What if its a magical fetus that is still alive but as soon as it gets dropped it dies. Same for the baby
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
Ok, I decided to write a different trial with your comment in mind
You have a supersonic gun that can kill anything within reach. There is a pregnant woman nearby whose fetus is young and healthy. There is also a baby nearby sitting in a chair. You have to kill one (fetus or baby). Which will you choose?
This seems more fair (?)
I honestly still have to go with the baby. I understand how some people may view them as equal but in my mind they aren't. I'm assuming we are talking like tiny little fetus here btw.
The born baby: the mother has gone and spent the whole 9 months and delivered the baby. She has felt and touched and seen and hugged her baby. There is a real physical and emotional connection. You've actually seen the things your created.
The fetus: it is still small and you haven't really had a chance to feel the same things as with the baby. There is still a connection between mother and child but its not the same as how I explained before. It is still an awful loss but in my eyes not the same type of loss as the other. Both are just as sad but they are different
So, I'm watching Tom and Jerry right now. Tom's tail was tied in a knot and when he ran around the corner it magically untied. Then he fell in a magical manhole that never ended. Then he was inflated and developed a leak and flew around like an untied balloon. So if Tom was the magic fetus and Jerry the baby and I had to choose one to kill I would weep uncontrollably for hours as I carefully buried Tom in the yard and prayed that he would re spawn in the next episode. Your hypothetical question will not serve to sway somebody who cherishes human life at any stage. I am tormented when I read stories about Chinese women forced into abortions by the government or by husbands that demand a son. I understand that some children are better off not being with the mother/father that conceived them. If abortion ever ceases to be taboo in our society I fear we could reach a point that pregnancies are terminated by government mandate.
Like pokethebear said: The fetus would already be dead. Or maybe it's a clone, created in a lab?
Let's assume this scenario would work in any reality: It's Sophies choice. I couldn't make it. But I wouldn't flip a coin to decide either. I just would not make the choice. I would try to kill the person holding the two and save them both. Either of them is a life lost when killed so no - I could not make that choice. But flipping a coin dehumanizes both of them
If not just by chance, how do you suppose, if you had to of course, to choose which one? Do you choose by which you think will have a better life or outcome? Do you see which is a 'better person' and save that one? Does the other really deserve to die because they aren't as good as the other? If you honestly had to do something in a scenario like that who and how would you choose? You can't just say you won't choose.
Or dont have sex in the first place. But yes, adoption in most cases. There are some scenarios where I can see women wanting to not have the baby at all. I mean personally, I wouldnt really want to carry around a guy whos raped me's baby to deliver it and give it away.
Erm, last time I checked abortion and adoption are not the same thing. What they do have in common, tho, are a few letters and the fact that the pregnant woman should have the absolute right to decide what she wants to do with HER fetus that is a part of HER body.
The fetus is a combination of her and the males cells, making a different person. That fetus has different dna so in all technicality its in her body not part of her body...
The thing about adoption is that when you give the baby up, somewhere down the line the child will find out that their parents are their real true parents and I don't know about you guys but if I found out my parents adopted me I would feel pretty upset and question "why didn't they want me?" I don't think abortion should occur willy nilly but if i am not capable of providing for the child or it was rape I would rather not put the child or myself through that pain.
to every one who's still arguing: what if giving birth to the child would severely harm both mother and baby? what if the woman was raped? what if giving birth to the child would endanger the childs and mothers life, and force her into a marriage where she's abused? not only white middle class 28 year old women who have the luxury of the west get pregnant. Every circumstance is different. this post shows that when it comes to it, there is a HUGE difference between a foetus and a baby breathing and living outside of the mother.
No, it's okay to abort a fetus, which is not capable of living if not attached specifically to you. Children can be adopted, fetuses cannot. There are plenty of reasons to abort, and you shouldn't be questioned as to why you're getting one.
When the pregnancy test says positive you can get a ultra sound which will give you the heart beat of the child. Now I would also like to hear some reasons to abort
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
Oh my lord. Have we not given them already? I'll just search through some of the old comments because I really cannot be bothered retyping everything...
What if giving birth to the child would severely harm both mother and baby? What if the woman was raped? What if giving birth to the child would endanger the child's and mothers life, and force her into a marriage where she's abused? What if in the country you live in, it's considered unclean to have sex before marriage, but you were raped and now your family will disown you and you'll be shunned from society if you let them know you've had sex (and I'm pretty sure a baby's a foolproof indication of that.)
