I know that folds behind the law to say at what point a fetus becomes a human being, preventing any recourse to abortion. But life is not a game, and abortion is an act that requires to assume all responsibilities and consequences! Which law should be preferred, that of becoming mother or the unborn child?

Abortion is not murder because it removes what is not a child. If you push the logic of anti-abortion to the absurd, a cyst, a nodule, tumor have a conscience and must not be removed. You see? Another argument: a child born in a home that does not want and can not afford to raise them. Where are his rights there? Better to live in these conditions or not living (knowing that a fetus aborted never lived) and what is the position of anti-abortion on children with severe disabilities? Better to let them vegetate all their life on a bed of bedridden or prevent all this suffering for the child and his family?

you mean "women become" since becoming a mother it means nothing!

This is not new, but personally I think the answer is personal in any case within the limits of French law. And then it must be a beginning, French law says that at 11 weeks seems far-fetched as saying that 2 cells is a human being, while a small piece of skin that I scratched it represents more.

This question is not "controversial", it just completely sterile. Whether or not allowed, there have always been women who aborted and there always will be … not worth discussing here over the centuries. The fact that it is legal just allows better supervision and avoid women maimed or dead on the kitchen table. If you do not want women have abortions, it is necessary that men do not make their one child per year there are more rapists, more incest, more accidents and more condom forget pill, the more difficult living and poverty, many men who once barred their pregnant girlfriend and more children with disabilities … provided that it is impossible and it will not happen! And think that women who abort do not light heart and do not find it harmless. And the law being who exists and has already living on the avails of course, what might become a person but is still nothing more than a tiny cluster of cells without conscience.

The miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, we must condemn the woman who made a manslaughter?

not abortion is not a crime legalized! is the free choice of every woman to have her body (why should they suffer unwanted pregnancy and all that goes with it then you guys have the opportunity lache to escape?)

The issue is not controversial and much less sterile, it is still today a major topic of bioethics and neuroscience. The debate is not always confined within the elite, contrary to what is commonly admitted. And the crux of the debate is a battle between teams of different embryologists and neuroscientists, philosophers, etc., etc. to find out from to be considered when the embryo as nervously active. The debate is very deep, much, much more than what is presented in "public." And here, on a general site we can see everybody reapply with a brutal response, single and without appeal: everyone thinks hold with certainty Truth. That is to say you got those who say NO this is not a CRME legalized and say that the question is stupid, and who did you say yes of course and break the other . It makes me laugh when I see that even eminent thinkers doubt and fail to give a clear answer. Basically, it is not a. Basically, we do not know of unpoint scientifically whether or not one can speak of "murder." Only responses "literary" of metaphysics and religious responses, and other atheists. Science has not yet responded. So for the moment we do not know. So stop being fundamentalist in your mind (yes endpoint, whether the endpoint and no discussion, because it's like that).

That all depends on your beliefs regarding the beginning of life: either it begins at birth, or it begins at conception. No, life is not a game, and it is precisely because I I have great respect for life, woman and child than I am for abortion. I'll explain my reasons. First, I know what it feels like not to have been a child desired. Your mother does everything to take care of you, but deep down she knows, and you feel it does not want your presence. To wipe the guilt she will overprotects, but love is something voluntary, not imposed, and it can not deceive, it becomes oppressive, guilt, and do not meet the real needs Child (protection needs among others). I return to what I said love, including breast, is not necessary. A woman who is "forced" by his entourage, law or morality it is necessary to keep a child she does not will not be a good mother, will not be able. A woman who is "forced" by his entourage, law or morality it is necessary to keep a child she does not will not be a good mother, will not be mesurede really love, protect, and help her child. It is a great suffering for the child, so he asked all his life what he doing there (sometimes prefer to die) and mother who lives plagued by guilt and sacrifice their free choice. Sometimes the mother and child, it is better that the child was born. Then you have the right to say that we must strive to avoid reaching that point, and I am quite d Okay. There are several solutions which all have a common starting point: learn to communicate about sexuality with young people (even if young people are not only concerned with abortion, but good information is still top for life) . They learn by example to say "no" to express their expectations, their understanding of the issues that are behind the sexual act (not to ban them because their bodies belong to them, but especially that they bear the consequences), and mostly importantly, they allow free access to contraception. We can not prevent others. We can not prevent autresde do what they want from their lives, however we can inform them about the consequences of their actions. The Netherlands are among countries where abortion is the easiest to access and yet it is less practiced in France: there, we did a lot of campaigns on contraception, it also communicates.

