[BlackMita]

I'm pro choice and pro less people.

Even if you argue a fetus is a human life, it's a lot like someone in a coma, except nobody can recall their history or miss their presence, so it's even less hard to pull the plug. What is being killed exactly? The realization of an ideal? That a potentially good person can be grown? But the same is true of young people already here that remain unsupported and neglected: the kids who's parents listened to people like Samoan Corleone, and either dropped them off at a children home anyway, or went on to become crappy parents. As far as I'm concerned abortion is just reactionary contraception, which is pathetic, but not as pathetic as reactionary parenting.

[Samoan Corleone]

	Originally Posted by BlackMita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But the same is true of young people already here that remain unsupported and neglected: the kids who's parents listened to people like Samoan Corleone, and either dropped them off at a children home anyway, or went on to become crappy parents. As far as I'm concerned abortion is just reactionary contraception, which is pathetic, but not as pathetic as reactionary parenting.

Actually, I find a person ending a life they did nothing to stop from existing to be more pathetic than "reactionary parenting." Part of taking responsibility for their unprotected sex, which is what I'm advocating, would be to care for the child the best they can and know how which, in most cases, means putting the child first. If the parents realise they may be inept and decide to give up the child up for adoption, there can't be harm in that. I mean, it's not exactly children-hating misanthropes who sign up to raise foster children and get the green light from whoever's running the agency, y'know?

Of course, there's a chance the child could grow up to be an asshole as well; I'm not disputing that.

[RedOrange823]

	Originally Posted by Samoan Corleone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the parents realise they may be inept and decide to give up the child up for adoption, there can't be harm in that. I mean, it's not exactly children-hating misanthropes who sign up to raise foster children and get the green light from whoever's running the agency, y'know?

What about the child that gets rejected? And what about the pedophile who goes unnoticed?

[Samoan Corleone]

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What about the child that gets rejected? And what about the pedophile who goes unnoticed?

Yes, those are possibilities. Another is that, while driving to the adoptive parents' home, a truck could crash into the biological parents' car, killing them and the child.

[RedOrange823]

	Originally Posted by Samoan Corleone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, those things could happen. Also, while driving to the adoptive parents' home, a truck could crash into the biological parents' car, killing them and the child.

So what then, you're impartial? If a few kids get rejected, it okay? If a few kids are molested, it's just a fact of life?

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well the child is already there, and despite propaganda, there's decent chance that the child would be normal enough (unless the parents had some recessive disaster in their genes). If you think that growing up with the parents will cause difficulty, the child can be given up for adoption, just like giving up a child for adoption due to many other inconveniences. As for killing kids due to potential illnesses, for a product of incest, I think the rules should be the same as for any other child. If there is a huge problem, there is, and if there isn't, there isn't. Basically I don't consider this child unholy due to incest and thus needing to be killed because of it. (Heck if you go by Christian beliefs, we're all born of a very small group of people). The mild reduction in genetic diversity by a few instances is hardly important.

It's not generally aborted because it's "unholy"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
it's aborted because of psychological issues. A 13 year old impregnated by her father doesn't need to add to her already tramatized condition by having to carry his baby full term.

[elizabeth lover]

i, myself, had an abortion, very early in the preg. i never considered keeping it. it did not scar me, in fact i was completely relieved. it was the best decision i could've made for myself, being in school and wanting to have a real chance at a successfull life.

i was also on methadone at the time and that would just be completely immoral to bring a methadone addicted baby into the world.... but i never wanted children anyway.

i disagree with late term abortions, unless the baby isn't viable or will die soon after birth or it will possibly kill the mother.

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by Samoan Corleone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, I find a person ending a life they did nothing to stop from existing to be more pathetic than "reactionary parenting." Part of taking responsibility for their unprotected sex, which is what I'm advocating, would be to care for the child the best they can and know how which, in most cases, means putting the child first. If the parents realise they may be inept and decide to give up the child up for adoption, there can't be harm in that. I mean, it's not exactly children-hating misanthropes who sign up to raise foster children and get the green light from whoever's running the agency, y'know? Of course, there's a chance the child could grow up to be an asshole as well; I'm not disputing that.