Oh, and about the baby's heartbeat? Babies' hearts don't beat until about 6 weeks into the pregnancy. So, no, you can't go hear the heartbeat right after finding out you're pregnant from a test.
What if you're not financially capable of taking care of a child, or your child will have a poor life? If you're not medically stable, or there was incest, , or any NUMBER of things? There are plenty of children who have awful homes or no homes at all, we don't need to add to that number. Furthermore, whether it's legal or not, some people will still try it, which is ineffective and can result in harming the children or the mother.
Oh my gosh. The thing about rape not causing pregnancy is a complete lie, and I cannot believe that you're actually trying to use that as a piece of evidence.
The organisations can only do so much, and in some countries there are no organisations that can help you. I'd much rather wait until I can give a baby a good, full life, rather than trying to support them with meagre funding from an organisation that's trying to fund hundreds of others at the same time.
Also, no, you CANNOT hear the baby's heartbeat before it actually, y'know, develops the heart? I don't see how you can hear something that doesn't exist beating.
Also, what was your second point that you already explained? Was that the rape point? Because stating an opinion is not an explanation. At all. Whatsoever. Nope.
1st-did you even read the article? (Right now I can't show more links, my phone is acting weird, will get them tomorrow)
2nd-for some countries, you are supposed to be the organization because they are falling apart
3rd-yes you can..
4th-you choose not to show me your own links, that's a shame.
deleted
· 9 years ago
1st - I did read the article, and I don't see the point you're trying to make using it.
2nd - The whole point of the organisations is to help people that can't support themselves. If people could be their own organisations, there would be no need for the organisations.
3rd - No, you can't Seriously. Just think about it. No heart. How could there be a heartbeat?
4th - I'm not trying to show links, but I'm not trying to pass a simply stated opinion off as fact either.
sorry, what I meant by "for some countries you are supposed to be the organization" was for some countries, other people in other wealthier countries (like you) are supposed to send support to them.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Generally, the countries that can't uphold the support themselves are too corrupt for any money sent in to actually get to the people that need it.
Either way, the money isn't getting to the people that do need it, so they can't support the babies and would rather abort the baby than give birth to it and let the both of them slowly starve to death.
Oh my god, just because a US politician says something doesn't make it true, Sadtruth. There is nothing in the female body that can shut down a pregnancy once there is sperm in her fucking vagina. That was a judgmental point made to attempt to blame women for problems they didn't cause, to continue to blame them for supposed 'false' rapes, and to try to illegalize abortion. He's an idiot, and frankly, so are you if you believe that. Even the person who wrote the article thinks he's an idiot, read the first fucking paragraph, or any of the article at all!
http://www.babycenter.com/404_when-can-i-hear-my-babys-heartbeat_10349811.bc You can't hear it until you're 8 weeks at least. It doesn't even START BEATING until 6 weeks in, because the fetus does not have a heart. 12 weeks is far more common.
Ahhh, the democrat who needs to take there own advise on what is true with politicians. No one blames the women for rape unless they are the rapist, get that into your thick skull.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Then what point were you trying to make with the article?
That pregnancy from rape is low, don't use that excuse
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
Umm....yeah, but it still happens. If a million women get pregnant from rape or a thousand do, there are still women who are pregnant and might not want the baby. If it happens, it's an excuse, and a reasonable one.
Note that it said 12-45 year olds. Some women experience menopause before the age of 45, so that already lowers the risk. Then we have 12 year olds. A lot of 12 year olds haven't got their period yet, that lowers the risk again.
On another, non statistical note, imagine if you were a 12 year old who was raped, and was now carrying a baby. Would you really want to go through a pregnancy that would possibly ruin your education and your body? I don't mean in a cosmetic way, either. A lot of 12 year olds cannot physically have a child without risking serious health complications.
No it's not reasonable, you don't want the baby, a baby, a living thing which could grow up to be something good.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Yeah, but what if the pregnant 12 year old could grow up to be something good too? You're possibly killing the child, for one thing (the 12 year old, not the fetus, who, by the way, DOESN'T HAVE A HEARTBEAT), and essentially treating the human being who's already formed emotional connections and affected those around her in positive ways as nothing more than an incubator for the fetus.
First, the kids coming out anyway, second the 12 year old will probably live through the birth
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
What do you mean the kids coming out anyway? And not necessarily, a big 12 year old could but a smaller one might not physically be able to hold the child in the womb. And even if they could, chances are they'd be relentlessly bullied and called a slut for the rest of their life, and maybe have bodily harm, just because they had the misfortune to be raped.
