he child gets diaper rash because the unfit parents did not change its diaper, or the hunger pains from when the parents did not have enough money for food because they spent their money on drugs all the way to the emotional pains that the future generations of this unwanted child, effects will be felt because of the selfishness of not aborting. In other words, in an abortion, the pain will last a couple of seconds, whereas a diaper rash might last a couple of days, physical pain could last weeks and emotional pain can last a lifetime, not counting the pain inflicted on others along the way. Selfishness, both sides claim this as a part of their cause. The pro-lifers say that you would be selfish because people would not want to sacrifice their lifestyle to be burdened by an unplanned baby. While this might be true, I still go back to the fact that this child would not be wanted and therefore pay the penalty, which will probably be very painful. I find little fault with the pro- choice position other than I feel it is wrong for people to use it as just a form of birth control. Unfortunately there are many immature people who will use it as just that. Now the pro-life position has somewhat different ideas. The most popular of these are: The unborn entity is fully human from the moment of conception. Abortion results in the intentional death of the unborn entity. Therefore, abortion can be defined as the intentional killing of a human being. This killing in most cases would be unjustified, since the unborn human being has a full right to life. If, however, there is a high probability that a woman's pregnancy would result in her death (such as tubal pregnancy, for example), then abortion would be justified. They feel that it is a greater good that one human should live (the mother) rather than two die (the mother and her child). So, in such cases the intent is not to kill the unborn but to save the l...
