All? Can you show me where have I say to blame all mothers for not abort their fetus? I really has no idea why you misinterpreted my posts to confuse this thread since my first post #554.
If you are not inferring that abuse is the result of not aborting, then why did you bring it up in this abortion topic?
I do not see anything that I say anything to accuss the mother for not abort their baby because they abuse their babies but show you the fact that fetus removal and abuse child to death are not the same thing because pro life supporters consider abortion (fetus removal) as a murder, selfish, etc when they know there're a lot of children died in the world thru abuse, starvation, murder, misery, etc everyday?. That's exact sentence I posted in my post #554 - "I can see that pro life supporters consider abortion as a murder, selfish or whatever when they know there're a lot of children died in the world thru abuse, starvation, murder, misery etc everyday?"
http://www.alldeaf.com/875190-post554.html
Pro-life people don't support child abuse, starvation, or murder, so how does that relate to abortions?
Pro-life people are against abortion for non-life-threatening reasons, child abuse, starvation, and murder. Is that clear now?
Please stop to misinterpret my post again. All what I am try to ask either it's right to force the children to suffer of pain or not?
You changed the question but I'll answer anyway.
No, it's not right to force children to suffer pain. Child abuse is wrong.
Yeah, many people are hurried to become parents because they want to be young parents or want to be parents or think baby is easy to take care of etc. Afterward they realized that it's not easy job as parents and feel being burden... end to hurt their babies.
Sometimes that happens. It has nothing to do with abortion.
I respectfully disagree with your view as "killing the children in their mother's uterus" but fetus removal. My view is abortion as a remove an embryo or fetus from the womb. 
OK. The "fetus" or "embryo" is
dead and in pieces after "removal" from the mother's uterus, so it has been killed.
Tell me the difference
to the baby whether a doctor slices the baby out of the womb in a clinic, or a crazed person attacks a pregnant woman on the street and kills the baby?
I personally strongly beleieve that a child should be born with full love and attention when the couple are ready to be parents and accept the fully responsiblity to bring their child up with loving enivornment.
And if they aren't, do what? Kill them?
How many ADer's wouldn't be here today if that was the attitude someone had about them? Yes, they had rough, even awful childhoods, but they are valuable people now. Should they have been killed just because their parents weren't "full of love and attention"?
Due my past experience, I know what I am saying... Yes many children who suffers bad childhood end up having MANY problems.
And many grow up to be wonderful, productive, caring adults who use their experiences to help others.
Like what I ask you in my first post #554.
Which do you prefer to remove a fetus or let child suffer pain as abuse/starvation to death by abusive parents in the world? If I am being ask to have two choice "Remove a fetus OR force child suffer pain"? My choice is remove a fetus.
Why are we limited to just those two choices? That's not realistic. There are other options. Also, why do you automatically assume that the child will suffer abuse and starvation?
Why kill a child just because something
might happen?
We can't force women to raise a child if she becomes unwanted pregnant and don't have anything, financially, psychologically etc to raise a child, don't we? I know your answer is adoption but it's not easy for the mother to force to give her baby up for adoption or force to abort... It's very hard choice, she force to make for her unborn child's sake. Yes I would say it's very tough to raise up a child.
Of course it's hard. Nothing valuable in life is easy.
It's not easy to find a home. It's very very tough to raise up a kid if the parents don't have any resources at all. In that case, instead of giving birth to a child and making his childhood a living hell, it's better to abort or adoption.
It's not easy but it's not impossible either.
Why do you assume the unaborted child's
only option is "a living hell"?
Then you are pro-choice like me who support to save mother's life.
"Pro-choice" as used by pro-abortion people has nothing to do with saving the mother's life. They use it to mean having the right to chose the death of baby for whatever reason the woman wants. I do
not support that.
See the link, I took from your post at other thread. Do you think worker/employee can acheive those cost?
Can you explain why million don't have insurance coverage?
Again? Is this relevant to the abortion topic? I think I'll just pull a Liebling and say that I'm not going to repeat myself.
I am not saying all but some like what I told you the story about my co-worker's son *S*'s half brothers copied what their father did.
So you believe that if the mother never demanded child support from the father, everything would have been fine?
Why should women force men to play father to their children when men don't want to be father then?
I never said they should "play" father. I said the fathers should pay support for the children.
All what women are happy to have their children what they want, why should they worry about their children's father for? Should they stress/hassle with their children's father for?
The support belongs to the children. No one has the right to deny support to the children. The fathers owe the money to the
children.
If mother want to keep a baby then is her choice and if a guy who made a woman pregnant, don't want to be responsiblity father then is his choice. IMO.
The father is still responsible for financial support of the children, whether or not he "wants" to be.
A man is helpless if a woman decide to abort or give their baby up for adoption because a man want to be father.
What's the difference about them?
If there is no child born, or another couple adopts the child, then he no longer has that responsibility. But it's not up to him to just dump the child.
It would be nicer when a man is willing to accept his responsiblity as father and pay child support to woman whom he doesn't love.
Hello, it's
CHILD support. It doesn't matter if the guy doesn't love the mother. The money is to support the CHILD. The money is supposed to improve the living conditions of the CHILD.
What about mother and her safety?
Safety? What do you mean?
If mother want or don't want is her decision/choice.
If a mother doesn't want support for herself she doesn't need to accept it. But she can't refuse support for her child. That right
belongs to the CHILD.
Many divorced mothers respect child's choice for want to see his/her father time to time as long as father pay child support and have visit rights.
It is against the law to use visitation rights as way to get child support. Those are two legally separate issues. Extortion is not allowed as enforcement for child support. Women use the courts to enforce child support. They can't use extortion. That's the law.
:jaw: I wasn't realized that you complaint about taxpayer paying for child support but you didn't complaint about taxpayers paying for death penalty, don't you? (I know your past posts that you are death penalty supporter).
Why should taxpayers pay for the father's child support and let him off the hook?
How is that the same as paying for prisons and executions? I don't see any connection at all.
Don't you have a heart for single mother for get assistance from government when the fathers disappeared or mother don't want to do anything with her ex to near them due her bad experience?
I love how you try to turn every point into a personal attack on my "heart".
I don't mind helping moms who are stuck. I
do mind helping dead beat dads. There is no reason for taxpayers to support dead beat dads. They need to carry their own weight. If the dad can be found, then get as much money as possible from the dad. There is no reason to excuse him and put the burden on tax payers.
I prefer to leave mother's choice because it's her who is responsible for raise a child, not government.
I can't believe you finally admitted that! Wow!
Of course the father is also responsible, not the government.
mother´s choice when she know she is not fit mother to raise a child and know she will be bad mother and make her decision. It´s her choice either abortion or adoption, not you. Her choice is NONE OF your business. Stop label mother´s choice as selfish and murder and go and consider poor children who suffers starvation and abuse in the world... 
