What Are Pro-Life People Going to Do with These Unwanted Children after Birth? (propaganda, document)
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.
I find the premise of the OP's question to be annoying. At its essence, what it's saying is that someone created a problem (by having children that they didn't want), yet it's someone else's fault (the pro-life community) for not committing vast amounts of money and time to fix it.
If you want to avoid having unwanted children, here's how you do it:
1. Don't have sex.
2. If you disregard No. 1, use protection.
3. If you disregard No. 2 (or it fails), consider re-ordering your life so that you can raise your child.
4. If you are unable or unwilling to do No. 3, put the child up for adoption.
The only real role that pro-lifers have in this sequence is No. 4, by advocating for improvements to the foster care and adoption systems. But to imply that we are somehow responsible for the unwanted children of others, simply because we don't want to see them killed, isn't right.
You want to force someone to spend 9 months of their life to care for a fetus that they do not wish to care for because it fits your conscience. Seems fitting that you should be forced via taxes to care for others to fit someone else’s conscience.
77 pages and our resident leftists are still fighting hard for more unborn children to die. Sad.
Correction: 78 pages and men and women on this forum are still finding it necessary to advocate for the civil rights of female citizens in these United States. Rights that are legally afforded to women under the Constitution.
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization or even force her to have an abortion?
Correction: 78 pages and men and women on this forum are still finding it necessary to advocate for the civil rights of female citizens in these United States. Rights that are legally afforded to women under the Constitution.
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization or even force her to have an abortion?
You haven't said a word to support the female citizens you want to kill in the womb. They matter too.
Did you actually view this long video? I did. I learned little that I already knew from this forum and elsewhere.
Since you're not religious, I'm sure you liked the part where the doctor said religion had nothing to do with his decision to quit doing abortions. He said after his daughter was hit by a car, she died in his arms in the ambulance. I think he felt great guilt from failing to protect his daughter from fatal harm. Continuing to do abortions only made the guilt feel worse.
Near the end of the video, in response to a question about what to do about abortion, it was very disappointing that about all he wanted to stress was to vote. Nothing about the government or other means doing more to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Nip the problem of unwanted pregnancies before they're even in the bud and you got abortion eliminated. But banning abortion isn't the solution. I don't know why pro-life people would prefer illegal abortions over legal ones. The outcome is still the same. No baby is born.
Near the end of the video was a recording of a woman who called an abortion clinic. She was 25 months along and was astounded to be told it would be a week long procedure that would cost $8,000. The price goes up $1000 for each additional week. What pregnant woman wants to go through that? What is wrong with society where a women can be this far along wanting an abortion? But it all starts with the need to gain easier access to birth control, along with the willpower to use it.
I am pro-choice and ideally NO choice. The pregnancy should be wanted from the very start.
"I was raised in the sort of evangelical family where abortion is the number one political issue. I grew up believing that abortion was murder, and when I stopped identifying as pro-life I initially still believed that. Why, then, did I stop identifying as pro-life? Quite simply, I learned that increasing contraceptive use, not banning abortion, was the key to decreasing the number of abortions."
You haven't said a word to support the female citizens you want to kill in the womb. They matter too.
Like what corpgypsy brought up, give the government the power to ban all abortions and where might that power lead to in the future? For the government to feel it has the power to require certain women to get abortions against their will?
I would hope you don't mind the government helping low income mothers take care of their children. Take that away from them and they might change their minds next time and get abortions.
You haven't said a word to support the female citizens you want to kill in the womb. They matter too.
People who are pro-choice believe that women have the basic human right to decide when and whether to have children, based on their own moral and religious beliefs, even though they themselves may not choose abortion as an option for an unplanned pregnancy.
You are suggesting that women's bodies, rights, and health be subordinated to the protection of embryos and fetuses.
I'm probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn't a life, as that's basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I'll be brief.
They are not alive. They are not citizens. They are fetuses and embryos.
A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings.
Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life.
The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother.
A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?
What about the civil rights of the unborn? A woman has the right to control her body and her reproductive system before engaging in sex, duh. Use birth control or just say NO. What's so hard to understand?
What about the civil rights of the unborn? A woman has the right to control her body and her reproductive system before engaging in sex, duh. Use birth control or just say NO. What's so hard to understand?
I am so sick and tired of people blaming women. Why don't men use condoms. You talk about the rights of the unborn...how about advocating for the children we already have in foster care. They were born unwanted. What has anyone done for them. How about we take care of them first. Why do you want to add more unwanted kids.
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.