Abortion

SJ_the_Bartender

SJ_the_Bartender

Perma-Newbie
Forgive me for committing thread necromancy here, but I wanted to get some things off my chest. I thought I would share with you fine folks.

I'm pro choice. But part of my pro choice philosophy involves choice. So if you choose to keep your baby, go for it. But let me relay a little bit of a tale.

My mother got empty-nest syndrome when me and my sister moved out. To cope with this, she thought it would be a great idea to adopt two more children. She made arrangements to adopt 2 brothers. One who was already born, and one who was still in the womb. She would take custody when it came out because the mother was pro-life and didn't want an abortion. This was despite the fact that the older brother had shown signs of some sort of mental imbalance, and there was a good chance that the younger might have it too.

Well, its been a few years since then. She's had both boys with her since the younger was born. Since then, she's lost her husband, she's lost half of her weight to stress related health issues, broken ties with my sister, and her relationship with me... well, it wasn't good to begin with and it hasn't improved any.

I believe that most of these major problems in her life have been related to these kids, in particular the older one. He was overmedicated to begin with, and beyond any real chance at having a normal life by the time my mom got him. Not that I am the biggest proponent of my mother's child-rearing abilities in the first place, but there is no way she could possibly handle a child with special needs.

Well, to make a long story short, the older child had a couple good years, supposedly, and then turned downhill rather rapidly. This has finally culminated in him hitting teachers, other students in school, forcing himself to develop a studder to draw attention, and most disturbing to me, he now likes to shit himself and has even shit on the floor, and blamed my mother for it to try and get her in trouble.

He's now in a mental institution, and will probably be there for the rest of his life.

The younger child seems to be doing ok so far, but he's still very young.

My whole point to this is that some people should really consider abortion to be a viable alternative.
 
The biggest counter point to this I can come up with and please note I am playing devils advocate, is quite simply that often times with mental disabilities you never know how far or how short they are when the child is being carried to term, and you certainly are not aware with in the first trimester . Thusly Abortion becomes a harder choice the longer the woman carries the child as well as once the child is born it is considered murder or infantacide.

Now then to claim a child a right off at an early age before the symptoms have fully matured seems to begrudge the child any possability to over come what ever ailments they have. Such as Beethoven, or Even Einstien due to his not speaking.
 
While you do point out a decent argument, Mith, I'm going to go about this a different way. I notice that the vast majority (and no that doesn't mean all, it means the majority) of parents with children that have mental conditions or physical deformities or any other type of birth defect would not give their children away for anything. Future potential and cognitive abilities aside, the potential for a child to have some sort of problem means nothing. That doesn't mean the parent is going to love them any less.

The primary argument for abortion stems from the debate on whether or not the child is alive after conception. Now, the way life was once defined was if it had cells that were still reproducing. There was some percentage ratio that I'm not certain of, but that isn't the point considering 100% of cells in a child inside the womb are reproducing at various speeds. Then there's the legal way of looking at it which, as always, contradicts itself. As far as birth is concerned, the child is not alive until it takes its first breath of air. However, if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with 2 counts of murder.

Personally, I believe that the child is alive before it's born. A child in the womb has a hearbeat, which takes your breath away every time you hear it. They move to put themselves in a more comfortable position, are calmed by the movement of the mother (and subsequently more active when the mother stops moving...like at bed time? heh heh...yeah) They respond to familiar sounds, such as a parent's or sibling's voice, which is equally breathtaking. They can tell when someone's hand (or the ultrasound sensor) is on the mother's stomach, and often respond, depending on the baby, by either trying to remove the obstruction aggressively, or shying away, evidence of various personalities. Twins have even been observed taking part in what appears to be games with each other only a few months into gestation, when they generally realize they aren't the ones there. You cannot convince me that these aren't signs of life.

I do not agree with abortion for any reason. Many people agree with me but put in an exception for a woman who was raped. I am not, under any circumstances, trying to make light of rape. It is a devastating occurence with lifelong effects and I can understand the desire to not want any permanant reminders of such a horrific event. However, that is not the child's fault. There are countless adoption programs available for a mother who doesn't want to or isn't capable of raising a child. No organization a woman is involved in can legally force her out because of a pregnancy, and the process of abortion is almost always more harmful on a woman's body than birth itself, often resulting in future tubul, molar and ectopic pregnancies or other miscarriages and complications when a child is wanted.
 
I've seen people who are in their teens and 20's, and still thought 'Its not too late for an abortion'.

I think everyone who's pro-life makes the exception for the woman who's own life is in danger if she carries to term, no?

