Would you have an abortion? (1 Viewer)

[Ranger Stacie]

a lot of people when talking about abortions seem to justify it as though they are doing their child a favour by killing it 'i cant give it what it deserves' etc. if you are mature enough to be having sex, you are mature enough to deal with the consequences. a lot of people are very quick to dismiss adoption as well.
i feel really strongly about this even moreso because i have been told i may not be able to conceive cos of a medical condition..

 

[ogmzergrush]

a lot of people when talking about abortions seem to justify it as though they are doing their child a favour by killing it 'i cant give it what it deserves' etc. if you are mature enough to be having sex, you are mature enough to deal with the consequences. a lot of people are very quick to dismiss adoption as well.
i feel really strongly about this even moreso because i have been told i may not be able to conceive cos of a medical condition..

I for one would feel guilty if I was female, had a baby and was then forced to eat it because I couldn't afford food. Surely it's better to not have the baby than forcing it into a brief life, brought to an abrupt end by cannibalism?

You also confuse me. How is it that you being possibly unable to have babies justifies your stance on other people's choices regarding what they do with their bodies and corresponding parasites? I can understand that it makes you all angsty and whatnot about people exercising their right to choice when such a right was denied to you by the way things turned out, but realistically how does that change anything?

I'm never going to be a supermodel because unfortunately I have the wrong knees for it, but that doesn't somehow mean I should be able to lay down the law to supermodels because they're doing shit that just isn't on the cards for me.

 

[Ranger Stacie]

I for one would feel guilty if I was female, had a baby and was then forced to eat it because I couldn't afford food. Surely it's better to not have the baby than forcing it into a brief life, brought to an abrupt end by cannibalism? .

again, you choose to pretend the option of adoption simply does not exist.

You also confuse me. How is it that you being possibly unable to have babies justifies your stance on other people's choices regarding what they do with their bodies and corresponding parasites? I can understand that it makes you all angsty and whatnot about people exercising their right to choice when such a right was denied to you by the way things turned out, but realistically how does that change anything?

I'm never going to be a supermodel because unfortunately I have the wrong knees for it, but that doesn't somehow mean I should be able to lay down the law to supermodels because they're doing shit that just isn't on the cards for me.

It doesen't justify my stance, however, yes, it does upset me that i may not be able to have my own children, and people who are able to do so decide to kill their children.

and exercising their right to murder? what about the childs rights.

 

[ogmzergrush]

again, you choose to pretend the option of adoption simply does not exist.




It doesen't justify my stance, however, yes, it does upset me that i may not be able to have my own children, and people who are able to do so decide to kill their children.

and exercising their right to murder? what about the childs rights.

I was saying to some friends earlier that pro lifers who are so keen on adoption as a viable option should adopt the children in question themselves, then explain to them that their parents didn't want them and deal with the child's resulting emotional state. Not to mention of course the fact that precluding people from abortion means that they have to go through the discomfort of pregnancy, risk medical complications, suffer the emotional trauma of knowing they're giving birth to something they can't possibly support. I'd imagine in cases where abortions are performed by a person who wants children, but who is aware they can't support them, that this would be quite crushing. Good thing we're looking out for the meat though, right?

re: child's rights, as covered in the previous million pages here, you seem to be mistaking "child" with "blob of meat".

 

[Ranger Stacie]

a child is not a blob of meat at any stage.
i know people who are adopted and they are fine, as are many people who are adopted. as ive said earlier in this thread, im sure they would prefer this option to being dead.
as for the discomfort of pregnancy- well thats what happens when you get pregnant. ive really got no sympathy for people who use this as an excuse. anyone who is willing to have sex should accept that possibility.

 

[withoutaface]

But by your logic (ie the child is better off born than not), shouldn't we all be having promiscuous sex with as many people as possible to create as many of these potential children that would prefer to exist than not? What about a child which results from a rape? Do the ends justify the means?

 

[ogmzergrush]

a child is not a blob of meat at any stage.
i know people who are adopted and they are fine, as are many people who are adopted. as ive said earlier in this thread, im sure they would prefer this option to being dead.

I disagree on your first point.

Regarding your second, I doubt you know what it's like to be dead, so I'm not sure how you can decide on your friends' behalf that they prefer being adopted to being dead. Seeing as you seem to know though, let's make it even a little more complicated. As you're answering on their behalf, perhaps you could tell me if they'd prefer to have never existed, arguably having never been capable of conscious thought, to having been adopted?

as for the discomfort of pregnancy- well thats what happens when you get pregnant. ive really got no sympathy for people who use this as an excuse. anyone who is willing to have sex should accept that possibility.

I was referring specifically to the act of carrying and delivering a baby which you never intended to keep, not the discomfort in general, and nor did I intend this term in a purely physical context.

Anyway, we're covering old ground here. Click back a few pages and pretend they're fresh posts, it's all been said before.

 

[Ranger Stacie]

I disagree on your first point.

Regarding your second, I doubt you know what it's like to be dead, so I'm not sure how you can decide on your friends' behalf that they prefer being adopted to being dead. Seeing as you seem to know though, let's make it even a little more complicated. As you're answering on their behalf, perhaps you could tell me if they'd prefer to have never existed, arguably having never been capable of conscious thought, to having been adopted?


.

so you would prefer to be dead than to be alive?

 

[ogmzergrush]

so you would prefer to be dead than to be alive?

