There is Everything Wrong with Abortion
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229103 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I spent some time last night pondering your question.
Should a survivor of an abortion not only be allowed to live, but extraordinary means taken to help it live. Right?
Okay, so let's think about this. You stated "even if the mother doesn't want the infant to live." So...who will take care of this child? Chances are of it is a survivor of an abortion, it's around 20 weeks which the last time I read about it, gives it a less than 10% chance of surviving, and if it does, it's highly likely to have some profound health problems. Who's responsibility will it be? The chances aren't good it will be adopted. This little survivor has some major battles ahead of it and may need constant care. It's not only a major investment of money, but of time, energy, devotion, and possibly a full time job for two or more caregivers.
Again, it's much more than just "keep it alive." It's afterwards. It's not just the moment of conception or the moment it's born. It's a lifetime.
There are many variables here so there IS no cut and dried answer. I honestly cannot just say "yes" or "no" to this.
I agree with the poster who said "no abortions past the point of probably viability." My personal limit for an abortion FOR ME would be 12 weeks. I cannot speak for anyone else.
What you may not realize is that PRO-CHOICE means CHOICES:
The choice to have a child and raise it.
The choice to have a child and give it up for adoption.
The choice to terminate a pregnancy.
It covers ALL choices. Complete reproductive freedom. The ability to delay parenthood until one is completely ready to be a parent.
Imagine a society where every single child born is loved and wanted.
Isn't that far more appealing than a society where every child is born and many just exist...without love, nurturing, shelter, warmth, and the other things that make life worth living?
Not extraordinary means, just the same means as anybody else that is already born, which would be to do everything that is possible. If you don’t at least draw the line at birth of when an individual should have the right to live, at what point would it be? Should a child be allowed to live only if the mother wants it? Up to what age – five minutes, five days, five years? Should we only give rights to those children that are loved?

The responsibility to care for the child would undoubtedly not fall onto the mother; after all she was the one trying to kill the child.

I notice in your pro-choice choices you did not include the choice to kill an already born child, but if pro-choice means choices, does that not also include the choice to terminate a child that has already been born?

The law says that any infant born is considered a person with rights in the United States, but I’m only wondering what you think and not what the law says. Please at least think it over a little more, because I think that you are avoiding the obvious logical answer.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229104 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
It's impossible for both a fetus and a reluctantly pregnant woman to have their "rights." One has to have precedence over the other.
Which is the logical choice? In nature, the strong survives.
If a woman is forced to be subservient to that which cannot survive outside her uterus, what does that make her? What is that saying about a woman's place in society?
Men aren't forced to be fathers. Why should a woman be forced to give birth against her will?
In nature the strong survive, but the logical choice for human beings is to have compassion on those that are weaker, less powerful, and considered less important than we are because that’s what most of us would want for ourselves. I’m sure that a lot of men would also now regret dying so that you could have the right to kill your child. We all have responsibilities, whether male or female to protect each other in a society where we expect equal rights for ourselves.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229105 Apr 13, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
Not extraordinary means, just the same means as anybody else that is already born, which would be to do everything that is possible. If you don’t at least draw the line at birth of when an individual should have the right to live, at what point would it be? Should a child be allowed to live only if the mother wants it? Up to what age – five minutes, five days, five years? Should we only give rights to those children that are loved?
The responsibility to care for the child would undoubtedly not fall onto the mother; after all she was the one trying to kill the child.
I notice in your pro-choice choices you did not include the choice to kill an already born child, but if pro-choice means choices, does that not also include the choice to terminate a child that has already been born?
The law says that any infant born is considered a person with rights in the United States, but I’m only wondering what you think and not what the law says. Please at least think it over a little more, because I think that you are avoiding the obvious logical answer.
Okay, HOW many abortions happen when a child is 100% viable and doesn't need any care at all? And WHY do those abortions happen?

Typically it's because the birth will kill the mother. You are focusing on a tiny, tiny percentage of abortions, which affect the life of the mother.

WHY?

And killing a BORN HUMAN BEING is ILLEGAL. Why are you being so obtuse?

How incredibly ridiculous are your questions?

You can think whatever you like about my answers. I Pointed out that there are a lot of variables, not least of which are the laws of the state.

I also notice you ignored my comments about who is to take care of the unwanted child born alive, should it be saved.

Hypocrite.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229106 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will is abusing her.
You accused a woman (me?) of avoiding your question.
You continually avoid the facts of a born human being. That SOMEONE must take care of and take responsibility for that human being for a minimum of 18 years. That the born human being has a right to be loved, nurtured, fed, sheltered, warmed, and valued.
Forcing a woman to gestate against her will and forcing her to give birth do NOT necessarily equate to the above.
You are pro-fetus. You are NOT Pro-Life. There is such a difference.
That people like you think you are "helping" is amazing to me. Do you just shut your eyes when you hear stories of babies in dumpsters? Or children killed by their own parents? Of babies raped? Of toddlers abandoned?
How can you read those stories and continue to insist that every pregnancy should end in a birth, with a child possibly unwanted? Unloved?
Every single child deserves to be born loved and wanted.
So in other words, not letting a woman kill her child is abuse? Sorry, but I don’t see the comparison here. By killing the child you are automatically denying all of those rights to it that you said it deserves. Your logic is that you will prevent child abuse by killing the child. As you said,“every child deserves to be born, loved and wanted”. That will never happen though no matter how many of them you kill, in fact the act of killing them in itself is abusing them.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229107 Apr 13, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. We need to be the ones that make a difference in our society.
Dittos

