It can happen, that's the thing that worries me.

Populations are growing more rapidly over the years and even countries like China, which is already overpopulated, are starting to lift their "one child per family" policies.

There are some places that are actually facing under-population. Not enough births.

I either think we need to be like England and disallow guns completely almost, or encourage gun ownership and gun carrying, but we seriously need better laws for requiring sellers of guns to run strict background and psychological tests. I don't get why Republicans and Democrats fight about guns the way they do. I don't see why Republicans don't admit that better background checks can only help. I also think some teachers in schools should carry guns (if they want to), and would go through rigorous training for safety and how to use it, plus psychological tests at least once a year, but would be better to be twice per school year. I also think they should be required to have it locked up, rather than carrying it. I personally prefer encouraging guns, but I also believe that we do need rigorous background and psychological tests, and I can't understand why anyone would disagree with that.

I wouldn't have to murder someone illegally if it wasn't illegal in the first place. That argument makes no sense. It's not about the woman's body, it's about the mother, the father, and the baby. A woman alone doesn't have a baby, there's at least 3 lives involved in that process.

Should a baby die simply because the parents are incompetent?

Yes, it matters. There is no baby until fertilization, and the pills don't interfere with that, they just prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.

I do know. You're assuming that I don't actually know, but I'm confident that I know I like living and would much rather go through struggles in life than not live at all. You're the one incorrectly assuming my beliefs.

Guessing these women never heard of adoption if they don't want to carry a baby for 9+ months.

Adoption isn't the best thing either for a child.

Not to mention, if everyone started giving up their kids, adoption centers would start to overflow.

Explain to me how killing a born child is no different? A 10 month old baby is not fully developed, and won't be for many years. Just because the baby is at a lower stage in development and not visible, doesn't make it any different. Your belief disagrees with mine, so I'm the one beyong the point of no return? Doesn't seem like a very reasonable thing to say. I'm supposed to suddenly believe that everything you say is correct? Why is your belief correct, and mine is incorrect? I don't like discussions where someone automatically assumes they're right and other beliefs are wrong. The whole point of the discussion is to express your own opinion, and potentially sway other's beliefs, not to assume your statements are fact and mine are wrong. No point of having a discussion if that's the case.

@PigParty it all comes down to defining when you consider it human.

We have tons of room everywhere. China's problem is stuffing that many people in a couple of cities when their infrastructure can't support it. China is essentially a developing nation masking all its low-tier **** with a strong production industry and pretty inflated GDP numbers.

I believe in... what's that called? Quality of Life law or something. It's the one where you can essentially kill yourself because you're sick/in pain, etc. I never said anything's black and white. In fact, I've said multiple times how complex every situation is. Hell, that's why some bills have 70,000 pages (although that's mostly for political gain). I believe both parents (not just the mother) are obligated to look out for the best interest of their child. Yes, that includes euthanizing or abortion in some cases. I don't believe mental illness is a reason for abortion in most cases, but physical abnormalities could, in some cases, be a valid reason to abort a baby, or euthanize one that's already born. I don't think a mother is looking out for her baby if she aborts it because she doesn't want to deal with raising a child.

Wtf, you can't even tell a kid has a mental disability when its born.

That's the dumbest basis to abort a child because it has a mental disability when it hardly has any cognitive skills to begin with.

How do you know what it's like? Have you given birth? You haven't, yet you say I haven't, so I can't possibly even have an opinon on it. Even girls who haven't been pregnant argue pro-choice issues. Your argument would say that even you can't have an opinion on the topic. There's women with kids who believe in pro-life, and they've had kids. What about their opinions? Not every woman agrees, so you can't act like they do. I've never been a murderer, so how can I possibly have an opinion on murderer, or what punishments they should face? Again, that argument makes no sense. The father does count and it's ignorant to say the father doesn't count. Yes, the mother carries the baby. As I said, though, it takes 2 to make a baby, and 3 lives are involved in total. The father should have equal rights to the baby as the mother.

Adoption isn't the best thing for the child, but abortion is? I don't see the argument there. (I have no idea of your beliefs on this topic, I'm just using this as an argument for my beliefs)

Its as you said, parents are obligated to do what is best for the child.

If they couldn't provide for the child they shouldn't have had it in the first place.

What differs is when and what they do.

But at that very first moment beings the process of development. I know everyone has different opinions, and science has tried to play a part in it all and make up random stages where they consider the baby to be alive. Science should stay out of things they don't know. Anyways, the very first moment is when the process of development begins. So from that point, it really isn't any different than a 3 year old baby that is still developing. We, as humans, just create in our minds that it is different because we can actually see and sense the baby.

Its an alternative but I see where you're getting at. All of it could of been prevented if they follow the resources available that prevent pregnancy and there's also sexual abstinence.

Yes, but you can't expect every kid to have a perfect life. Simply not having material money to provide for the baby isn't a valid reason to end its life. First of all, that starts another issue - government support. There is adoption for parents who don't want the child. Don't get me wrong, I know how completely flawed the entire process is, and how many problems there are with adoption and the process, but it still is an option.

The resources don't always work, which leads to the option of abstinence... That's what I said, but no one on graalians liked that statement :p.

Honestly, though, not everything in life is about you and only you (you means everyone individually). This is one of those times. You can't argue that abortion is a personal decision and that's why it should be allowed. I know I'm taking it to the absurd route, but it's used as an example. It's a personal decision to decide whether to kill someone, but it's not legal just because it's a personal decision. It affects others, and therefore, you have little say in it, legally speaking.

You seem to be forgetting that rape is also a factor.