Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh I see, all can be fixed with "free stuff". Gimme,gimme,gimme is the mantra of the day...
I'll give you an example of how financial issues play into this decision. Years ago, my husband and I joyfully learned that we were expecting only to find out at a routine twenty-week ultrasound that our pregnancy was affected by a devastating fetal defect. The long-term consequences of the defect meant that the child would immediately have required a series of very expensive surgeries to preserve her life and more as she matured, but she would always have suffered from profound mental and physical deficiencies. My husband and I would have met the cap on our insurance at the time in the first year, meaning we would have eventually ended up bankrupt. We made the very difficult decision to have an abortion at just a few days shy of twenty-two weeks into the pregnancy. Sadly, finances did play a role in our decision. We were not poorly off, but we were certainly not in a position to fund millions of dollars of neurosurgery nor could we have afforded the long-term care if she somehow managed to pull through. And on an emotional level, I knew that if I gave birth, I simply would not have had the strength to watch her suffer and die without that care. It was best to abort the pregnancy, a decision I would still make today without question.
The argument about abortion so often leaves out these ethical quagmires as people on both sides argue about whether or not women should have sex, because it's all some of you can wrap your tiny little brains around. Meanwhile, some poor woman or couple right now is sitting in a doctor's office learning the same thing about her pregnancy that I did twenty-some years ago, and she's feeling like the world has dropped out from underneath her. It is unconscionable that any person thinks they are better prepared to make such a decision than the woman herself. Furthermore, as I tried to point out earlier, if others can decide that a woman cannot terminate a pregnancy, it opens the door to women being required to abort when they don't want to do so. Never should we even consider taking this responsibility out of the pregnant woman's hands. She is only one truly prepared to make such a wrenching choice.
Last edited by randomparent; 01-04-2018 at 08:25 AM..
Reason: grammar
I'll give you an example of how financial issues play into this decision. Years ago, my husband and I joyfully learned that we were expecting only to find out at a routine twenty-week ultrasound that our pregnancy was affected by a devastating fetal defect. The long-term consequences of the defect meant that the child would immediately have required a series of very expensive surgeries to preserve her life and more as she matured, but she would always have suffered from profound mental and physical deficiencies. My husband and I would have met the cap on our insurance at the time in the first year, meaning we would have eventually ended up bankrupt. We made the very difficult decision to have an abortion at just a few days shy of twenty-two weeks into the pregnancy. Sadly, finances did play a role in our decision. We were not poorly off, but we were certainly in not position to fund millions of dollars of neurosurgery nor could we have afforded the long-term care if she somehow managed to pull through. And on an emotional level, I knew that if I gave birth, I simply would not have had the strength to watch her suffer and die without them. It was best to abort the pregnancy, a decision I would still make today without question.
The argument about abortion so often leaves out these ethical quagmires as people on both sides argue about whether or not women should have sex, because it's all some of you can wrap your tiny little brains around. Meanwhile, some poor woman or couple right now is sitting in a doctor's office learning the same thing about her pregnancy that I did twenty-some years ago, and she's feeling like the world has dropped out from underneath her. It is unconscionable that any person thinks they are better prepared to make such a decision than the woman herself. As I tried to point out earlier, if others can decide that a woman cannot terminate a pregnancy, it opens the door to women being required to abort when they don't want to do so. Never should we even consider taking this responsibility out of the pregnant woman's hands. She is only one truly prepared to make such a wrenching choice.
Thank you for this post, randomparent. You remind us why no one should ever feel they have the right to make such a wrenching decision for any woman at any time. And rest assured, had you gone through with the pregnancy and gone bankrupt in the aftermath, not a single person arguing against abortion here would believe you deserved any kind of financial aid, be it food stamps or welfare or anything else. At that point they would tell you it's your own fault for not keeping your legs closed.
