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.
She would have had to drop out of college, spend thousands of dollars of medical care, and deal with the physical and mental stress of a pregnancy, probably rude comments from friends and family, then deal with adoption officials for a baby she didn't want in the first place?
She had the abortion and has a great career. I fail to see the problem.
How does aborting a child equate to a great career? Where are these college campuses in the 21st Century where people are rude to pregnant women? How many children have you had? I have a couple and "mental stress" of pregnancy hardly outweighed the alternative of killing them.
And that's exactly why abortions are legal. Someone's feelings shouldn't dominate what choices a woman can make about her own body.
Like I said earlier, you can take all precautions necessary and disaster can still happen. Friend's girlfriend (now wife) was on the pill and became pregnant. What other precautions could she have taken? There have been pregnancies after vasectomies, IUDs, and even tubes being tied.
Some of you people are really thickheaded...
Seriously? This is just too easy, how can you not know the answer?
It's about having two choices:
1) Continue with the pregnancy and raise the child, give it up for adoption, etc.
2) Terminate the pregnancy
Also, I think there's a pretty big difference between saving a family member who is currently alive, can speak, think, and has a name VS a clump of cells inside of the female's uterus.
I'm pro-choice, not because I like abortion, but because I think women and men should have the ability to chose what happens medically with the body.
Look at a picture of a baby at 10 weeks and tell me that it is a clump of cells. To my view it is clearly a separate individual. Completely dependent upon the one who is carrying it yes but that doesn't mean it is not a separate life.
Quote:
Because pro-choice marches aren't at all about adoption. They aren't about having the choice to adopt vs not adopt. Adoption is just an option for one of the current choices available.
I agree they are not about adoption. They are about not wanting an unborn baby to be killed.
Please explain the logic. You have a group of individuals that want abortion to be illegal. They want planned parenthood (birth control to low income) to stop being funded, and the same group, are the first to tell a single mom that should not have had kids, she could not afford.
Life does not work that way. You can't take away someone's ability to prevent an issue, but then blame them when they have an issue.
Seriously, someone please explain the thought process because it really makes no sense.
You are perplexed that the commonly publicized "conservative" view on abortion is not internally consistent. Here's why: some conservatives are philosophical Libertarians (because they believe government should be as small as possible while achieving the few functions only it can perform), while other conservatives are religious conservatives (who support whatever their organized religion preaches as if it were "the word of God," in particular that a one-cell fertilized zygote has the same value/worth as a newborn infant or adult).
On the subject of abortion, the philosophical Libertarians (like me) would choose to pay for the minimal cost of birth control and abortion for poor women, because otherwise we have to pay MUCH MORE for the extra children the poor women will end up producing. In today's world, a child is luxury item that costs a fortune to the taxpayer due to school costs (even if the parents don't require welfare for their brood). Even the most generously paid working class couple will probably not be able to fund 2 children, in addition to saving enough to fund their own retirement needs (though current generations just skip the retirement savings, as if Social Security and Medicare would cover the costs of retirement & health care).
The religious conservatives, however, are obligated (and fired up) by their organized religions to vehemently fight abortion in any way, shape or form--and in many cases, even fight the availability of birth control. To me, it is obvious that organized religion took the anti-abortion stand simply to maximize its own wealth (via the number of its followers). People are much more likely to just continue the religion they are born to, than to convert, so they need to push ideas that maximize the number of children generated by church members. If organized religion wasn't just "out for the money," it would consider it the responsibility of the church members to pay for children produced by women too poor to support them--instead, they force the taxpayer to bear the cost of their self-serving ideas.
The solution? In a logical system that was not designed to manipulate the voting masses for the benefit of the Ruling Elite, citizens wouldn't have to choose between candidates of only the two major political parties, each of which have platforms that are ludicrously internally inconsistent. There would be some distinction between the two groups that are currently called "conservative" by the media, which makes sense because the difference between the two is fundamental: Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and social liberals (where I would say most Americans fall, if they didn't fall for the slander of Libertarianism by the political ruling elite who are terrified of it). Religious people are social conservatives and fiscal liberals, who gained ridiculous power and influence in the Republican Party during the Reagan era. I have the feeling that if we ever had the opportunity to vote for a candidate who did more than lip service to being a fiscal conservative and social liberal, we'd have a huge majority voting for him/her--which is exactly why we'll never get the chance.
OF course it is not the solution for people who advocate for killing the unborn. The point is, your argument that pro-life advocates do not support their position by providing for unwed pregnant women is a LIE, so find a new argument to support killing babies.
You can claim whatever you want loudly on this forum; however, I will claim that there are TONS of women struggling to support unwanted children who get no assistance.