Do you know how they do abortions? They don't just give you a pill and the baby dissolves, the suck the baby out of you, yes they basically shove a vacuum into the woman and suck the baby out. And yes not everyone, even a 27 year old could survive birth, but the odds are still low.
deleted
· 9 years ago
They usually abort before the kid is actually a kid. So, no, the kid isn't coming out anyway. The odds of death in pregnancy are much higher for a younger child who hasn't finished puberty yet, so it's a whole load riskier for a 12 year old.
I personally disagree with late abortion- I would certainly recommend a pregnant woman to think VERY carefully about aborting an unborn child in it's later development. BUT at the same time, SHE is the one who must care for it. SHE is the one who must always find time to look out for it. SHE is the one who must make sure it grows up in the best environment possible. SHE may not be able to afford that. SHE may be single and not have time to watch a child AND work 24/7 on her own. SHE may be a child herself still. SHE is the one who will either have to put up with people whispering about how bad it is to be a teen/ single mother, or have people screaming at her for 'murdering' the child she didn't feel she could take on. Adoption isn't always an option- there are already hundreds of kids who never find families. I'm lucky to have a family that I know would support me, but if I got pregnant and knew I couldn't care for a baby- I'd certainly consider abortion.
She doesn't always care for it, when it's developing in the womb, yes but the rest of its life, it's also the man.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Let's go back to the rape thing. Do you really think a rapist would be willing to take care of the victim's baby? And even if they were, by some strange twist of circumstance, would the victim be willing to communicate with the rapist? Somehow, I doubt that.
In other situations, where it was consensual, if it were a 12 year old with another 12 year old, chances are neither of them would be able to care for the baby. Or if there were 2 adults living in the same house in an awful financial situation, no matter how hard they worked (depending on where they live), they might not be able to split the time between work and taking care of the child. Single mothers are awfully common when abortions are considered, by the way, so it's not also the man in a LOT of situations.
Also, another thing is rape victims are far more likely to end up with mental disorders, like PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc. Caring for a baby might be extremely difficult in these circumstances.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Then we have adoption. That's a whole new story. I know, at least where I live (Australia) that the adoption process can take up to 5 years. That's 5 years from the time someone actually wants to adopt, not from the time the child is put up for adoption. There are also age limits - 'the maximum age difference allowed between the child and the youngest of the applicants is 45 years.' That could mean that parents wishing to adopt are put through the process for too long and never adopt the child, especially when you factor in the fact that many people who want to adopt are either past the age of being able to give birth or have waited a long time to find out if they can't give birth as a definite.
In the US, 30 in every 1000 children is put up for adoption. That's a huge number, and there definitely aren't enough people that want to adopt. Foster homes are also far more likely to be abusive, by the way.
I personally just feel that it should always be the woman's choice- unless you are standing in her shoes and thinking with her head, you have no idea how she feels or what her situation is from her eyes. there's a difference between killing a living, breathing, feeling infant, and aborting a fetus that up to a certain point, feels no attatchment to you.
2
deleted
· 9 years ago
Exactly - in my opinion, it's not the potential for a life, it's the life that's already there, with connections and attachments and progress.
People who are against abortion are, in general, not pro-life, they're pro-birth. For some reason a great number of people (and I"m not saying all) who are against abortion are also against food stamps, and other government help. I would much rather abort a fetus than abuse a toddler. The fetus cannot feel it, and the living child can. And the fact is, there are unconventional abortion methods that people can try if they're desperate enough, which often don't work, and can endanger the mother. They can result in permanent damage to a child that still gets carried to term, who either suffers all their life or dies later from that damage. There are already so many kids who don't have homes, and who are raised without a mother and father, and I feel that we should really take care of them rather than saying that women can't get abortions. Even after that, I'd be pro-choice.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Wait....why would you be against food stamps if you were pro-life? That seems really illogical to me...
Republicans are the ones who want reduced government "influence" and assistance, and that includes food stamps, medicade, ect. They're also against abortion.
An unborn baby isn't considered a fetus until the 9th week of pregnancy, at which point it is roughly 30mm (1.2in) long from head to toe.
.
If you have one in a petri dish, that's either a very large petri dish, or an embryo.
.
Also to keep on topic, I'm very pro-choice, but I'm also male and have never had anybody close to me experience either side of the argument, so I tend to keep my thoughts on the matter to myself.
.
I'd say drop the fetus.
