution you wanna change something that you dont even know where to begin with.

Secondly, you might wanna take care of the kid and all that, but there are millions of children around the world that are abandoned. Even if you are gonna take care of just 1 kid, it is still a big deal. Food, clothing, medical bills, school fees etc etc are just a few to begin with and trust me its not easy. Its easier said than done, that someone should take care of the baby for the sole reason of humanity. It doesnt work that way.

I am not saying birth of the baby is wrong, I am saying that there are cases where pregnancy may be unwanted. Because of any number of reasons. What is moral, immoral doesnt matter here. Infact aborting a baby is sometimes the right and the responsible thing to do. If you are not gonna give a solution to a problem, then you cant say abortion is wrong, cuz you yourself dont know what else to do.

why is no one addressing the fact that abortion is never the killing of a baby. thats infanticide. its different.

a majority of abortions (88-92%) take place during the first trimester of pregnancy. its usually just terminating a blob of cells. even after 5 weeks of growth, the embryo is about 5mm. half a centimetre.
you lose roughly 70g a week of dead skin cells just falling of your body.
weight of fetus at the end of first trimester ~28g.

call it a baby as long as your want, that thing isnt viable, it doesnt feel or think, if you were to pick it up and have a dog embryo of the same age, you cant tell the difference.

True, but first I am arguing to convince people that it isnt immoral to abort. People immediately get all pious and bring up morality the moment you talk about abortion

True, but is it devoud of life? You mentioned you loose 70g of dead skin each week. But how much of that dead skin could be turned into a human life if you didnt loose it? Yea, 0. But each embryo, weighting 28g or not, can have a human life. Same thing? I think not.

And well mfreak, I don't know if this is morals or not, but I do think we humans are here to make more humans, perpetuating our race. That's supposed to be the very first role of your life, the second you are conceived. So, even if it is before the first tremestre, even if it can't feel or be differenced from the embryo of a dog, it will turn into a human someday if let be, and if we don't we would be stopping that human from fulfilling it's role in this world, and that goes against our own roles.

First off, we aren't animals. Well we are. But perpetuating our kind, isnt our only goal. A human being can fulfill his role in the world only when he is happy and healthy. If you are gonna bring into the world a baby that isnt gonna be cared for, or cant be cared for, then you are ruining its chances for fulfilling anything.

But how can they fulfill anything dead? I dont see how giving them a chance to live, however poorly it is, can stop them from fulfilling themselves. Perpetuating our kind might not be our only goal, but it's the first one we have, and unconscieously, our most important one. Why would we want to be happy, why would we want to meet the woman/man of our dreams? Simply because we want to, but the end result in such a case is, again, the perpetuation of the human race, by them having a happy family that will most likely survive generations through generations, even if we realize it or not.

But, even if we don't exactly get the woman of our dreams, a small house on the nearest town, or even food everyday, we can fulfill that first role we are given. So it all comes back to the same point of before: letting them live, even in such deplorable conditions, is giving them a small shred of hope: truly very small, but it's more hope than being dead. Even if it carries heavy pain with it, that small shred of hope may very well be worth it: in fact, even the ones that were born "normally", probably have to endure suffering equal to that in order to also get a shred of hope.

Man you are being totally stupid. WHAT hope? So just because we have to have kids and increase in numbers, you want people to squirt out babies and then say its okay for them to live in deplorable conditions?

Well, to make you truly understand how it is, why dont you travel to one of the most impoverished nations in Africa, take with you only 1 set of clothes, live on the streets, beg for food. And of course carry no money with you. Lets see what "shred of hope" you see. You dont know squat about what suffering really is, so you are simply worried about a baby not being born and not even thinking about the other more important aspects of RAISING A CHILD. Children that are not cared for, that cant be cared for would have been better off not being born. Some poor people in India, have babies and then throw them in the garbage. GARBAGE!!! Cuz they cant take care of the baby AT ALL. Thats a 1 month old infant. Sometimes these babies die of hunger. If they could abort, they would very well do it. And now you wanna tell me about HOPE?? Ridiculous. Stop being naive, impractical and stupid. Think practically. Idealism has no place in the real world.

Because you were one of those children and you know how they think?

No I was overweight when I was born So I had everything from day 1.

And am not talking about what babies think. Am arguing that just because someone has to "live" you cannot bring a baby into the world, and then let it suffer all the hardships of life. If the mother feels that can be averted through abortion, then yes, she has every right in the world to abort.

Plus its not like a baby is being killed. The foetus is being flushed out of the system. Its just a bunch of cells, that in FUTURE will grow into a baby.

I agree with you in most respects. I don't feel that a human life has been taken when an abortion takes place. Vegetarians eat eggs afterall.

It's just that sentence was extremely... stupid.