Just yesterday in our paper, there was a "plea" editorial about a family who chose not to abort their child when it was discovered he had pretty severe birth defects. They chose to continue with the pregnancy and keep the child, who is joy, but has extensive medical issues (bills) that are now being threatened by the current desire to repeal coverage. Now, hopefully something will be put in place so there is no danger to this child, but the point is that many politicians who are so vehement on "right to birth" don't think of anything else when they are trying to cut societal support structure that happens to target women who have children that they are not capable of financially support. If someone doesn't feel like they can take that on, they shouldn't have to because you know darn well there is nothing to really help them through the next 18 years. If you can't see that going on now, even with choice available, then you are living in a utopia.
How does aborting a child equate to a great career? Where are these college campuses in the 21st Century where people are rude to pregnant women? How many children have you had? I have a couple and "mental stress" of pregnancy hardly outweighed the alternative of killing them.
I was referring to rude comments from friends and family about giving the child up for adoption. "Why would someone want to give that sweet baby up for adoption?" Like it or not, there is a stigma attached to giving babies up for adoption, which is a shame.
I have had zero children because it was my choice to have zero children, just like it was your choice to have children.
You view abortions as killing, while some people, including the legal system do not. My friend's girlfriend had the abortion and continued on with life.
I have had two children. Before my second was born and I found I was pregnant, I didn't immediately feel that his life at that point was just as valuable as my first child who was living outside my body. I just didn't. If I had to make a choice at that point for my child over my fetus, it would have been a no-brainer.
I get that you don't feel that way, but your feelings don't get to control people. And your feelings are necessarily right. They are right for you. But not for me.
I never said my feeling get to control people. That is on you. And I understand your feelings and it is a shame that you do not value the life of your children equally. I think that is what I struggle with, how anyone cannot value the life of a being that they created. I suffered 5 miscarriages before I was able to carry a child to term, and even then, my twins were three months early and struggled to survive. I view the miscarried lives as lost potential and I don't see them as nothing more than blood clots in the toilet. They were human potential that I and my spouse created and that to me is very precious. There are women who suffer extreme mental anguish because they are incapable of conceiving a child and to think that there are so many other women placing no value on their own potential offspring is heartbreaking to me.
She would have had to drop out of college, spend thousands of dollars of medical care, and deal with the physical and mental stress of a pregnancy, probably rude comments from friends and family, then deal with adoption officials for a baby she didn't want in the first place?
She had the abortion and has a great career. I fail to see the problem.
Most adoptive parents pay the medical expenses. No denying there can be physical and mental stress involved in pregnancy. And giving a child up for adoption can also be a stressful decision. I don't see why she would have had to drop out of college and in today's world I doubt if the number of rude comments would be great.
As hard as if might have been for your friend it is not as hard as it was on the aborted baby. I don't say this lightly without any concern for the pregnant girl.
I was referring to rude comments from friends and family about giving the child up for adoption. "Why would someone want to give that sweet baby up for adoption?" Like it or not, there is a stigma attached to giving babies up for adoption, which is a shame.
I have had zero children because it was my choice to have zero children, just like it was your choice to have children.
You view abortions as killing, while some people, including the legal system do not. My friend's girlfriend had the abortion and continued on with life.
Yeah, it's a shame that some people think it is better to end a life then to make it and others' lives better through adoption.
I see where you are coming from by your statement that you have zero children. You view childbirth as a punishment and nothing more than physical and mental stress.
The legal system also viewed the ownership of another human being to be acceptable at one point in time. Something that is deemed legal does not make it moral.
Apparently there are thousands of women who have no qualms about killing their offspring.
I never said my feeling get to control people. That is on you. And I understand your feelings and it is a shame that you do not value the life of your children equally. I think that is what I struggle with, how anyone cannot value the life of a being that they created. I suffered 5 miscarriages before I was able to carry a child to term, and even then, my twins were three months early and struggled to survive. I view the miscarried lives as lost potential and I don't see them as nothing more than blood clots in the toilet. They were human potential that I and my spouse created and that to me is very precious. There are women who suffer extreme mental anguish because they are incapable of conceiving a child and to think that there are so many other women placing no value on their own potential offspring is heartbreaking to me.
Honestly, I think you are way to emotional to even have a discussion. I feel like you are trying to change my mind, which you can't, and I would never dream to change yours.
I value you my children equally. When #2 was 6 weeks along and I had some issues, there is no way I deemed #2 to be equal to my 3 year old. I know you think I'm crazy for that, but I think you're crazy for equating a fetus to your birthed children. Wow.
Look, personally, I would not want to have an abortion and fortunately I've never had to. I think it's a last resort thing. I've been lucky in life that I have a great support system and I would never have needed to have one. But I know people who don't have that system and there's no way I would push my views or "because I can't do it" on someone else.
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.