I like your opinion. I actually have had someone close to me experience it. My aunt (RIP) was physically incapable of having children. So she stood outside abortion clinics and begged women to adopt their babies. Most said no, they didn't want to go through pregnancy. However, three said yes, and my three wonderful and beautiful cousins (Stephanie, Elizabeth, and Lily) have a life and aspirations and Stephanie has a daughter of her own because someone decided against an abortion.
That's why I'm pro-life
5
·
Edited 9 years ago
deleted
· 9 years ago
That's actually really sweet and I get why you're pro-life because of that, but in most situations, the baby's just put up for adoption and is either never adopted or is put into an abusive foster home, or the mother is forced into an abusive marriage that she can't get out of...not everyone who wants an abortion has the opportunity to have the child then give it to someone who wants them and wants to take care of them. Not everyone who wants an abortion lives in a first world country where the baby will so much as survive if they have it.
understandable. there are plenty of foster children in America already. and personally I believe if its rape an abortion is justified. however, if it isn't, with condoms, free birth control, emergency contraception...I just don't see how a woman can say she didn't see it coming unless she's just not thinking. even if she's drunk that still counts as rape, by the way. but if she's sober and consenting, then where was the thinking? I am a woman, by the way. also, something else that confuses me...if someone is pronounced dead when their heart stops, then why aren't they pronounced alive when it starts? and one more tidbit. In some states abortion is legal up to A DAY BEFORE birth. but it's illegal if its a day after. really? to me it's not just immoral, it's just plain confusing. I don't see how this is a "women's rights issue". it's a "I don't want to pay for my mistakes" issue.
Wait wait wait wait... Where the fuck is it legal a day before birth!?! Also you aren't technically pronounced dead if you heart stops. You've just gone into cardiovascular arrest. You're not 'really' dead until you're brain dead. The way they define death is weird and not that simple.
deleted
· 9 years ago
I've never heard of abortion being legal a day before birth...I've only ever heard that it's legal up til the start of the second trimester.
And the other thing is, if you make a law saying 'its legal to have an abortion unless you were raped', then who would prove it was a rape? What if an abusive boyfriend was saying 'have sex with me or else' and so the woman agreed and there were no physical signs of rape? It'd be extremely difficult to implement that law.
What if it was a teenage girl who couldn't think properly because the hormones in her brain were messing up? (Yes, that quite literally happens - you take more irresponsible risks in teenagehood because you can't think right because of hormones.)
What if the woman wanted the baby, then shortly after finding out she was pregnant got into some kind of financial strife that meant she couldn't take care of the baby nor get enough food to keep both herself and the baby alive? She obviously can't choose to just feed the baby -
It's not legal depending on where you are there are only a few abortionists who are willing to do it. It's called the "MOLD" technique where they inject a drug into the fetus called digoxin to literal kill it, or as they say "initiate fetal demise". Although many pro-life groups are slowly closing these clinics down one by one they're are still some that are open in the United States although I'm not positive exactly where off the top of my head...I also heard a story about an abortionist who was jailed for murder because the woman he was going to perform an abortion on gave birth before he could proceed so he performed the operation on the fetus after it was out of her body. Really? so the only difference is whether or not it's in the mother? to me it's all so...well, it just makes me uncomfortable.
▼
deleted
· 9 years ago
- (cont.) and she can't risk feeling really sick and awful, because then it'd be really really difficult to get the work she needs to get the money to keep anyone alive (herself, her kids if she has any)
There are so many reasons why someone would want an abortion aside from rape. The issue is that a lot of people view the fetus as the first priority and the woman's already existing life as the second one. To them, the woman is merely an incubator for the baby - her life doesn't matter. People tell her to have the baby and she'll get help after it's born, then when she can't take care of it because nobody gave her help, and she ends up being shunned and getting into legal issues. That's why it's a women's right issue.
(Sorry for the long paragraph)
Its not legal to abort after the second trimester in almost every first world country as far as I know. Yes, there may be really sketchy illegal clinics in the backs of buildings but they are not the same thing that most people are talking about. They are the minority and you want to stop all women from having something because some people did something similar but completely different to what they want to do. Also, I HIGHLY doubt any actual doctor was going to kill a baby after it was born
This is legal under federal law that was expanded from allowing third trimester abortion to save woman's life to allowing third trimester abortion to preserve the mothers health. NY is looking to put this on the books to include mental health. This would allow 39th week abortions in order to preserve a woman's physical and mental health. The SCOTUS definition of health is pretty broad. The potential problems here are terrifying.-----------Additionally, previous debaters have pointed out in other threads that the crime rate in predominantly black communities is disproportionally higher than in other areas, (the police are to blame for this.). A sad statistic regarding abortion is that the vast majority in this country are performed on black women. This information should be enough to make people stop and think about the choices they are making in life and about the consequences of these choices.
