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.
Why would people, who can't even support themselves, have babies? Are those babies' lives worthless to them?
Not sure what you are asking. I don't believe any life is worthless. People who can't support themselves have babies the same way as everyone else. They engage in the reproductive activity of sexual intercourse. If they engage in sexual intercourse without taking the precaution of BC or if they are not emotionally and financially capable of handling the results of their engagement in sexual intercourse, then they should not stop the heartbeat of the only individual who truly has no say and give the baby up for adoption so that its potential can be realized, regardless of the life stage of the parents!
1) It happens, regardless of planning, protection and every other way to ensure it doesn't it happens. Please don't spout the abstinence line because that definitely doesn't work.
2) Men are not always deadbeats as stated by some posters, woman like to state "it's my body it's my choice" until the child is born then its "it's your child, it's your responsibility". Too often they are not told until after the fact....
3) For all those who are against there being a choice I would like to ask how many kids have you adopted? Not the healthy white ones but those who may have mixed parentage or possible health/learning issues? You all spout the same rhetoric but for the most part after the child is born your part is done and someone not prepared to be a parent is now one, God help some of these children.
But it's ok because a life was saved....
What does not having adopted kids yourself have to do with being pro-life? White ones? Now you're just pulling the race card. If you're not prepared to be a parent then don't have unprotected sex.
Evangelical Christians see the potential negative consequences of premarital sex (unwanted children, single parenthood, poverty, STDs, etc) to be God's righteous punishment for premarital sex. To use taxpayer money to eliminate God's righteous punishment is heresy.
No, I'm not exaggerating. It's what fundamentalist Christians really believe.
Maybe I've been reading too many existentialist works, but what's so great about a zygote/fetus? There are seven billion people on Earth, so it's not like that aborted fetus is anything special. As soon as the fetus is aborted, at least 5 other babies are born.
Due to cost of living increases and inflation, it's become harder and harder to raise children at lower income points. What happens when you literally cannot even afford an apartment for yourself? Do you think that child will be well taken care of? The parents obviously need to work to pay the bills, so who takes care of the baby? Parents with more money will ensure their children have new clothes, attend the best schools, have regular doctor visits, etc. Poor parents will have to skimp on many of these items.
Sure, there are always outliers on both sides, but statistics don't lie. Children who were raised in poverty are more likely to end up following in the footsteps of their parents.
So by stopping the heartbeat of a potential life, "we are doing them a favor." That is pretty much your belief? Sorry, but I don't see where anyone has the right to determine the potential of another human life. If that is the case, then Margaret Sanger would be right, and she was never right.
Should we stop the heartbeat of every living being that lives or ends up in poverty? Should those people who choose to have children be denied based on their income level? Why would these steps be wrong or any different than ending a life and a potential based solely on statistics?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipsywicket
Yeah, sounds like the household someone like a former president of the US was born into. But it is better to stop the heartbeat of a potential scientist that will cure cancer or discover the solution to "climate change."
Why should that potential have any validity when the person who created the potential chose to procreate with a drunk, broke, abuser. Sure sounds like the "chooser" had way more potential than the victim inutero.
Just stop already, the odds of a baby born to a poor household becoming a criminal or just remaining poor themselves is astronomically higher than the odds of them being successful. For every Oprah or Bill Clinton, you have millions who end up in prison or on welfare. Hoping for a kid being born in a poor household to actually have a good life is like hoping to win the lottery, the odds are not in your favor
So by stopping the heartbeat of a potential life, "we are doing them a favor." That is pretty much your belief? Sorry, but I don't see where anyone has the right to determine the potential of another human life. If that is the case, then Margaret Sanger would be right, and she was never right.
Should we stop the heartbeat of every living being that lives or ends up in poverty? Should those people who choose to have children be denied based on their income level? Why would these steps be wrong or any different than ending a life and a potential based solely on statistics?
why should any woman against her own will gestate, labor, deliver, birth a bay and either raise it or give it up for adoption. her sovereignty over her won body trumps all.
So many excuses being made here. I hate to be this blunt, but single motherhood is both the mother and the father's fault - him for abandoning the family, and the mother for choosing that guy in the first place.
I actually used to listen to this call-in show, and I thought the host was being very harsh or unfair to single mothers, especially if the father left. The more I listened, the more patterns I saw in the excuses people made, and the more predictable it was. "How was I to know he would leave? It came out of nowhere! He seemed like he would be a good father and then he changed."
People really convince themselves that they had no way of preventing it, because they can't emotionally handle the idea that they messed up. They then try to force others to bail them out by playing the victim. It's usually not even conscious, just instinctual.
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.
