Abortion

[Buffy Summers]

Pro-lifers don't believe a child "ruins" anything. That's the whole difference. We don't see a child as a burden, as unwanted, as a life-destroyer. A child is someone special that you and your partner made together, whether you meant to or not.

Unfortunately, that isn't always reality.

 

[Taake]

I would like to say that there is a big difference between never having been born, and not having been loved/wanted. Because the truth is, some unwilling parents do find their children a burden, even some willing do, and the pain they inflict upon their children may cause damage for generations to come.

You don't know until you're in that situation, if you're pro-life that's great for you, but I agree with david4wt, don't force it upon others... let individuals with circumstances different from yours make their own choice. Cause in my opinon it's naive to think that all children born will have a good/loved life from parents who may not have wanted them but changed their minds later on.

 

[Flannen]

Pro-lifers don't believe a child "ruins" anything. That's the whole difference. We don't see a child as a burden, as unwanted, as a life-destroyer. A child is someone special that you and your partner made together, whether you meant to or not.

It is all about protecting all life, because no one human life is better/worth more than another.

I don't think pro-choice supporters see children as those things either when people are ready to have them. But, if it's a accident and at a time when you simply aren't stable enough; mentally, emotionally, physically or financially, then it could be all of those things. I think the sentiment that it's something special you and your partner made together it beautiful, but like Darla said, it isn't like that in every sense and for that reason, there needs to be a choice.

As for the other part, we could argue that back and forth for hours but with all due respect, I'd rather not get into that because it won't get us any further from where we are now.

I think Taake's sentiment is very important. None of us can honestly say how we, as individuals, would deal with the situation or even how the situation would arise. We could surprise even ourselves and deal with it in the exact opposite way than we would expect.

 

[PassionBecoming]

[MENTION=8401]david4wt[/MENTION] They don't have anything directly to do with abortion; they have to do with the statement "It's my body and I should do what I want with it." Regardless of the why/how rules/laws/regulations come into play, they are there. Yes, some countries do allow prostitution. Some countries allow child trafficking and genocide. Does that mean it should be allowed? That's my point. People can't be allowed to do whatever they want to do just because they want to.

Unfortunately, that isn't always reality.

Oh, I am aware of that and it is unfortunate. I was just commenting on Flannen's wondering why/how pro-lifers think the way we do.

I have two problems with the whole the parents don't want the baby/they might be born into a bad situation:

1. Who gets to decide what the "ideal" situation for a child to be born into is? Does that mean the only children that should be allowed to come into the world are ones with two parents that have a house with a white picket fence and are beyond comfortable with their finances? Depending on where a person is from, the "ideal" situation will always be different and therefore you can't really place a line through it.

2. As I have elaborated on earlier, sex is for procreation, whether people use it that way or not. Unless you have had your reproductive organs removed, there is always a chance you could get pregnant every time you have sex. So, each time you have sex, you therefore saying "A baby could come out of this" and you may or may not be banking on that not happening.

In the case of child abuse, etc. yes, it is horrible. No child should ever have to go through that, be it physical/mental/emotional. There are many children who will be scarred from it their whole lives; there are also many children who are able to pull through it and make their lives better. To me, it's sad that people would say "That child is abused, she/he should never have been born". Even with the children that are scarred, I don't think it's fair to say they shouldn't have been born, either. I know plenty of people who had every advantage growing up; awesome, loving parents; great up-bringing; and they still ended up with mental health problems, drug addictions, etc. Is it fair to say that because someone might end up having "issues" later in life they shouldn't be born?

As for those who aren't feeling mentally/emotionally capable of caring for a child (and some truly are not) there is always adoption. There are also countless places you can go for support, money, services, and pretty much everything under the sun should you choose to keep your child. Yes, pregnancy is hard on the mother, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Which is why people should think it through before having sex if they don't feel they could handle a pregnancy/baby. Because whether it's what you're meaning it for or not, sex is for procreation. This is one of the many reasons why having sex is a responsibility.