Because the arguments are never about the child, and never about what's best for the woman. They are always and only about controlling women. They may do it under the guise of religious belief or welfare of the child, but it's a lie. If it was true, all this hand wrenching about the fetus would not stop the minute it cleared the birth canal, when all concern for it's continued well-being ends.
I thank God every day that men like Pedro and jimj have absolutely no say in the process. And we will not go back to those days.
And the numbers who agree with this continue to rise in this poll, proving that, happily, Pedro and jimj are in an ever shrinking minority.
Thank you for this post, randomparent. You remind us why no one should ever feel they have the right to make such a wrenching decision for any woman at any time. And rest assured, had you gone through with the pregnancy and gone bankrupt in the aftermath, not a single person arguing against abortion here would believe you deserved any kind of financial aid, be it food stamps or welfare or anything else. At that point they would tell you it's your own fault for not keeping your legs closed.
Because the arguments are never about the child, and never about what's best for the woman. They are always and only about controlling women. They may do it under the guise of religious belief or welfare of the child, but it's a lie. If it was true, all this hand wrenching about the fetus would not stop the minute it cleared the birth canal, when all concern for it's continued well-being ends.
I thank God every day that men like Pedro and jimj have absolutely no say in the process. And we will not go back to those days.
And the numbers who agree with this continue to rise in this poll, proving that, happily, Pedro and jimj are in an ever shrinking minority.
The prolife argument is ALWAYS about the child. Because as you just pointed out, it IS a baby, it is a child. They don't want babies killed. I cannot think of any more pro-child stance than that.
Outlier cases do not mean that the solution is on demand baby killing for everyone.
What about outlier cases? Really WANT to end abortions and only allow for cases like this?
Pass a law. Lobby your congress people. Never happens. Ever single time I ask one of these "pro choice" "I would never" "only in cases of rape/incest/etc" to admit they think it is WRONG unless it is an outlier case because, well, that is the exact argument that they are presenting the "but what ifs"...
They refuse. Every. Single time. They are not interested in allowances only for the "but what ifs" cases. They want on demand in every case no matter what, killing babies for everyone. Every. Single. Time.
Thank you for this post, randomparent. You remind us why no one should ever feel they have the right to make such a wrenching decision for any woman at any time. And rest assured, had you gone through with the pregnancy and gone bankrupt in the aftermath, not a single person arguing against abortion here would believe you deserved any kind of financial aid, be it food stamps or welfare or anything else. At that point they would tell you it's your own fault for not keeping your legs closed.
Because the arguments are never about the child, and never about what's best for the woman. They are always and only about controlling women. They may do it under the guise of religious belief or welfare of the child, but it's a lie. If it was true, all this hand wrenching about the fetus would not stop the minute it cleared the birth canal, when all concern for it's continued well-being ends.
I thank God every day that men like Pedro and jimj have absolutely no say in the process. And we will not go back to those days.
And the numbers who agree with this continue to rise in this poll, proving that, happily, Pedro and jimj are in an ever shrinking minority.
No, they never want to talk about this aspect of abortion, because it doesn't fit their narrative that the only reason women abort is because they're unmarried sluts who are only out for a good time with no regard for the consequences. At least that's how it's always portrayed. (Forgive me for the language.)
The prolife argument is ALWAYS about the child. Because as you just pointed out, it IS a baby, it is a child. They don't want babies killed. I cannot think of any more pro-child stance than that.
Outlier cases do not mean that the solution is on demand baby killing for everyone.
What about outlier cases? Really WANT to end abortions and only allow for cases like this?
Pass a law. Lobby your congress people. Never happens. Ever single time I ask one of these "pro choice" "I would never" "only in cases of rape/incest/etc" to admit they think it is WRONG unless it is an outlier case because, well, that is the exact argument that they are presenting the "but what ifs"...
They refuse. Every. Single time. They are not interested in allowances only for the "but what ifs" cases. They want on demand in every case no matter what, killing babies for everyone. Every. Single. Time.
