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.
The execution of criminals is murder.....intentionally causing the death of a human being; war involves murder....violently taking the life of human beings; self defense may involve murder.... Abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is not murder in my viewpoint....clusters of cells are not a human being.....they have the potential to become a human being....sentient beings with awareness of self--but not initially. At some point.....the zygot or embryo takes on human characteristics and I don't know when that is..for me around the time of viability.... I do not endow cells with humanhood and don't consider early abortion to be murder. I also recognize that as in execution of criminals and self defense and war....murder may be the lesser of two bad outcomes. I think the same is true of abortion. I recognize that this is subjective.
Wow. All that because I reponded to your comment about the information provided by the link? Where in any of my posts have I been talking about this situation in terms of embryos and fetuses. I am discussing the preservation of life and I provided a link to some abortion statistics. You claim the numbers are suspect, but can provide no link of your own. I personally have taken the middle road here, knowing there are times in life where the removal of a child may be necessary. But I cannot embrace your idea that abortion is always the viable and responsible choice.
You speak of how this is a responsible act, yet I personally know people who have had abortions as a result of their constantly irresponsible actions. Saying they didn't poke holes in the condom is great, but how about the ones who wore no protection at all. Then they respond in the most responsible way to their irresponsibility by having an abortion? Seems like the concept of responsibility and planning here is a little warped.
This is what gives birth to the idea of an abortion for "convenience" It is decidedly inconventient for these people to care for the child they have created, so they remedy the situation through abortion. Those who seek abortion for medical reasons or as a result of some crime being perpetrated against them have my full pro-life support.
Sidenote: I don't need "religion" to tell me the willful termination of life for the sake of convenience is immoral. People speak of the natural urge to have sex. Well, guess what, we have that urge because nature wants us to make babies. So no more excuses about how abstinence is impossible and goes against nature. Nature didn't want you to rid your body of the child that sex produced either. Nature put the sexual urge into you so that you would procreate. Thus, abortion goes against nature just as abstinence goes against human nature.
Where did I say "abortion is always the viable and responsible choice?"
What I did say was that the choice between abortion and unwanted pregnancy is an unhappy choice that no one wants to be faced with. Do some people behave irresponsibly? Certainly they do, just like some people who are trying to give up smoking sneak a cigarette, just like people cheat on their diets. People make mistakes. But for many American women, addressing that mistake is far, far from convenient.
Your "sidenote" seems to be suggesting that no one should ever have sex unless they do so with the intention of becoming a parent. And that very large families are therefore natural, smaller families via contraception go against nature. Good luck with that! I'll be happy to point out that human fecundity was once a key factor in species propogation, but that same fecundity in modern society has negative consequences that are answered by contraception methods, abortion being one of those methods. I really don't see it as "unnatural" or "against nature" for a species to determine ways to maximize continued viability. While over-population of the planet may or may not be a pressing concern in regards to resource allocation, over-population in terms of quality of life certainly continues to be a pressing concern.
Where did I say "abortion is always the viable and responsible choice?"
Sorry, I actually meant to write "abortion is always "a" viable and responsible choice" Did not mean to make it seem like you thought the only choice when it came to pregnancy was abortion. Basically, from reading your earlier posts, I am lead to believe you think abortion is always "a" viable and responsible choice. When to me, nothing could be more responsible than taking care of a life you created. You are talking about fiscal responsibility not personal responsibility.
Also, I really wish the constrants put on adoption in this country could be relaxed a bit. Now I am not saying don't do background checks and make sure they are going to be good parents. But the cost of adoption and the time involved is simply ridiculous. As earlier posts have mentioned, we have hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care or in orphanages. And all the while there are thousands and thousands of families who would love to adopt those children and care for them. But,they don't have thousands of extra dollars to spend in order to get the child.