Also if an absorption is botched and the fetus is removed alive it is often left to die of exposure or malnourishment and can take twelve hours. Illinois I think is the one that legalized this. I'll try to look it up.
There is no 100% effective birth control method. Even total abstinence fails in situations involving rapemand abusive relationships. Over half (55%) of abortions in America where from women who actively tried to prevent the pregnancy and the other half was women who where raped, didn't think they had high chances if getting pregnant or where misinformed. Do you think that the fact that a majority of abortions are by black women has anything to do with this? Hmmm? It says something about your society and they way people are informed and or misinformed about these things. Don't try and blame those poor people who either made mistakes or where actually trying to do something.
All your stats and stories are about the USA only....do you not think anyone who wants an abortion lives in another country? I don't see how a law in one country in the world should dictate the rest of the world in the way that they treat abortions.
I never said it should. I really don't give a shit what anybody else does. While I do understand that my opinion doesn't matter much in these debates (because I have an outy rather than an inny) I personally think that after first trimester all bets should be off unless here is a life threatening situation, and all abortions should be accompanied by counseling sessions (before and after). I am not a globalist, my situation is different than somebody's in Europe, Africa, South America or Australia. (or even Iowa or Florida for that matter) I do not want to dictate what they do and I get pretty pissed off when they try to tell me what I can or cannot do.
The thing about adoption is, it cost a lot of money. Most people can't afford it so then what happens to the child who never gets adopted? I'm not saying all but a lot end up in abusive foster homes
And once the child finds out that they're adopted (if the adoption occurs directly after birth) they might feel upset or unworthy and wonder why they weren't wanted because they don't know the whole story, especially if the mother was incapable of caring for the child properly.
What if I told you that was a stupid situation to begin with? Why not have the question be "I have a gun, and there are two people: one to the left of me, and one to the right of me. I'm going to shoot one, but you get to choose." The answer is that I would do everything in my power to keep you from shooting either of them, not tell you which one I want you to kill less. This is a classic example of the False Dilemma fallacy. I don't care if you argue about problems, in fact, I want people to debate serious issues, but for fucks sake, don't pull this bullshit.
If abortion had been legal when I was conceived, I would not be born. I'm pro-choice. I know I was not wanted. Has it messed up my life knowing I was not wanted. You bet. That's why I'm pro choice.
people bringing out the 'fetus is already dead' argument- you know very fucking well what the idea is now stop trying to be a smart ass to cover it up and just say out straight what you think.
If you could see what lives lead ahead for both the fetus and the baby, would that change your answer? If the fetus was going to cure cancer and solve world peace and the baby was going to sit around the house as a drunk would you still let the fetus drop? You know why you would choose the baby. Because you can look at the baby and see the baby and evolutionarily, every part of your body would be saying to save the baby. You think of a fetus and you think of a little sac of lifeless cells. But if you could see the possibilities of each of their lives then your choice would not be as easy as you envision it to be. This is a stupid ass scenario. You're still asking them to put a price on a life and it's impossible to do that. Think about this. Sometimes there isn't a right answer. Sometimes there's just choices you have to make, and none of them are right. This world isn't black and white and nothing is as easy as you think it is.
Your scenario is a stupid ass one too because (news flash) you can't look into the future. You'll never know what 'leads ahead' and it is in fact, impossible. So come back with a more convincing argument please.
but you never know. and are you trying to put a price on human life? or are you trying to say that a scientist or doctor has more of a right to live than an average Joe?
I don't care if y'all down vote me for this but just because a fetus has not come into this world yet does not make it any less human than anyone else. It is perfectly alive and will become a baby and grow to be a beautiful human being but if you just decide to throw that all away and become a murderer because you couldn't handle it or you made a mistake don't let the baby suffer and just because you call it a fetus and say its not alive doesn't mean you didn't murder someone who could have lived to do great things
The guest is saying that, he says a fetus is a baby, so an accidental fertilization is doomed to become a baby. When people masturbate they waste the sperm (in his or her opinion). You seem to think that I do not know how a baby is born?? You are a genius indeed. When it isn't alive, it isn't alive. And as I said it is not that simple. The fetus have to grow inside a woman, so the woman has a say whether to keep it or not. It is not the case that you can keep all the fetuses. They need a space inside a woman, so the woman can decide if she wants to allocate that time and potential resources to the fetus or not. In a nutshell, before the baby is alive and kicking inside the mother, all stages of its development are all the same, the importance of a sperm and an egg is equal to the importance of a fetus. Granted, the fetus is in a later stage of development but it does not warrant a baby or even a healthy baby. So many things can go wrong.