As [MENTION=8858]Flannen[/MENTION] said, we can go around and around on this, and I pretty much have spoken my thoughts. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, but I do feel like I should explain why people are pro-life believe what they do. And honestly, I want to thank everyone in here for being so civil in their opinions thus far. I think it's awesome. I don't think I'll post again here, but if anyone ever has questions or wants to continue the discussion, please do PM me. 😀

 

[david4wt]

Stef, my intent was to show how those examples weren't about "it's my body and I should do what I want with it" either 🙂

Another point that is crucial to me it's this. Do you "pro-lifers" wish that abortion becomes, generally speaking, illegal? If so, how do you think the society/government/world should deal with all the deathes of women that will obviously decide to go to some improvised nurse that will throw a hatpin in between their legs? How will society cope with all the surgeons illegaly practising abortions, asking an absurd ammount of money to poor women? And all of this without paying attention to the month of pregnancy. How will you deal with more and more babies being abandoned just after birth?

Abortion it's not just a moral topic, it's also a practical one. I don't see any bad in getting an abortion according to law, but the ones that think it's immoral should also think of what the alternative is. And keep in mind that we don't live in a fairy tale, and not all women that get pregnant in a country where abortion is illegal will give the baby up for adoption.

 

[Sweet J]

Another point that is crucial to me it's this. Do you "pro-lifers" wish that abortion becomes, generally speaking, illegal? If so, how do you think the society/government/world should deal with all the deathes of women that will obviously decide to go to some improvised nurse that will throw a hatpin in between their legs? How will society cope with all the surgeons illegaly practising abortions, asking an absurd ammount of money to poor women? And all of this without paying attention to the month of pregnancy. How will you deal with more and more babies being abandoned just after birth?

Abortion it's not just a moral topic, it's also a practical one. I don't see any bad in getting an abortion according to law, but the ones that think it's immoral should also think of what the alternative is. And keep in mind that we don't live in a fairy tale, and not all women that get pregnant in a country where abortion is illegal will give the baby up for adoption.

Ok, I wasn't going to get involved in this but your post forced my hand.

Abortion is illegal in a good few countries, including in Ireland, unless the mother's life is at risk. We get by just fine with that, I know a married mother who couldn't conceive with 2 adopted children.

There are no ''deaths of women from improvised abortions'', and no epidemic of ''abandoned babies''. Your dystopian fantasy would be laughable if it wasn't being used to condone the continued extermination of developing human life.

By the way, your post is a textbook example of the manipulative tactic known as 'Fear Uncertainty and Doubt'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt


To keep things in perspective, abortion kills more human beings every year than: Cancer, Malaria, alcohol, suicide, AIDS, Car accidents, & cigarette smoking ALL combined together.
http://www.worldometers.info/

 

[Buffy Summers]

Hold it - if you can't discuss this amicably then don't discuss it at all. There is NO NEED to treat others like that just because you don't agree with their point of view.

---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 AM ----------

I know a married mother who couldn't conceive with 2 adopted children.

And that's great that she was able to adopt - but that really has no bearing on this topic. There are tons of children NOW who lifer out of the foster system because there aren't enough people to adopt them, as is.

There are no ''deaths of women from improvised abortions'', and no epidemic of ''abandoned babies''.

I actually find it hard to believe that there are no deaths, but the fact of the matter is, women in Ireland can pretty easily go to another country to have the procedure done if they want to. I don't know what your foster system is like, but ours is overrun. And abortions are legal.

 

[Sweet J]

I don't know what your foster system is like, but ours is overrun. And abortions are legal.

Since we don't spend a single red cent on abortions we, I presume, instead direct all that potential abortion money onto children in the foster system.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US foster systems. but maybe it wouldn't be so overrun if the money spent on abortion, and all the infrastructure that supports the practice, was instead appropriated towards adoption and the foster system?

Seems easily enough solved, right?


You might then also have the money to incentivize and enable poorer, but nonetheless, loving families the means to adopt.

 

[dexeded]

That's entirely your opinion. Science claims that every existing matter resides in three states - living, non-living, dead. Which is the "mass of cells?" Not dead because reanimation is impossible. Not non-living because spontaneous generation is impossible. The only conclusion is that it's living.

That means that in order for an abortion to occur, you have to end the life of a human being. How does that not involve others?

Plants are living too. And we chop them up all the time. The key term here is sentience. Just because something is living doesn't mean it's conscious of the fact that it is in fact living. A bunch of cells may be life, but it doesn't constitute thinking life.