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229109 Apr 13, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
So in other words, not letting a woman kill her child is abuse? Sorry, but I don’t see the comparison here. By killing the child you are automatically denying all of those rights to it that you said it deserves. Your logic is that you will prevent child abuse by killing the child. As you said,“every child deserves to be born, loved and wanted”. That will never happen though no matter how many of them you kill, in fact the act of killing them in itself is abusing them.
You are twisting my words and assigning your own meaning to them.

Yes, sometimes a woman having an abortion prevents an abused child.

If a woman knows she cannot be the mother the child deserves and knows she cannot give it up for adoption, she is being responsible by having an abortion.

Yet again, you refuse to address the fact that it's far more than the 9 month gestation period. It's a LIFETIME commitment.

Please address that fact.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229110 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
You are twisting my words and assigning your own meaning to them.
Yes, sometimes a woman having an abortion prevents an abused child.
If a woman knows she cannot be the mother the child deserves and knows she cannot give it up for adoption, she is being responsible by having an abortion.
Yet again, you refuse to address the fact that it's far more than the 9 month gestation period. It's a LIFETIME commitment.
Please address that fact.
He already knows that.

He
Doesn't
Care.

Sucks to be a woman, but that's hardly HIS problem - he's a man. We're barely people....only meant to be controlled incubators. Remember??
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#229111 Apr 13, 2013
Milorad Ivovic wrote:
Can someone explain to me...
At what point does a woman give up her civil rights and become a state-controlled incubator? At which point of foetal development does that occur?
APPLAUSE TO YOU

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5wb2y9CaA1r3s...
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#229112 Apr 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>And gee, by the way, thank-you as well - for freely admitting that women should be controlled incubators.
You're one of the few honest anti-choice folks on this thread - and I bet you take the dishes out of the sink before you pee in it, too.
:)
That's a bit of an overstatement, honey. I bet he doesn't even wait to get to the sink, he prolly just pisses in the plate he used for his frozen dinner.

Like the lonely person he is.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbskwgpUE91...
Ella

Rockford, MI

#229113 Apr 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Then why aren't they adopting them?? There are over 500,000 CHILDREN already in the United States foster care system. When those are all adopted, THEN we'll talk about how the fertile among us, are obliged to be incubators for the infertile.

The rules for adoption in the USA need to change. Currently, its actually easier to adopt in foreign nations.

<quoted text>It's YOUR part, too. Caterwauling about the reproductive choices available to women, isn't making a difference in the number of unwanted pregnancies.
<quoted text>Why not encourage young women to get an education BEFORE they begin having kids??
I spend everyday doing my part in my community as a volunteer in a variety of community outreaches. Educating our youth before they have children has always been a priority for me.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229114 Apr 13, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a bit of an overstatement, honey. I bet he doesn't even wait to get to the sink, he prolly just pisses in the plate he used for his frozen dinner.
Like the lonely person he is.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbskwgpUE91...
You're probably right, sweetmeat. He may not even wait to eat it. Might be the only way he knows to take the chill off the damn thing.

As old fashioned as he is, I doubt he knows how to cook for himself....that's wimmin's work.

No woman would have him.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229115 Apr 13, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
I spend everyday doing my part in my community as a volunteer in a variety of community outreaches. Educating our youth before they have children has always been a priority for me.
All well and good. But I notice you didn't address the question of why, when there are so many children available for adoption here, are 'loving people' going overseas for infants??

Oh, wait....the kids available here, are either special needs, the 'wrong color', or older than one year.

My bad. Why would anyone want a used, unsuitable, or damaged American kid, when a trip to China, and a cute little Chinese 2 month old, only cost a few grand??
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#229116 Apr 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>You're probably right, sweetmeat. He may not even wait to eat it. Might be the only way he knows to take the chill off the damn thing.
As old fashioned as he is, I doubt he knows how to cook for himself....that's wimmin's work.
No woman would have him.
His cynicism could possibly point to a problem with aggression -- making him unlikable to not only women, but probably to other men and animals as well. Bet he doesn't even have plants 'cause they'd die under his "care."

Lolol "wimmin's work." Everyone in my family can cook (well, except the baby, but STILL) because it's not about it being a gender associated chore -- you have to be able to prepare your own food to able to fucking SURVIVE.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229117 Apr 13, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
His cynicism could possibly point to a problem with aggression -- making him unlikable to not only women, but probably to other men and animals as well. Bet he doesn't even have plants 'cause they'd die under his "care."
Lolol "wimmin's work." Everyone in my family can cook (well, except the baby, but STILL) because it's not about it being a gender associated chore -- you have to be able to prepare your own food to able to fucking SURVIVE.
My sentiments exactly. My children, both of them sons, knew how to cook for themselves by the time they were seven. It's a fundamental skill, in my book.