I'm pro-choice because there are certain cases where I feel like abortion should be allowed (not encouraged, but allowed). When we were fifteen, my best friend was raped by her boyfriend (she was religious and wanted to wait until marriage). In the end she gave Charlie up for adoption, but that's something that changes a person. I don't feel like anyone had any right to tell her she /couldn't/ abort or that she /had/ to abort. There are also cases where the mother could be severely injured, or there was incest, or the girl is in an abusive relationship and if the guy finds out she's pregnant, adoption won't be an option, or the girl doesn't have the money to go through the doctors visits, the vitamin supplements, and birth, all of which are extremely expensive (at least in the USA). Their health care might not cover it. And in any of these cases, I think that if the mother should choose to abort she shouldn't be harassed, and furthermore, I don't think it's anyone's business but hers
and maybe her doctor's, what the reason is, so I am pro-choice, because I don't think you can limit all of the times it could be understandable, and I don't feel that it's anyone's right to tell her she's not allowed to do that. However, I do believe that it's a hard thing to do and I know that many women come to regret it, so I also believe that women should be told all their options in a /non-subjective/ manner.
I agree that it's perfectly acceptable in many respects (like if a woman is raped) and that many women don't necessarily want to do it, however, I also feel like a lot of women think of it as a get out of jail free card. there was a women I went to college with who was searching for a free abortion clinic because "I'm saving for the new iphone". seriously lady?
But the thing is... would you want that woman being a mother? In my opinion, at least, it's 100% better to abort than to end up neglecting or abusing a child.
I wouldn't want her too but...it also means she knew she could sleep around without protection. maybe if abortion wasn't allowed people would care more about protection. that's why I think rape is one of the few exceptions (not the only one, though). like that lady had a "I don't need to use condoms I'll get a abortion" attitude. also my aunt couldn't have children, so she constantly hates that women give up what they think is a "burden" while she would give anything for a child of her own.
Or maybe something happened. Protection doesn't work 100% of the time. There are plenty of children who have no parents or crap parents already, and no, it's not right to have that attitude, but if those women think that a child is nothing but a burden, they shouldn't be mothers, whether they use protection or not. It sucks for your aunt, but she's a grown woman, and the children they're choosing not to have would not be. Them keeping their babies and ignoring them or treating them like crap will not make your aunt able to have kids of her own.
my aunt has two daughters. she stood outside of an abortion clinic and begged women to take their babies if they didn't want them. the first was a teenage mother. her daughter (my aunt's adopted daughter) knows both her mothers and thanks God every day her mom chose the high road. the other woman was fully pro-choice was mad at my aunt at first but after some talking she decided she couldn't fully hate a pro-life woman until she worked with one, so she had a closed adoption. but my aunt still has trouble living with women who treat children like burdens to be thrown away. however she also fully supports anti-rape movements and understands only abstinence is 100% effective so she doesn't hate all women who have abortions she just thinks they shouldn't be so easy to get.
But not all kids who aren't aborted get that. My best friend's mother was pregnant with twins, she already had three kids, and since the father of the twins had abandoned her, she wanted an abortion. However, she was too poor and I don't know, maybe things were stricter back then, to get an official abortion. So she did an illegal one herself. It only killed one of the twins, and the other grew up to be my best friend. However, all her life, her mother treated her like dirt. She was abused and neglected, but she wanted her mother to like her so badly that she didn't tell anyone. No one found out. Her mother got a new boyfriend when she was 10 years old, and this man sexually assaulted her. She didn't like the guy, so she went to the cops. Her mother told them she was lying, and there was no proof otherwise, so it continued for two years. Not every baby who doesn't get aborted gets a happy family that loves them, and there are already plenty of children without permanent families to
adopt. That's why I'm pro-choice, and I don't think it should be any harder to get an abortion. Yes, there are some cases where women are not good people, but they shouldn't be able to bring children into this world, especially children they don't want, any more than a rape victim should have to prove she was raped in order to get one, because there are so many women who just can't take the pressure that cops put on them after such a traumatic experience, who cave and claim they were lying. I don't think abortion should be encouraged, but I don't think /anyone/ no matter the reason should be told they /can't/ have an abortion.
that's a really good story. well at least we actually have decent reasons for our opinions. I feel like the majority of the arguments are religionVS.feminazis.
