Who cares what females want, they are too toxic to go near. Any sane male should avoid (particularly white) women and if sex is needed; pay so she will go away after.

Keep your filthy, bigoted, misogynistic, male hands off womens bodies.
Keep your immoral, hateful god and his commands out of other peoples lives.

To Toni Lavis. The point is not that sex is hated by God, (nor should we assume that's true), but that abortion is killing. Perhaps in war or in capital punishment of a terrible crime killing is ok, but to a baby. No. As to people being unable to be in a romantic relationship without having sex, that lack of control is not a reason to have an abortion.

To Phanto,

[Nobody knows for sure when life begins and so they cannot know when killing starts.]

That's just wrong. Misinformed or otherwise, it's in error. The earliest moments that we've captured of children in the womb are of rapid cell division that quickly forms the tissues and organs of the child to be. If there's any name to it, it would be that the fetus, the baby, is alive.

For the women who aren't ready to have kids, they shouldn't have sex. If that's not a possibility then I say something is wrong. Very wrong. But not a reason to have an abortion. Expecially if they chose to have sex and it wasn't forced on them.

To Mikk. I've not said anything hateful or bigoted. I'm just pointing out why abortion is wrong. This isn't a woman's reproductive rights issue. This is a moral issue of killing numerous children without them even having a chance to live.

Not now soon:

"of the child to be" So it is not a child but a child to be?

Then you say to Mikk that they are children who are killed.

So which is it? You seem confused.

You don't know when life begins and it is very presumptious of you claim that you do.

Not_Now.Soon,

This debate IS about a woman’s reproductive rights. More fundamentally, it is a debate about bodily autonomy.

<<This is a moral issue of killing numerous children without them even having a chance to live.>>

This is a very emotive way of putting it. A foetus is not yet a child. Furthermore, a foetus has not yet attained personhood. This is important because when we place value on life, we don’t look to, say, a heartbeat or organs (this could lead to all sorts of absurd conclusions such as the valuing of teratomas), we place value on human experience.

More importantly, a woman is not obliged to go through a pregnancy in the same way that a no-one is obliged to donate, say, a kidney - not even if it were for one’s own child. No-one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival.

phanto "You don't know when life begins"

I think you mean consciousness.
Life is there from conception.
People have reported awareness (NDE/OBE) when no brain activity is present, reporting these conscious experiences after resuscitation.

AJ Philips "More importantly, a woman is not obliged to go through a pregnancy in the same way that a no-one is obliged to donate, say, a kidney"

No-one is obliged to donate... yet.

The next Leftie hysteria: "the right to organs".
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/samuel-walker/compulsory-organ-donation_b_1148385.html