 

[EvilWillow]

I actually find it hard to believe that there are no deaths, but the fact of the matter is, women in Ireland can pretty easily go to another country to have the procedure done if they want to. I don't know what your foster system is like, but ours is overrun. And abortions are legal.

Most older children in foster care are children that have been seized by the state for abuse, or drug related issues, not from women putting newborns up for adoption.

 

[Professor Walsh]

Abortion is illegal in a good few countries, including in Ireland, unless the mother's life is at risk. We get by just fine with that, I know a married mother who couldn't conceive with 2 adopted children.

According to thejournal.ie:

AROUND 12 WOMEN a day travelled from Ireland to England and Wales last year to have terminations, new figures have revealed.
The statistics, published today by the UK's Department of Health, show that women giving Irish addresses accounted for a majority of the abortions requested by non-residents in Wales and England in 2010. Of the 6,535 terminations given to non-residents, 4,402 of those were to women who gave Irish home addresses. That accounts for 67.4 per cent of all the non-resident abortions. It represents a tiny drop "“ 0.5 per cent "“ on the figures for 2009.

Add to that the fact that women also travel to The Netherlands and Belgium, I'd say that it seems like not all your fellow citizens agrees that you get by just fine.

There is two debates in one, here, as someone pointed out. One is whether or not it is ok to have an abortion, the other is whether or not it should be legal. I am perfectly fine with people finding abortions morally unacceptable and working to make it possible/easier to deal with an unwanted pregnancy without opting for abortion - I even commend it. I am not fine with people working to make having an abortion illegal/impossible. Actually, I might compare it to some religions not accepting blood transfusions. That's fine with me, as long as they don't try to impose their rules on my country's laws.


(As for the Planned Parenthood debate that goes on a little on the side, I'll say that I have a hard time believing that the whole organisation is as vile as some pro-life people seem to think, but as I haven't had time to look at the information posted I'm not going to jump into the fray based on merely what I believe.)

 

[Taake]

Most older children in foster care are children that have been seized by the state for abuse, or drug related issues, not from women putting newborns up for adoption.

Well that may be true for the older children who usually remain in the foster system because they're a harder sell to these 'loving' families standing at the door waiting to pick up their bundle of joy. In the foster system there are newborns, but it's far more easy for those to get adopted because there's a bigger demand for smaller babies than there are for bigger children...

Seems easily enough solved, right?

Nothing about this matter is easy. And funneling abortion money into adoption money is not a "happy ending no more problems in La-la land" ending.

You might then also have the money to incentivize and enable poorer, but nonetheless, loving families the means to adopt.

Can you guarantee that this is where the money will go? No, you can't.
Can you guarantee that the loving families will indeed be loving families... no you can't.

Speaking as someone who's been in the foster system I can tell you that not all families, poor or well-of, are "loving" families. Adoption is not a an easy peasy happy way out... it may work in some cases, but it's far from ideal and in many cases it just means that children will be shipped back and forth between different families, not feeling the love.

 

[EvilWillow]

Well that may be true for the older children who usually remain in the foster system because they're a harder sell to these 'loving' families standing at the door waiting to pick up their bundle of joy. In the foster system there are newborns, but it's far more easy for those to get adopted because there's a bigger demand for smaller babies than there are for bigger children...

It's very unfortunate and sad, but the reason is, most people want to raise a child from a baby to instill their ideals and wants in them, and also because most of the adolescents in the system are very emotionally damaged and people just don't want to or know how to deal with it, and the children have to suffer because of it. 🙁

 

[Buffy Summers]

Since we don't spend a single red cent on abortions we, I presume, instead direct all that potential abortion money onto children in the foster system.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US foster systems. but maybe it wouldn't be so overrun if the money spent on abortion, and all the infrastructure that supports the practice, was instead appropriated towards adoption and the foster system?

Seems easily enough solved, right?

You might then also have the money to incentivize and enable poorer, but nonetheless, loving families the means to adopt.

It's not a question of funding the system, it's a question of kids having loving homes to go TO, rather than being IN the system. Paying people to take children causes plenty of problems (we know this, because we actually do this here already).

Getting rid of abortions isn't going to solve the problems of unwanted children. If only it were that simple.

---------- Post added at 04:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 AM ----------

Most older children in foster care are children that have been seized by the state for abuse, or drug related issues, not from women putting newborns up for adoption.

But they still EXIST.

