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.
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.
It is quite common in the animal kingdom for animals to kill the young of others of the same species to replace the genepool with their genes. Besides absolute starvation we are the only animal having no problem murdering our own young.
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.
The alternative to struggling is not abortion. The plea in the paper will result in an outpouring of assistance by many people who are more than willing to help this family. Just because they had to make their needs known doesn't not indicate that no one cares.
Why are those tons of women supporting unwanted children if abortion is legal and safe and has been since 1973. If these children were unwanted, why were they not aborted. If they are now unwanted, why are these women not relinquishing their parental rights so that these children can be placed with foster or adoptive families?
Not selfish, again you cheat society of your talent as well as yourself.
My fiance herself had an abortion 10 years ago, and though it was a painful experience, she's glad she did. The father was a drunk, abusive, beat her constantly, and neither of them really made any money. What kind of household would that have been to bring an unwanted kid into?
Then give the baby up for adoption. . There are plenty of people out there who can't have kids that would gladly take one.
It is quite common in the animal kingdom for animals to kill the young of others of the same species to replace the genepool with their genes. Besides absolute starvation we are the only animal having no problem murdering our own young.
I'm not sure of what you are saying. It is common in the animal kingdom to kill your offspring by humans are the only animals who have no problem murdering their own young?
It should be a woman's choice when she becomes a parent.
Too bad the unborn baby doesn't get a vote.
It's also the woman's choice to have sex without using birth control; and if they make that choice and get pregnant, don't come crying to the taxpayers to fund the expenses.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorianRo
Then give the baby up for adoption. . There are plenty of people out there who can't have kids that would gladly take one.
You make it sound so simple, when it is not.
Besides, her mother was against her giving it up for adoption, so if she hadn't aborted, she would have been pressured into keeping it, and it would have ruined her life and the child's life, and I never would have met her.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie45
Too bad the unborn baby doesn't get a vote.
It's also the woman's choice to have sex without using birth control; and if they make that choice and get pregnant, don't come crying to the taxpayers to fund the expenses.
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.
I am the furthest thing from emotional. I am stating my point of view. I am not trying to change your mind, I am merely defending my viewpoint. I don't "equate" my living child with my miscarried child, I said that their lives are of equal value. Meaning that regardless of their status with regard to born or not yet born, their lives are both valuable and their potential as humans are the same and both deserve the opportunity to reach that potential.
Of course you cannot equate a living child with one that is in utero, but neither could I say, well, I can't handle another kid right now, so I guess you won the lottery kid, cause you were born first. How do I know that I am extinguishing the life that would go on to save my living child from getting hit by a car? I don't, of course, but if I allow that life to be ended, I will never know.
You are not going to prevent the masses from having sex. It is just not going to happen. So it seems like it makes the most sense to not take away abortion and to still give out birth control.,
and we currently have a president and Vice President against birth control. Trump may sign an executive order banning them next week, for all we know.
It would make even more sense from that perspective to allow infanticide and execute juvenile delinquents.
My friend's girlfriend had the abortion and continued on with life.
The unborn child did not.
Quote:
You view abortions as killing, while some people, including the legal system do not.
If some people viewed infanticide as not killing and if the courts agreed would you approve?
Quote:
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 guess there is truth to this statement.
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.
