[evilrooster]

I agree - my post does not support the excuse of "I can't afford to raise the child" or even justify abortion at all. I simply came across the headline Can't Feed 'Em? Don't Breed 'Em on another website and I wanted to show how ludicrous the statement was. If the post doesn 't come across that way, I apologize. I was not intended that way. Though I don't see anything liberal about thinking before you act (the common ground discussed). There are far too many mothers having children that should not. I mean, if you can barely afford to support yourself, why bring a child into the world?

[Lorianne]

are far too many mothers having children that should not. I mean, if you can barely afford to support yourself, why bring a child into the world? Your choice of language promotes the underlying premise of abortion. 1. That that women (mothers) are the only ones responsible for children appearing in the world. 2. The phrase "why bring a child into the world" suggests a unilateral and after the fact solution (abortion). Also, as I stated above, a woman is NOT required by any law to support a child she "brings into the world". She can relinquish the child through adoption, or even anonymous drop off at a hospital, fire station, police station, etc. So the "can't afford a child" is not valid.

[Lorianne]

are far too many mothers having children that should not. I mean, if you can barely afford to support yourself, why bring a child into the world?

Your choice of language promotes the underlying premise of abortion. 1. That that women (mothers) are the only ones responsible for children appearing in the world. 2. The phrase "why bring a child into the world" suggests a unilateral and after the fact solution (abortion).

Also, as I stated above, a woman is NOT required by any law to support a child she "brings into the world". She can relinquish the child through adoption, or even anonymous drop off at a hospital, fire station, police station, etc. So the "can't afford a child" is not valid.