Carrying a child to term and giving it up for adoption to me seems like the best choice for a woman who has chosen not to keep her child. Not only does the child get to remain alive, but the mother also has that extra time to really decide if she wants to give it up. With abortion, it's over and done with and there is no second chance. Also, there is usually no problem with getting a baby adopted. Most applicants for adoption would rather have an infant anyway. Most of the children in the system are over the age of 5, so there should be no worry about the infant dragging on the system. The child will simply make some less fortunate couple happy.
Keep in mind, this is just the opinion of a father. I love my children and I know how happy they can make you. Even when they are unexpected. Believe me, I was an 18 year old father to be. I was working in a restaurant and had no clue how I was going to take care of a child. But I made it, and so can anyone else who tries. I just hate to think of all the women out there who have given up something so precious just because they were insecure with their station in life or unsure about the future. The future is never sure, and if you wait until you percieve it to be the best time to have a baby, you never will.
Ah, but Reads, some of us dont see it as "precious". To some such as myself, a child would be a curse of the worst variety.
It is easy for a man to say "Not only does the child get to remain alive, but the mother also has that extra time to really decide if she wants to give it up."
For as he does so, he doesnt consider the absolute havoc endured by the woman's body over the 9 month period that the ...whatever it is...is in there. Personally, I wouldnt want to keep it in there and go through that torture just to have some long-term decision time... and I sure as heck wouldnt want to carry it and go through the further torture of labor just to give it away like a screaming Christmas present.
Ah, but Reads, some of us dont see it as "precious". To some such as myself, a child would be a curse of the worst variety.
It is easy for a man to say "Not only does the child get to remain alive, but the mother also has that extra time to really decide if she wants to give it up."
For as he does so, he doesnt consider the absolute havoc endured by the woman's body over the 9 month period that the ...whatever it is...is in there. Personally, I wouldnt want to keep it in there and go through that torture just to have some long-term decision time... and I sure as heck wouldnt want to carry it and go through the further torture of labor just to give it away like a screaming Christmas present.
Children arent a joy to everyone.
Don't forget the "joy" of having to constantly know you have a child somewhere, and the chance of said child coming to find you later in life.
If there were 1 million additional children a year waiting for adoption, who is going to adopt those children?
I appreciate that you are speaking as a father who loves his children. I'm speaking as a woman who knows women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy and will not have a loving father to assist in parenting. Women who struggle already with paying the bills. Women who have health issues and personal issues and who actively fear the future. The fact is that loving fathers who change their share of diapers, who help in doing the laundry and the housework, who get up in the middle of the night to rock their screaming progeny to sleep, who stay home when the child is sick, are a very small minority. You may be in that minority, and kudos to you. But childcare still predominantly falls to women. Pregnancy is not a risk-free condition. Women still die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Any pregnancy is life-changing, even the most complication-free pregnancy and when the child is given up for adoption. Pregnancy isn't something a woman can keep secret. Her family, friends, co-workers will all know she is pregnant. Giving birth is an event a woman needs to recover from. Roe v Wade was not about guaranteeing women the right to an abortion. It was about the right to privacy. It established that women, like men, have the right to make decisions about their health and well-being, and that those decisions should remain private and personal.
When anti-abortion people focus solely on the child, they are presumptively taking away that right to privacy. If they oppose abortions, any abortions, they are taking away the rights of women to consult with their doctors, pastors, family and loved ones, and choose what is best for the woman. Which suggests that the fetus is more important than the living, breathing woman which society has already invested in. If they oppose abortions, but allow exceptions, they are demanding that women prove their worthiness to make this decision. Both avenues rest on the proposition that women who seek abortions are somehow deficient, mentally, morally, or in some other way, and place a burden on women to prove that this is not true.
No one actively desires an abortion. People who are pro-life should stop blaming the women who seek abortions, and start solving the real-life problems that make women seek abortions.
All of this would be moot if people would just be more responsible about their reproductive activities. If you're not ready or willing to be pregnant, you'd better go out and get every form of contraceptive available or just don't have sex.
But that's too logical, reasonable, and it seems to be completely out of the question. I don't understand why. I know lots of people who are able to live full and happy lives without ever having to even consider an abortion. B/c they don't practice irresponsible sexual habits.
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.