c is an act of conscience for the life of a fetus is a life "to hunt or fish does not eat what is killing the failure to protect in the sexual act using his body against nature with the risk of diseases such as AIDS polemic on life is a potential risk for those who seek the controversies the question is still Satan said that the man with his character has the free will to follow his tracks and just look at the result of the god of this world satan loves phylosophy for he has even try phylosophy with God being far more of human perfection MORALITY REMOTE s also increasing and everyone's accounts will join a cause that is identical to the self same Jesus said to desire a woman in his heart c est deja l adultery if you were to remove a life as a fetus in how your conscience to know the consequences for you and the mother> nobody will judge you because you will judge you even into your thoughts as to whether you will No excuse or accuse never forgetsSatan resurrects that does not risen Lord GOD make your choice it nya no 3 rd solutions

It appears to me difficult to consider that just as there are genetic individuality there is "life" and "conscience". Otherwise, all that actually kills us (viruses, bacteria, cancer …) should be preserved as part of their unique DNA, they are endowed with "conscience" and "life." The life according to religion and morality is sometimes preserved at the cost of the absurd. How many people suffering from incurable disease, conscious of their condition and kept alive only by machines or medicines have asked to die? That they were denied for many, the name of "life". But it is reasonable to ask "what life?" How far must we go through suffering to preserve the "life." Spontaneous abortion also exists, yet no one accuses the nature of "play with life "discarding an embryo unviable. If abortion is an ancient practice. I think that today it is best managed and most respectful. I think that today it is best managed and most respectueuxdes rights of everyone (It also seems to me that this number is decreasing, contrary to what some say). We avoid seeing women left to die after an abortion wild. This could become quite marginal, while some instead to advocate abstention or ignorance, saw sex education in a normal reality. It is Anyway, out of the question back on the right. Especially for the sake of people who do not hesitate to show disrespect or to kill human life, they have worked so hard to "save".

Already when we talk about abortion in France in any case, we called an embryo, no fetus, except in the last 2 weeks of the statutory period. Embryo is a person? A fetus of 12 weeks is there a ? Murder by definition is to kill a person. So the question, an embryo or a fetus under 12 weeks are these people? And even, what are the unborn? Should we mourn d an embryo? At this rate there, that women who miscarry mourn 1 year and not bury their embryos? It must be logical, since the embryo is a person … It takes insurance funeral of the first day of delayed menstruation? When does this on one person? Legally, from birth, not before The baby is a person, the embryo and fetus younger than 12 weeks are not a certainty … It is ideological and even scientific. The fact is, there is not A return above the limit, abortion is allowed up to birth, it seems, "anyway, from 22. The fact is, there's no going back over the limit, abortion is allowed up to birth, it seems, "anyway, from 22semaines, structures of nerve pain are in place, it must have a good sense not? " I would agree, but is not when talking about one of unborn child? When there is a parental project. An embryo frozen in nitrogen could ultimately be considered a person potentielle.un embryo who moves into the uterus of a woman on the pill who does not want is not a potential person … Allow abortion before 12 weeks of pregnancy, is not to deny the potential person in an embryo or a fetus under 12 weeks, since there is no obligation to do so, and since in the context of a parental project, the same embryo and fetus even if he violates is defensible. It's just a possibility for a woman who has no parental project, that's all. And this is not an obligation, without parental project she may choose to keep the pregnancy anyway. And think well that women who use it have good awareness of issues and consequences. To the question,. To the question, does favors on the right to become the mother or the unborn child, the answer is both my master, but it is becoming mother or unborn child if and only if there are project Parental … And this is what is done legally, and it has nothing to do with abortion A pregnant woman who does not want child is not becoming a mother, it's just a woman pregnant an embryo that is not the result of a parental project is not an unborn child, just an embryo. But there, in your last question you consciously use the terms pro-life, and this is certainly not for nothing …

This year's final football championship, which sees the Saints clash in New Orleans at Indianapolis Colts could be marked by a … advertising. Indeed, this is the moment when more than 100 million viewers are now looking to Miami (and their TV screen), an anti-abortion association has decided to broadcast a promotion for "defending the life and against abortion. " Not everyone speaks more than this, even if this screen advertising has been seen by anyone.

This is normal … after cons, the womb of a black caused a scandal last year

These bigots are painful! Abortion is legal, they, with their associations hysterical, do not hesitate to put himself outside the law by blocking access to clinics that practice, committing attacks and sometimes even death. Since everyone knows that this spot must be released, I do not understand why they do not prohibit or shall not refuse to go … what does that mean? that will put the prices, assoc. neo-Nazis or the KKK could also share a spot at a prime time?

Malka: Until proven otherwise be against abortion is not illegal, therefore they have the means I do not see the name of what it would limit freedom of expression according to your criteria … Amazing what you defend totalitarianism.

As Francois said: it is not illegal, it's just backwards …

And right after that spot … they spend for the death penalty ….