The problem is you can't force people to be responsible parents. You can force a woman to not get an abortion but you can't make her a good mother. And then what do you get? More dysfunctional people who just keep the cycle going.

[Samoan Corleone]

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So what then, you're impartial? If a few kids get rejected, it okay? If a few kids are molested, it's just a fact of life?

No, it's not okay; nothing's foolproof, but these adoption agencies do their best, or are at least obligated, to ensure all parties get what's best.

[RedOrange823]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A 13 year old impregnated by her father doesn't need to add to her already tramatized condition by having to carry his baby full term.

I agree with this fully, and I believe that this is what applies to rape victims as well. A woman does not need to be face to face with the event for 9 months of her life (or more if she can't give the child up). The initial trauma is more than enough for one person to handle.

---------- Post added 09-23-2010 at 07:57 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Samoan Corleone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, it's not okay; nothing's foolproof, but these adoption agencies do their best, or are at least obligated, to ensure all parties get what's best.

Fair enough. As long as you do acknowledge that there are a few misanthropes out there. It can't be called "safe" to give your child up as long as there are even a few.

[elizabeth lover]

we would have a lot less fucked up kids in this world if people would accept abortion as a solution.

[Samoan Corleone]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem is you can't force people to be responsible parents. You can force a woman to not get an abortion but you can't make her a good mother. And then what do you get? More dysfunctional people who just keep the cycle going.

I guess so.

	Originally Posted by elizabeth lover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	we would have a lot less fucked up kids in this world if people would accept abortion as a solution.

...or not even having to come to that by using protection.

[elizabeth lover]

	Originally Posted by Samoan Corleone To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I guess so. ...or not even having to come to that by using protection.

thats an idealist point of view.

shit happens, condoms break, lust takes over. these are not reasons to have a child when you know u cant care for it.

[everlost]

Originally Posted by Daybreaksky To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I do not support abortion but believe its ok if and only if the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy. I didn’t believe this way before I took an ethics class. One of the topics was why murder was considered wrong. It ultimately boiled down to the denial of future possibility, achievements, experiences and the like. That removing the possibility to be a person was just as much murder as intentionally removing the possibility to become another year older from an innocent person.

Do you consider not having children murder? Just think of all the people you're denying existance right in this moment.

[elizabeth lover]

they aren't people, they're genetic goo.

an 8 wk old fetus does not think or feel.

[stock]

My opinion on this has all sorts of gray areas....

For me:
I would be very strongly compelled to not have an abortion myself-I have an Fi value about the amazing complexity of life and a child being a gift I have been given to cherish. It would fuck with my head if I aborted my baby-due to MY innate Fi values..which I would never impose on others or use to judge others by.

I would have an abortion if I found out my baby had severe spina bifida or another very serious birth defect that would cause them to lead a life filled with pain and suffering. I would not abort a baby for down's syndrome though or minor birth defects.

For others:
Each of us leads a life full of complexities and circumstances outside of our control. Having done the single mom in school thing, I can testify that it sucks. I would never pass judgment on another women for having an abortion due to an accidental pregnancy as every choice we make in life is based upon our own individual understanding of the circumstances at what is the best choice for us at the time. We know that better than others around us. It is really easy to make blanket statements judging others until you are faced with the situation yourself. Thus each person should be allowed to make that choice themselves.


I do feel abortions should be done by 14 weeks. After that I feel the baby should be anesthetized before the abortion procedure. By 14 weeks or so, if I recall correctly, the baby has a brain and a partial functioning nervous system and can perceive pain. Vets will anesthetize baby puppies when they spay pregnant mother dogs in this manner.

Later term abortions are almost always due to birth defects. To be honest, It would bother me to learn someone decided not to have a baby, not because they didnt want a baby, but because the baby was the wrong sex or had a minor birth defect and chose a late term abortion.

^^All beliefs though.

[Lord Shadowbane]

...There's no mostly agree with a few exceptions...