 

[arabella]

As it is off topic, I will try to be short. "Most" adolescents in the foster are system are not "damaged." They aren't cans of food that got dropped. They are children that are without a forever home for a variety of reasons. Not all children in foster care are available for adoption and many will end up back with their birth families after intervention. The idea that the older children in the system that are available for adoption is the majority of the reason that most that stay in the system past age 15 don't get out. It was not hard to get children adopted because of a lack of money, it was hard because of the attitude that people hold that after the newborn stage the children are damaged goods.

Stopping abortions wouldn't change that. It would just lead to more children eventually ending up in the system "damaged" by parents that were forced to have them, attempted to care for them, and then quit.

 

[Taake]

Pro-lifers don't believe a child "ruins" anything. That's the whole difference. We don't see a child as a burden, as unwanted, as a life-destroyer. A child is someone special that you and your partner made together, whether you meant to or not.

It is all about protecting all life, because no one human life is better/worth more than another.

I'm sorry PB, I really respect you but I feel truly insulted by this. It's a suggestion that because I'm pro-choice I think that a child could 'ruin' lives. That is not it at all.

You say it's about protecting human life. Yes, well for me pro-choice is protecting the quality of these human lives.

Any pregnant woman should feel that they are willing, able and ready to provide for their child and devote themselves to it. If they don't feel those things, is it right to force them to have it? It's not about the child being a burden, is about not being ready to care for another human being... because it is a life you created... and if you're not going to take responsibility for that it is far more awful in my opinion to have the child and then not give it the love it deserves or that you could give it under better personal conditions, when you feel ready as an individual to give that to someone else.

 

[david4wt]

There are no ''deaths of women from improvised abortions'', and no epidemic of ''abandoned babies''. Your dystopian fantasy would be laughable if it wasn't being used to condone the continued extermination of developing human life.

I can only talk for Italy, but I'm sure 100% that there were many women dieing because improvising themselves doctors and nurses, or because they went to some old lady in the village to get the thing than with an hatpin and a big spoon.

By the way, your post is a textbook example of the manipulative tactic known as 'Fear Uncertainty and Doubt'.

Ah, don't starting talking about manipulative tactics, [MENTION=11103]PassionBecoming[/MENTION] second video is full of them 😉
Also just the use of the term "pro-life" is a manipulative tactict as it suggest "pro-death" as a counterpoint. It's like I start calling pro-choice "pro-intelligence" and pro-life "pro-mom".
I sure this offends you, because it suggests that you are "anti-intelligence" even if it doesn't explicitly says it. Well it's the same thing as "pro-life" as a label for anti-abortist. It suggests that we are pro-death. And that is a manipulative tactic.

To keep things in perspective, abortion kills more human beings every year than: Cancer, Malaria, alcohol, suicide, AIDS, Car accidents, & cigarette smoking ALL combined together.

Again, you seem to not understand that this is not perspective, this is biased as it's written by your point of view! Perspective is doing this (by believing that that site is a reliable source):

10,414,608 Abortions this year
416,742 Deaths caused by HIV/AIDS this year
2,036,018 Deaths caused by cancer this year
243,165 Deaths caused by malaria this year
1,239,283 Deaths caused by smoking this year
620,033 Deaths caused by alcohol this year
265,840 Suicides this year
334,647 Road traffic accident fatalities this year
14,020,053 Deaths this year

So the reader can read the facts by himself, without you already saying "IT'S MURDER IT'S MURDER". This is not murder to me. It's not killing. 'Killing'/'murder'/'death of a human being' are terms that refer to a sentient human being with an individuality.

 

[Raki]

I wasn't going to offer my opinion on this since, you know, wrong organ, but I can't help myself on this topic.

I'm totally and utterly pro-choice. There's no debate for me. I don't just think banning abortion is morally wrong, I also think it's completely illogical. Banning it doesn't stop women from having abortions outright, it forces them into getting abortions through unsafe illegal procedures, endangering themselves in the process. Crime goes down when abortion is legal because a lot of the unwanted kids who otherwise would be brought up in crime-ridden areas tend to (unsurprisingly) become criminals. Reproductive rights empower those women to make their own decisions about this stuff, and empowering women in general tends to lead to development in a country, since educated, empowered women tend to get married later, have children later, and take care of those children better, make sure they're educated, etc. It's not the same for men because we live in a society where men aren't expected to take the same responsibility for children, so the developmental effects aren't the same.