This post does not accurately represent the issue. The child is obviously of greater worth than the fetus. But it is not right to kill the fetus because it has the potential to become a child. At this stage it is of lesser value, but not worthless.
no I said if I had to make a choice I would choose the baby but if I had no choice if I was just pregnant...I would keep the baby. but if I had to choose I would always choose the baby. sort of like Sophie's Choice. she chose the older child even though it killed her because they were both her children.
▼Reply
deleted
· 9 years ago
· FIRST
Would you be saying this if your mom told you you were going to have a brother and soon after she decided she was going to abort the baby?
its not Like that though, the women that decide that they want to abort don't just make some quick decision like "meh I don't feel like it anymore" that's not what happens it's the people that aren't ready or that wouldn't be able to provide and the baby would lead a shit life because the mom was to young or she was in a abusive relationship. It takes time to decide and you wouldn't tell your kids if you weren't 100% sure about it.
Damn that sucks. That really sucks. But it is still the same point in a way. I know its a difficult subject but it is different hearing that than to hearing that the actual born baby that you've made a physical connection with die
It is her body and it is her baby. It is none of my business. Maybe she suddenly realizes that she does not want to go through nine months of pregnancy so you think I should deny her right because I want a little brother or sister or because I was looking forward to having a brother or sister?
Okay. Women that are pregnant usually get help with medical bills. They also get WIC. So, instead of abortion, why not put the child up for adoption so the baby DOES have a chance at life, AND it allows a family to have a child that they may not be able to have biologically? That seems to make more sense to me over all of the abortion controversy.
Think about it though. If you where raped would you want to cary around your rapists child? Be reminded of it every day. And then, to top it all off have your body practically ruined by the baby you never wanted and was forced upon you? What if the baby is going to harm the mother in some way? Yes, in most cases adoption is a good way to go but after carrying the baby for 9 months most mothers become attach and cant give up their babies. If they are in conditions where they arent fit to bring up a kid but cant bring themselves to give it up, what do you do then? There are so many kids already up for adoption and not enough people adopting right now anyway (not at all inplying that they should die to fix that problem but it is just adding to it)
Here is a story. A baby was born addicted to heroin due to their mother being a drug addict and a prostitute, and not knowing who their father was. Should the mother have aborted the child, even though there was a huge possibility of the birth going wrong?
Nobody was brave enough to answer. That baby was born nearly 30 years ago, and recently became an assistant GM at a movie theatre in Orlando. That baby was me. My mother didn't have the money nor the means to raise me, and she did the right thing. She put me up for adoption. This is why I am a strong advocate for adoption. Yes, sometimes abortions are the right thing to do. However, if possible, keep the baby and put it up for adoption.
adoption doesn't solve everything. There are already thousands of kids all over the globe on the waiting list, many of whom will never actually be adopted, and the number outweighs the amount of decent parents who want to adopt. I'm not saying adoption is bad, but it's not an option for everybody. That and, some people solely fear giving birth- I would love kids, but the idea of actually going through the birth terrifies me.
I am noticing people downvoting just because of adoption. Yet, pro-abortions are getting tons of vote-ups. This is strange, and explainns a great deal.
You have a supersonic gun that can kill anything within reach. There is a pregnant woman nearby whose fetus is young and healthy. There is also a baby nearby sitting in a chair. You have to kill one (fetus or baby). Which will you choose?
This seems more fair (?)
The born baby: the mother has gone and spent the whole 9 months and delivered the baby. She has felt and touched and seen and hugged her baby. There is a real physical and emotional connection. You've actually seen the things your created.
The fetus: it is still small and you haven't really had a chance to feel the same things as with the baby. There is still a connection between mother and child but its not the same as how I explained before. It is still an awful loss but in my eyes not the same type of loss as the other. Both are just as sad but they are different
Let's assume this scenario would work in any reality: It's Sophies choice. I couldn't make it. But I wouldn't flip a coin to decide either. I just would not make the choice. I would try to kill the person holding the two and save them both. Either of them is a life lost when killed so no - I could not make that choice. But flipping a coin dehumanizes both of them
What if giving birth to the child would severely harm both mother and baby? What if the woman was raped? What if giving birth to the child would endanger the child's and mothers life, and force her into a marriage where she's abused? What if in the country you live in, it's considered unclean to have sex before marriage, but you were raped and now your family will disown you and you'll be shunned from society if you let them know you've had sex (and I'm pretty sure a baby's a foolproof indication of that.)