[rika]

This is a tough call. But ultimately - no to abortion.
Medical reasons excluded.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	it's aborted because of psychological issues. A 13 year old impregnated by her father doesn't need to add to her already traumatized condition by having to carry his baby full term.

That way you are bowing to a hypocritical society. Society needs to change. As sad as a case such as this might be.
To wrongs do not make a right - that is true here, too.

The implication of the no is then that society has a duty to take care of a child that cannot be looked after of by its parents. And this is where the real shortcomings are.
It seems to be easier to fly to the moon than to make sure children are treated properly.

This is an idealistic point of view. But sometimes one has to aim high to get moving in the right direction.

[alphawolf]

There is only one case where I disagree with abortion: When a woman does it against her husband's will.

[void]

Originally Posted by rika To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a tough call. But ultimately - no to abortion. Medical reasons excluded. Then society needs to change. As sad as a case such as this might be. To wrongs do not make a right - that is true here, too. The implication of the no is then that society has a duty to take care of a child that cannot be looked after of by its parents. And this is where the real shortcomings are. It seems to be easier to fly to the moon than to make sure children are treated properly.

All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't give an unwanted child a good life. You can shout "society needs to change" until you're blue in the face, but that will never address reality. How precisely does society as a whole take care of children who result from rape/incest? Adoption agencies? What happens if there aren't enough adoption agencies? Build more? Then there is the issue of the "greater" wrong. I think it's far more reprehensible to force a raped woman to carry her fetus to term, against her will, and endure the associated trauma.

[themuzicman]

"Mom doesn't want it, it might not have a good life" is simply insufficient justification to kill an unborn child for me.

if the presence of an unborn child presents a significant threat to the life or long term health of the mother, then self-defense is sufficient justification.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Mom doesn't want it, it might not have a good life" is simply insufficient justification to kill an unborn child for me. if the presence of an unborn child presents a significant threat to the life or long term health of the mother, then self-defense is sufficient justification.

Easy for you to say you are a man and will never have deal this this kind of trauma.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Easy for you to say you are a man and will never have deal this this kind of trauma.

Doesn't change anything I've said. Mom put her heels in the air for Dad. Child resulted. Life happens.

Those two excuses (mom doesn't want it, it might not have a good life) simply aren't sufficient to justify killing an unborn child who has done thing to deserve it.

[ktgrey]

	Originally Posted by everlost To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you consider not having children murder? Just think of all the people you're denying existance right in this moment.

I have always liked this argument wrt abortion. Sure, by having an abortion you are preventing the creation of a human being but fundamentally you are also doing that if you avoid having sex in the first place, take the morning after pill etc.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those two excuses (mom doesn't want it, it might not have a good life) simply aren't sufficient to justify killing an unborn child who has done thing to deserve it.

Oh, but why is it bad to kill an unborn child? Is it because it is human? But we kill tons of human cells every day, and it is not a problem. Is it because it is a combination of an egg and a sperm? I don't see why that automatically elevates it to a higher status. Is it because it is a sentient being? Well, I'm not sure about exactly when it becomes a sentient being but to abort it before that time would not be a problem in that case.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by ktgrey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh, but why is it bad to kill an unborn child? Is it because it is human? But we kill tons of human cells every day, and it is not a problem. Is it because it is a combination of an egg and a sperm? I don't see why that automatically elevates it to a higher status. Is it because it is a sentient being? Well, I'm not sure about exactly when it becomes a sentient being but to abort it before that time would not be a problem in that case.

The unjustified killing of any mammal is treated as a moral wrong. I can't just run outside, stick a forceps into the back of my dog's head and suck its brains out. I'd be charged with cruelty. I can't take newborn puppies and drown them or spray them with burning acid to kill them. That would be cruel, as well.

I certainly can't take my dog to the vet and tell them to kill it because I don't want it anymore.

Yet, we treat unborn humans in this most inhumane way.

Whatever you consider the unborn child to be, it is an independent living being, and its DNA markers identify it has homosapian, human being. To kill it just because the mother doesn't want it or because it might not have a good life is simply insufficient basis for killing any mammal, much less a human being.