[Lorianne]

My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time.

I agree. There is probably some extremely rare circumstance which might justify an abortion, but this is so rare as to make the "life of the mother" arguments meaningless.

My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.

No. Women "get pregnant" by having sex with men. A man and a woman co-concieve. Your male-less description is a BIG part of the problem with abortion. Also, not only women, but many men use abortion as a back up birth control measure in lieu of taking precautions themselves. Therefore, any man who does take personal steps to prevent conception and does not want a child is complicit is using abortion as his birth control method of choice. If he is pro-Life he is a hypocrite. Everyone involved in conception that ends in abortion is complicit in that abortion.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

This is untrue. There are no 100% reliable contraceptives. The best we have are 1)Sterilization 2)Redundant contraceptive measures. Even with those most reliable ones it is STILL possible to co-concieve. Anyone, man or woman, who wants 0% risk has only one choice, abstain from sex. Otherwise, it is a calculated risk on the part of BOTH parties. The default consequence of sex is conception. Therefore BOTH people have an obligation, not just the woman, to prevent conception. If they co-conceive and later agree to abort, then they were BOTH using abortion as their back-up birth control plan.

[ElkGroveDan]

ping

[rdb3]

No. Women "get pregnant" by having sex with men. A man and a woman co-concieve.

I thought that this was understood. That's why I didn't mention it.

Therefore, any man who does take personal steps to prevent conception and does not want a child is complicit is using abortion as his birth control method of choice. If he is pro-Life he is a hypocrite.

Well, my next statement is going to keep me in trouble with the sisters. Pregnancy, when it all boils down, is on the woman. A man can not, under any circumstance, get pregnant. Never! Therefore, the ultimate answer lies (no pun intended) with the woman. I'm not excusing irresponsible men, but let's face it. If a woman truly does not seek to get pregnant, she can either decline to have sex, or, take every means possible to thwart it. She can demand that the man wear a condom or say, "Nope. No nookie for you!" She can take birth control pills. If her body's hormones won't tolerate birth control pills, she can get an IUD. She can also use spermicidal products. The man can do this as well (prophylactics), but he's not the one who will get the pot belly. The woman will!

There are no 100% reliable contraceptives.

True. But, as a percentage, how many birth control pills fail? As a percentage, how many IUDs fail?