>>I think it's much better for the unborn child to be killed before it's birth rather than beeing unable to care for him/her (accidents do happen) - or have a defective child that has no hope of ever doing anything userful.
>
>Yeouch!!
>
>Who get the right here to decide if another human being is "useful"???

I was waiting for that one! :) The way I see it, the father has 25% choice and the mother has 75% choice (it's her body). But the point is if I had a part in creating that child, then yes, I have a say as to weither or not it will be born.

Simple reality is that humans no longer have natural selection, so we're spreading like a virus, and defective humans create other defective humans. Oh, and in case you don't beleive in natural selection, I think it has been observed and documented a lot in the past centuries!

>I understand that Holland just enacted euthanasia laws, making it now legal for "mercy killings". What if the "killee" doesn't want the treatment?

Way to go, Holland! I just hope such laws make their ways in North America! I have long objected to artificial extention of life. Yeah, I'd really like to spend 5 to 10 years in an hospital bed looking at the ceiling!

>Well, pro-lifers have had the pro-death ..er.. abortion stuff rammed down their throats for years.

Really? When did they forced a pro-lifer to go for abortion? Just because we tell them to let us do it isn't "ramming it down their throats". The problem is simple: they want to outlaw it, so we have to fight back to keep our options open.

>Look, the studies show that 90+% of all abortions are for convenience sake. It isn't the life of the child, nor some mysterious "quality of life" issue that's at stake here. It's wanting to live a lascivious lifestyle without consequences (ie. utter personal sexual selfishness) that is at issue here. Why not bring the child to term and place it for adoption (like I was)?? Well, it's too long to go without sex I suppose..

Well, my point's exactly! The parents are obviously unable to use easily available contraception, so I'd see that as a lack of judgement, that would be passed upon their child.

Adoption doesn't solve the problem, IMO. And just what is the problem with having sex for fun? I think I once read that dolphins also have sex for fun. I'd just like to see one put on a condom! :)

>Also.. Take the $$ out and I'd bet the tune would change. It's an industry and there is a ton of $$ to be made.

The $$-makers aren't forcing anyone. It's still a personal choice.

>Animals have no notion of love, demonstrated by sacrificial self-giving, like the mother who gives up her rights for the needs of the baby.

As Mike said, love is a chemical reaction. It is simple actually: other animals have an instinct for reproduction. Humans eventually lost that instinct. Those that developped love continued to reproduce, while those who didn't found no reason to. Yeah, I know, you don't beleive in evolution, but that's my take. To me it's infinitly more probable that some sort of god.

>The problem Sylvain is the selfish heart of mankind, which has willfully reduced itself to the level of animals from a much higher level of thought.

I once read a newspaper reader's comment on the cloning of animals that "it worked with a sheep because animals have a group soul, but it would never work on humans." I was amazed that someone could think up such a stupidity!

There is no such thing as a soul.