Abortion / Democratic Kamala Harris / Womens Rights / An act of violence & violation to their body

If a woman decides not to utilise safeguards and becomes pregnant, she should be ineligible for abortion owing to her irresponsible behaviour.

Why would anyone trust a single form of contraception when we are all aware that they are not 100% effective?

These days, there are a tonne of justifications for abortions. It was a one-night stand, I wasn't sober, and I didn't have condoms. These are all weak justifications; if they had acted appropriately, they wouldn't be in this situation.

From the moment of conception to their natural death, all people are valuable and have intrinsic dignity. This idea is founded on the knowledge that human life is a gift and that it is our collective duty to preserve and value it. Every human being has value and ought to be protected, in our opinion. Every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even unborn children. The pursuit of happiness by one person does not give them the right to take another's life.

To create a culture of life, women and children must be protected. Abortion is actually the cause of the physical and psychological harm to both the mother and the unborn child. A number of health issues can arise for women who have abortions.

The child, on the other hand, is denied the right to life and the opportunity to fulfill his or her potential.

It is important to understand the reality of abortion: it ends a human life. Consider the impact of over 60 million human lives that have been ended. How many future presidents, sports stars, or cultural icons have been aborted? We will never quite know the impact of the reality of abortion because our potential as humans is so infinite.

In the United States, more than 60 million abortions have been performed since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973. That’s 60 million lives that were never given a chance to live and make a contribution to society, this is a tragedy that must be addressed.

If we took someone off a ventilator, and he started breathing on his own (which happens occasionally), then we would not proceed to smother him to death, because killing him wasn’t our intention. However, killing is intended in every abortion.

Its perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill a human being. And since the unborn are innocent human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

A woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to have the baby. It is her body.

In the case of rape, it would be lacking in compassion to deny a woman the right to an abortion.

Roman Catholics believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is morally wrong. Most Protestant churches in Britain also view abortion as a moral wrong, but concede that there are some limited conditions when it can be allowed.

Every human being, including an embryo or foetus, has the right to live and to reach their potential. There are alternatives to abortion, eg adoption.

The unborn child is denied choice, abortion destroys human life and makes life appear cheap and disposable.

Although I disagree with abortion since it results in the loss of children, my faith forbids it unless there are extraordinary circumstances. I acknowledge that it is the woman's body, but they are taking another person's life by killing them. But if they had behaved properly, this might have been prevented. So why do people place their trust in a single type of contraception when we all know they are not 100% effective?

It is one of the reasons we ought to utilise many forms of contraception, but it's not the only reason, what about STIs / STDs? We also don't want them, but a lot of people decide to overlook these risks.

Multiple forms of contraception should be used if we wish to avoid having children. It's a reasonable argument to say that it's a woman's body and that it should be her choice. However, what about the infant? does he/she not have the same right to life?

What about the father, why does he not have the same freedom to make his own decisions on whether to abort.

How many abortions would a woman have if she was to lose a limb as well and it had to be amputated using the same technique that is used to remove the baby and without anaesthesia. What are your thoughts?
Would she have just one abortion or none at all?

A women does have and should have the right to choose what happens to her body, but the reproductive right only stretches to the right to reproduce. Once they've reproduced, then they are asking for permission to murder their baby as it would make her life easier, simpler.

if undocumented immigrants can have all the rights and freedoms in another country, then an undocumented baby deserves the same rights.