But obviously it's not just about the welfare of a country. I also think it makes no sense to equate a foetus with an adult human. Abortion ought to be a tough decision, no doubt, but I find it difficult to treat a creature with less capacity for feeling or thought than an animal that I would be willing to eat in a burger as on exactly the same level as an adult woman with dreams, rational thought and relationships with other humans. It's not that a foetus is necessarily a burden or something that should be easy to kill, just that it's not worth changing the life of an adult human being, especially not when that foetus would be unwanted. I don't think the debate is purely about rape or medical necessity, either – I think women should be able to engage in recreational sex if they choose to without the burden of possibly being tied to a child before they're ready to be simply because something went wrong somewhere along the way, hurting the quality of life of both mother and child. I don't care if sex was intended by evolution or God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be principally about reproduction because that's just not what sex is to a sizeable proportion of people. I believe that people, and women in particular when it comes to this, should be able to choose to have loads of sex, or choose not to have loads of sex, or choose somewhere in between. I believe that women should be able to choose to have the sex they do have whether they want children or not. I don't think other people's approval of those practices should matter when it comes to their bodily autonomy. I believe that women should have access to the birth control that allows them to fully enjoy the same basic freedom that half of the population already has when it comes to sex.

This is one of those big things that makes me so happy to live in Western Europe where there's a reasonably greater consensus on this. I mean, it's not perfect by any means over here, but there's no national debate on just the basic issue of abortion's legality on anywhere near the same level as in the States.

 

[EvilWillow]

But obviously it's not just about the welfare of a country. I also think it makes no sense to equate a foetus with an adult human. Abortion ought to be a tough decision, no doubt, but I find it difficult to treat a creature with less capacity for feeling or thought than an animal that I would be willing to eat in a burger as on exactly the same level as an adult woman with dreams, rational thought and relationships with other humans. It's not that a foetus is necessarily a burden or something that should be easy to kill, just that it's not worth changing the life of an adult human being, especially not when that foetus would be unwanted.

With that mind set, one would assume that you would feel it would be acceptable to snuff out an infant, because it's not capable of "rational thought", dreams, and relationships. Just wanted to point out that the age of reason is not until 7, so with this argument you are basically saying it's okay to kill them until then.


I'd like to add that babies DO have feelings, and anyone that has a child would know that.

 

[OhWow]

Cause in my opinon it's naive to think that all children born will have a good/loved life from parents who may not have wanted them but changed their minds later on.

Another point that is crucial to me it's this. Do you "pro-lifers" wish that abortion becomes, generally speaking, illegal?

And keep in mind that we don't live in a fairy tale

Nothing about this matter is easy. And funneling abortion money into adoption money is not a "happy ending no more problems in La-la land" ending.


Can you guarantee that this is where the money will go? No, you can't.
Can you guarantee that the loving families will indeed be loving families... no you can't.

I tried to stay away from this thread, but I can't help it. I completely respect the opinions of everyone here. I'm not a hardcore pro-lifer and to answer your question
[MENTION=8401]david4wt[/MENTION] no I don't want abortion to be illegal. Like you said, I think it would create more problems than we can handle right now. And of course, just because you make something illegal doesn't mean people won't do it.

I just wanted to point out a couple of things.

- Okay I (or pro-lifers whatever) am well aware that this world is not perfect and we do not live in a fairy tale or La-La land. I was just a bit insulted that people would say that so often and imply that pro-lifers think in that way. I know the adoption system is not perfect, it has flaws like most organizations do, but I think for the most part, it could work out.

- I think (and tell me if I'm wrong) that pro-choice people are looking for that, as [MENTION=9799]Taake[/MENTION] was saying, "guarantee." Which is really, never achievable. We can't guarantee that kids will end up in a good place in the adoption system or with their biological parents. Even if they grow up in a loving family we still don't know who they will be.

- Parents are not the only caretakers of the children. Family helps too. And if that child is being abused or neglected then family won't just stand by.

Like I said you all have great opinions and I do see what pro-choicers stand for. I don't stand strongly on just one side of this debate. I don't like calling myself a pro-lifer either. Women can have an abortion, but I won't agree with it.