A lot of pro-lifers make the exception for rape victims, and those who don't point to the adoption programs. Personally, I think the adoption programs are crap. I've seen the kids that come out of those programs, and its rare that they are going to have a normal life. Angelina Jolie can't adopt them all. 'Parents' who adopt end up being scumbbags, and raise their kids to be the same way, or just adopt the kids for the money. The program has some serious flaws. Sure, it probably helps a good number of kids. But I am not convinced that it does more good than harm.
 
As far as I know, you don't get money for adopting kids (just tax write offs). You do get money for being a Foster parent, but that is way different then adopting a kid. Adopting a kid is permanent, Foster care is kid storage.
 
No, I do not make an exception for a mother whos life is also in danger. I share the view of my soon to be ex-wife and ex-sister-in-law. They both had extremely difficult pregnancies and were advised on more than one occasion to have an abortion or the possibility would be that their own lives could be lost. Each of them responded by saying that if they died giving birth, then so be it. They had full enough lives, the children deserved every chance they had to be born and live their own lives. In the case of my wife, it ended in a tubul pregnancy. In the case of my sister-in-law, her child was born beautiful and healthy. Each went on to have children afterward.

Your view on adoption is flawed. The percentage of troubled children and irresponsible parents is the same with adopted children as it is with children raised by their own parents. Adoption awards no money. As a matter of fact, the adoptive parents have to pay an extensive amount.
 
Leave it to a bunch of men to argue about this subject.

Here’s my opinion-
It's no one's choice but the woman who becomes pregnant, no one else’s opinion should matter when it comes to her choice whether to have, keep, adopt out or abort. It is, plain and simple, her body, not yours.

When you become female or pregnant, then you can argue my opinion with me. <Period>

Side Note- My 9 year old son, as most of you know, is autistic.
I wouldn't trade him for anything!
 
Ceros said:
As far as I know, you don't get money for adopting kids (just tax right offs). You do get money for being a Foster parent, but that is way different then adopting a kid. Adopting a kid is permanent, Foster care is kid storage.
Click to expand...

Yea, I got that confused. My bad. Thanks for the correction.
 
Rhysis said:
Your view on adoption is flawed. The percentage of troubled children and irresponsible parents is the same with adopted children as it is with children raised by their own parents.
Click to expand...

Actually, thats kind of the point I'm making. People who are against abortion tend to point to the adoption program as some sort of solution. But in reality, if you aren't going to keep the kid yourself, there is just as much chance that the kid will end up in every bit crappy of a situation as you would've put him/her/it in.

I don't know the exact percentages, but I think its a safe bet that most children who go to adoption are unplanned pregnancies, and so are abortions.

In my humble opinion, abortion is the better choice. I tend to be a darwinian in the extreme. I feel that because so many of these kids are unplanned, it speaks poorly for the decision-making capabilities of the birth parents. Allowing people with such poor capacities to reproduce and 'contaminate' the gene pool further with their stupid genes is worse than kicking them out of the pool.
 
Allow me to throw a little fuel on the fire here:

1. Murder ("Murder" being defined as ending another human's life without extenuating circumstances, such as in Self-defense) is wrong
2. It is the responsibility of a civilized society to ensure murder is not committed.
3. Human Life begins at an arbitrarily defined point after conception, but prior to "birth."

Therefore:

Any attempt, or success, at ending another human's life after it has begun is murder, and must not be allowed by society.

-------

The essential arguement for the pro-life movement is that human life begins at conception, meaning any abortion is, in fact, murder. It is the ethical responsibility of any individual, whether or not they're a woman, pregnant, or any other qualifier, to do everything they can to prevent any more abortions from taking place.

It is, in fact, no different from the ethical responsibility of anyone to prevent the murder of any other human being who just so happens to be outside the womb. Your "choice" as a woman to have control over your "own body" is just as monstrous as your "choice" to suffocate an undesired infant, or to blow an undesired teenager's head off with a shotgun.

The position that an abortion in the event of a pregnancy threatening the life a mother is justified under the "self-defense" exception is logically justifiable, but nothing else.
 
User Incognito said:
1. Murder ("Murder" being defined as ending another human's life without extenuating circumstances, such as in Self-defense) is wrong
2. It is the responsibility of a civilized society to ensure murder is not committed.
3. Human Life begins at an arbitrarily defined point after conception, but prior to "birth."
Click to expand...

I challenge all three of your base presumptions. Murder is not wrong. Its not societies responsibility to prevent murder, and human life may not start until birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom