Here's the thing, we talk about this in a much more philosophical way than women do.
The fact is, women have to bear the responsibility, the risk, and the burden.
And women in the millions have chosen.
We can't walk a mile in their shoes.

Perhaps your friend that dressed as an abortion did it out of a guilt that you put on her,... or, perhaps she was defying your judgement and standing up for herself.

Being anti-choice is telling women that you know better what they should do with their own bodies.
That puts them in a position of domination.
You have to respect women more than that.
There are millions of Christian, even Catholic women that have made that choice and it's rarely taken lightly.

The issue is not when life begins,... that can be different for different people, and it is based almost entirely on religious dogma. It's who has the right to decide that for someone else.

Matchless G11 wrote on 06/19/21 at 15:55:30:

What high school did you go to?

A High School biology book would debate whether a virus is life.
Our bodies are made up of living cells,.. a good percentage are living bacteria...  that's all biological life.
Do you want to define bacteria as human?
Life begins at conception is a religious idea, not science.

MnSpring wrote on 06/20/21 at 15:26:48:





Tell you what. I'll buy that burn cream as soon  as you learn the difference between "their", "there" and "they're"....mkay?

Serowbot wrote on 06/20/21 at 15:26:45:



I put guilt on my friend? no.  
I had lost contact with her from high school till about 10 years ago.
When we were dating again she told me.


By the way sew, I am not anti choice. I am Pro Life.
I choose life.

Do you eat eggs for breakfast?...

When you do, do you order chicken?

WebsterMark wrote on 06/22/21 at 17:17:06:





There ya go!

Just got ahead and say only human life is sacred and be done with it.

Next time you see a stray dog, just kill it. Animal lives aren't sacred, right?  

Forget about the tens of millions of cows, chickens, pig, etc that get killed every year for our bellies.

Only one life is sacred......right?

WebsterMark wrote on 06/22/21 at 19:02:16:



And with that I may Quote this guy...


"“If you leave off looking at books about beasts and men, if you begin to look at beasts and men then (if you have any humour or imagination, any sense of the frantic or the farcical) you will observe that the startling thing is not how like man is to the brutes, but how unlike he is. It is the monstrous scale of his divergence that requires an explanation. That man and brute are like is, in a sense, a truism; but that being so like they should then be so insanely unlike, that is the shock and the enigma. That an ape has hands is far less interesting to the philosopher than the fact that having hands he does next to nothing with them; does not play knuckle-bones or the violin; does not carve marble or carve mutton. People talk of barbaric architecture and debased art. But elephants do not build colossal temples of ivory even in a roccoco style; camels do not paint even bad pictures, though equipped with the material of many camel's-hair brushes. Certain modern dreamers say that ants and bees have a society superior to ours. They have, indeed, a civilization; but that very truth only reminds us that it is an inferior civilization. Who ever found an ant-hill decorated with the statues of celebrated ants? Who has seen a bee-hive carved with the images of gorgeous queens of old? No; the chasm between man and other creatures may have a natural explanation, but it is a chasm. We talk of wild animals; but man is the only wild animal. It is man that has broken out. All other animals are tame animals; following the rugged respectability of the tribe or type. All other animals are domestic animals; man alone is ever undomestic, either as a profligate or a monk. So that this first superficial reason for materialism is, if anything, a reason for its opposite; it is exactly where biology leaves off that all religion begins.”  G K Chesterton