But he has his own book.

He thumps it a lot, but pretty much declines to read it.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#229118 Apr 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>My sentiments exactly. My children, both of them sons, knew how to cook for themselves by the time they were seven. It's a fundamental skill, in my book.
But he has his own book.
He thumps it a lot, but pretty much declines to read it.
Cooking is a joy; kudos to teaching your kids that, they won't have a problem at all in managing themselves (my daughter could cook by the time she was 11, but my wife mostly didn't leave her alone with a knife until she was 13). More than just a fundamental skill, rather, a very misunderstood art.

As for Grunt's literary choices...he either reads from Ayn Rand or from this little gem:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Quotable-Douchebag-...

Doesn't realise it's satire, I'll bet.
Ella

Rockford, MI

#229119 Apr 13, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>All well and good. But I notice you didn't address the question of why, when there are so many children available for adoption here, are 'loving people' going overseas for infants??
Oh, wait....the kids available here, are either special needs, the 'wrong color', or older than one year.
My bad. Why would anyone want a used, unsuitable, or damaged American kid, when a trip to China, and a cute little Chinese 2 month old, only cost a few grand??


In answer to your question, money and red tape. A pre-adoptive parent jumps through many hoops in the USA and even after they have the child and bond with them the law can take the child within a one year period if the biological parent changes their mind. So many opt to do foreign adoptions and are willing to accept a child with significant health issues, because the process is much quicker
and foreign governments work with the pre-adoptive. The average adoption takes less than 6 months.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229120 Apr 13, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
In answer to your question, money and red tape. A pre-adoptive parent jumps through many hoops in the USA and even after they have the child and bond with them the law can take the child within a one year period if the biological parent changes their mind. So many opt to do foreign adoptions and are willing to accept a child with significant health issues, because the process is much quicker
and foreign governments work with the pre-adoptive. The average adoption takes less than 6 months.
Hmmm. So, I guess they just find overseas adoptions more...what's the word.....oh yes.

Convenient.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#229121 Apr 13, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
This room is for all those who find life precious and believe killing an innocent life is wrong. Please no bashing and no trolls.We hope to have uplifting comments in here.
I find life precious, but to my knowledge no one had yet be able to give a definitive answer as to when life begins, just opinions.
Milorad Ivovic

Frankston, Australia

#229122 Apr 14, 2013
I'm sorry... I know I'm in the wrong thread for a philosophical discussion but I'd like to ask...

How precious is life /really/?

Is life truly precious, or are IDEALS more important?

Right-wing warmongers have no issues with making a "glass crater" out of the middle-east, and ending entire bloodlines of unborn babies by killing their future parents, but for some reason only a foetus warrants their protection, because LIFE IS SO PRECIOUS.

How precious is it really? How many of you drive cars less than 20 years old? How many of you own ipods? One ipod can feed an african family for a year, yet you let them die for your musical convenience.

How precious is life really to you?

I don't want to derail, but simply get the point back on track here by exposing this LIE about life, all life, being precious.

It's not. None of you think it is. We are all extremely selective about the lives we want to protect and it's important to acknowledge that we do so with our own AGENDA in mind.

My agenda is personal liberty to make constructive life choices. We all agree that not getting pregnant in the first place is the best possible outcome if you don't want a child, but we have to accept that that doesn't always work out for thousands of reasons.

I would MUCH RATHER a teenage mother have the good sense to realise she's going to be an inadequate parent and make the best decision she can for her zygote by ending it, before forcing it to endure a lifetime of dealing with a crappy childhood.

That seems to be a far more caring approach to me, than the "pro-life" alternative, where procreation is more important than quality of life.

That's the true conservative agenda here. It's not life that's important, it's MORE BABIES that are important. The reasons for that belong in a thread about socio-economic circumstance and politics, but let's at least be honest about our agendas here.
Ocean56

AOL

#229123 Apr 14, 2013
Ella wrote:
1. There are many women who cannot have children who would love to have the opportunity to raise a child.
2. You can also do your part by making a difference in your community. Helping the young, single-parent by babysitting, giving her a ride to the store or encouraging her to move forward in her education may not sound like a lot but to that young mom it is.
1. These women can't consider adopting one of the many older children currently in foster care and who don't have a home...WHY, exactly?

2. I prefer to help girls and young women by encouraging them to avoid all forms of sexual activity in middle and high school, as that too often leads to unwanted teen pregnancy/teen motherhood. It is MUCH easier for girls to complete all levels of their education and begin their jobs/careers when they DON'T have a baby as teenagers. And if some of these girls and young women decide they don't ever want to be mothers, that's fine too. The choice to be childfree is just as valid and responsible as the choice to be a mother.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Robert F 987,312
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 16 min dumbazz tracker 30,966
Is it fine watching porn with family members?? (Dec '09) 2 hr Teresa 5
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 hr guest 687,265
READ! Tuxedo Crew is OFFICIAL! They are the BEST (Jun '14) 8 hr Sufi 29
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 8 hr River Tam 619,794
My "thorn in the flesh" God won't fix....this s... 11 hr Doctor REALITY 4
More from around the web