I'd prefer to have never known what existence was than to have been born, only to find out that the people responsible for my creation never wanted me and weren't prepared to care for me. You seem to be missing the distinction between death and never knowing life, that's like saying the millions unfertilised eggs bled out monthly are lost lives.

 

[iambored]

They're not lost lives because there is no way they were going to grow into a life in the form they were in. It's not the same as a fertilised egg that did briefly know 'life'

 

[ogmzergrush]

They're not lost lives because there is no way they were going to grow into a life in the form they were in. It's not the same as a fertilised egg that did briefly know 'life'

And this is where we start going around in circles, it seems unlikely that the egg is going to be self-conscious and aware as a living entity the very moment the egg is fertilised. It's a tough debate, and I'd want to be very sure that this was indeed a self-conscious life when I made the decision to always, without fail, unquestioningly put its rights before those of a guaranteed living being.

 

[*Minka*]

a child is not a blob of meat at any stage.
i know people who are adopted and they are fine, as are many people who are adopted. as ive said earlier in this thread, im sure they would prefer this option to being dead.
as for the discomfort of pregnancy- well thats what happens when you get pregnant. ive really got no sympathy for people who use this as an excuse. anyone who is willing to have sex should accept that possibility.

Firstly - it is unfair that the woman is the only one stuck with the discomfort of being pregnant. It is HER body first and foremost and heaven forbid I wouldn't want my body to be used as an incubator for a fetus for 9 months.

 

[Benny1103]

Firstly - it is unfair that the woman is the only one stuck with the discomfort of being pregnant. It is HER body first and foremost and heaven forbid I wouldn't want my body to be used as an incubator for a fetus for 9 months.

Yes, it's her body and it was also her decision to do something which could lead to her getting pregnant. The 'discomfort' is not an excuse if she brought it upon herself. I'm not saying that abortion should be denied in all cases. But it is rather irresponsible to suggest that if anyone who has an unwanted (as opposed to unexpected) should be able to have an abortion.

 

[iambored]

You make it sound like the female's fault. The male had to contribute.

 

[Benny1103]

I'm not saying that the female is the only one responsible. However, ignoring unlikely events such as rape, the female can control whether she falls pregnant by using her brain. You know the risks, you need to live with them. The point is that discomfort is not an excuse, it is a cop out. That is different from a couple wanting an abortion because they have no means through which to raise the child. I'm with RS on this one, I've got no sympathy for those who use the discomfort of pregnancy as the main reason for an abortion.

 

[*Minka*]

Oh that would not be my main motivation. Mine would be that as an 18 year old University student to be, I am in no way ready for a child. However, I also have the right to dictate whether I want to be pregnant for 9 months or not. People use protection, that can ocassionally fuck up - a woman should not be punished because a condom can split or a pill can fail.

 

[Ranger Stacie]

Oh that would not be my main motivation. Mine would be that as an 18 year old University student to be, I am in no way ready for a child. However, I also have the right to dictate whether I want to be pregnant for 9 months or not. People use protection, that can ocassionally fuck up - a woman should not be punished because a condom can split or a pill can fail.

yeah you do have the 'right' to murder your own kid. but morally, in my opinion, that is fucked up. Yes protection is not 100%- this is something you should be considering before having sex.

Question: if a child is 2 weeks old, and the parents thought, hey, we didnt know a kid would be this much. lets kill it. the only difference between that and an abortion is that the child's body is formed and it is not unborn..

 

[ogmzergrush]

yeah you do have the 'right' to murder your own kid. but morally, in my opinion, that is fucked up. Yes protection is not 100%- this is something you should be considering before having sex.

Question: if a child is 2 weeks old, and the parents thought, hey, we didnt know a kid would be this much. lets kill it. the only difference between that and an abortion is that the child's body is formed and it is not unborn..

You've lost me a little with that last point. When you highlight the differentiation between a two week old baby and an unborn one, being that one has a formed body and the other doesn't, how does it make sense to grant them both the same rights?

I guess what I'm asking here is, when you've clearly acknowledged this difference, how does the example of murdering a two week old baby relate to abortion, when one is as you said the proud owner of a fully formed, working body and is capable of supporting itself (As a lifeform, at least), while the other is an organism feeding off the woman's body, arguably not even yet aware that it exists?

 

[Ranger Stacie]

You've lost me a little with that last point. When you highlight the differentiation between a two week old baby and an unborn one, being that one has a formed body and the other doesn't, how does it make sense to grant them both the same rights?

I guess what I'm asking here is, when you've clearly acknowledged this difference, how does the example of murdering a two week old baby relate to abortion, when one is as you said the proud owner of a fully formed, working body and is capable of supporting itself (As a lifeform, at least), while the other is an organism feeding off the woman's body, arguably not even yet aware that it exists?

unborn or not, its still the womans child. regardless of how 'formed' it is.
what i am saying is where do you draw the line? why is it morally (and legally) ok to abort before 3 months but not after? its the same child, only older. a young baby is basically dependent upon its mother. your argument is basically that abortions are ok, because the unborn child is nothing mroe than a 'blob of meat' on the basis that the body is not fully formed and dependent upon it's mother.

a young baby is still basically in this boat.

 

[Benny1103]

Minka - Well in a situation likes yours, I can't see anything wrong with someone have an abortion. I still think that if someone doesn't use protection then they are bringing it upon themselves and should accept full responsibility regardless of whatever situation they're in. This of course excludes scenarios such as rape. I needed to point that out just in case some retard starts having a cry about what I say.