Pro-life simply means anti-choice. If you so-called pro-lifers were really pro-life, there wouldn't be the snide comments in this thread about providing economic support for children once they were born. Anti-choicers don't give a damn about actual kids once they get done trying to force a woman to give birth.
Pro-life simply means anti-choice. If you so-called pro-lifers were really pro-life, there wouldn't be the snide comments in this thread about providing economic support for children once they were born. Anti-choicers don't give a damn about actual kids once they get done trying to force a woman to give birth.
I actually prefer the term forced-birthers to pro-lifers. There is nothing pro-life about demanding that every fertilized egg be carried to term while at the same time demanding deep cuts in Medicaid, SNAP, welfare, school lunch programs for low income families, and on and on and on.
Forced-birthers is a much more accurate descriptor.
Thank you for this post, randomparent. You remind us why no one should ever feel they have the right to make such a wrenching decision for any woman at any time. And rest assured, had you gone through with the pregnancy and gone bankrupt in the aftermath, not a single person arguing against abortion here would believe you deserved any kind of financial aid, be it food stamps or welfare or anything else. At that point they would tell you it's your own fault for not keeping your legs closed.
Because the arguments are never about the child, and never about what's best for the woman. They are always and only about controlling women. They may do it under the guise of religious belief or welfare of the child, but it's a lie. If it was true, all this hand wrenching about the fetus would not stop the minute it cleared the birth canal, when all concern for it's continued well-being ends.
I thank God every day that men like Pedro and jimj have absolutely no say in the process. And we will not go back to those days.
And the numbers who agree with this continue to rise in this poll, proving that, happily, Pedro and jimj are in an ever shrinking minority.
I agree with your post.
All this talk about concern for a fetus at 24 weeks (refereed to as a premie) residing in a strangers womb ONLY when they think strangers are considering willfully terminating the fetus BUT all the premature births in the US (1 in 10) the numbers increasing in the past two years (14% for black women). Thats 15 million/year, one million/year die of complications before age 5 and many suffer lifetime disabilities. YET I'm not hearing a peep from the pro lifers with concern as to why are the rates of premature births increasing and what can we do to help prevent premature birth and SAVE the lives of all these premies OUTSIDE of the womb.
What other conclusion can one come to but a true desire to control women disguised as concern for a child.
I actually prefer the term forced-birthers to pro-lifers. There is nothing pro-life about demanding that every fertilized egg be carried to term while at the same time demanding deep cuts in Medicaid, SNAP, welfare, school lunch programs for low income families, and on and on and on.
Forced-birthers is a much more accurate descriptor.
I actually prefer the term forced-birthers to pro-lifers. There is nothing pro-life about demanding that every fertilized egg be carried to term while at the same time demanding deep cuts in Medicaid, SNAP, welfare, school lunch programs for low income families, and on and on and on.
Forced-birthers is a much more accurate descriptor.
I like forced-birthers. Anti-choice is also a good one. I think another helpful one is anti-woman.
When people who want to control women's sexuality or body take the pro-life label, they imply that their manner of dealing with life is reasonable or to be cherished. It's not. Abortion is going to happen regardless if it's safe or legal. If these forced-birthers/anti-choicers/anti-woman people really disliked abortion, then the simple thing would be to make preventing pregnancy as easy as possible (without trying to control the woman's sexuality ie abstinence for women only) and make it as attractive as possible to give birth if they do find themselves with an implantation in their uterus. For Americans it will take a huge change in ideology, going from investing in wars to investing in people. But it can be done. We see it all over the highly developed world. The lack of investment in these things is why the US is trailing so far behind in so many measurements.
Anti choice folks don't want to do this because they lose control of women's sexuality and perhaps because they understand that this would lead to a further contracting population as a higher quality of life tends to lead to families planning for fewer children which leads to needing more immigration to support the old folks and anti choice sorts of people don't like immigrants, especially when they're likely to be brown. (I'm not even sure anti-woman people think that far ahead, but it's the natural slide of things when quality of life increases).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