Oh, and about the baby's heartbeat? Babies' hearts don't beat until about 6 weeks into the pregnancy. So, no, you can't go hear the heartbeat right after finding out you're pregnant from a test.
2nd-I already explained that
3rd-yes actually you can
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/19/news/la-pn-rep-todd-akin-no-pregnancy-from-legitimate-rape-20120819
Second, there are tons of organization
organizations that will help you.
The organisations can only do so much, and in some countries there are no organisations that can help you. I'd much rather wait until I can give a baby a good, full life, rather than trying to support them with meagre funding from an organisation that's trying to fund hundreds of others at the same time.
Also, no, you CANNOT hear the baby's heartbeat before it actually, y'know, develops the heart? I don't see how you can hear something that doesn't exist beating.
Also, what was your second point that you already explained? Was that the rape point? Because stating an opinion is not an explanation. At all. Whatsoever. Nope.
2nd-for some countries, you are supposed to be the organization because they are falling apart
3rd-yes you can..
4th-you choose not to show me your own links, that's a shame.
2nd - The whole point of the organisations is to help people that can't support themselves. If people could be their own organisations, there would be no need for the organisations.
3rd - No, you can't Seriously. Just think about it. No heart. How could there be a heartbeat?
4th - I'm not trying to show links, but I'm not trying to pass a simply stated opinion off as fact either.
Either way, the money isn't getting to the people that do need it, so they can't support the babies and would rather abort the baby than give birth to it and let the both of them slowly starve to death.
http://www.babycenter.com/404_when-can-i-hear-my-babys-heartbeat_10349811.bc You can't hear it until you're 8 weeks at least. It doesn't even START BEATING until 6 weeks in, because the fetus does not have a heart. 12 weeks is far more common.
Note that it said 12-45 year olds. Some women experience menopause before the age of 45, so that already lowers the risk. Then we have 12 year olds. A lot of 12 year olds haven't got their period yet, that lowers the risk again.
On another, non statistical note, imagine if you were a 12 year old who was raped, and was now carrying a baby. Would you really want to go through a pregnancy that would possibly ruin your education and your body? I don't mean in a cosmetic way, either. A lot of 12 year olds cannot physically have a child without risking serious health complications.
In other situations, where it was consensual, if it were a 12 year old with another 12 year old, chances are neither of them would be able to care for the baby. Or if there were 2 adults living in the same house in an awful financial situation, no matter how hard they worked (depending on where they live), they might not be able to split the time between work and taking care of the child. Single mothers are awfully common when abortions are considered, by the way, so it's not also the man in a LOT of situations.
Also, another thing is rape victims are far more likely to end up with mental disorders, like PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc. Caring for a baby might be extremely difficult in these circumstances.
In the US, 30 in every 1000 children is put up for adoption. That's a huge number, and there definitely aren't enough people that want to adopt. Foster homes are also far more likely to be abusive, by the way.
It's like suicide isn't illegal, but murder is.
.
If you have one in a petri dish, that's either a very large petri dish, or an embryo.
.
Also to keep on topic, I'm very pro-choice, but I'm also male and have never had anybody close to me experience either side of the argument, so I tend to keep my thoughts on the matter to myself.
.
I'd say drop the fetus.
That's why I'm pro-life
And the other thing is, if you make a law saying 'its legal to have an abortion unless you were raped', then who would prove it was a rape? What if an abusive boyfriend was saying 'have sex with me or else' and so the woman agreed and there were no physical signs of rape? It'd be extremely difficult to implement that law.
What if it was a teenage girl who couldn't think properly because the hormones in her brain were messing up? (Yes, that quite literally happens - you take more irresponsible risks in teenagehood because you can't think right because of hormones.)
What if the woman wanted the baby, then shortly after finding out she was pregnant got into some kind of financial strife that meant she couldn't take care of the baby nor get enough food to keep both herself and the baby alive? She obviously can't choose to just feed the baby -
There are so many reasons why someone would want an abortion aside from rape. The issue is that a lot of people view the fetus as the first priority and the woman's already existing life as the second one. To them, the woman is merely an incubator for the baby - her life doesn't matter. People tell her to have the baby and she'll get help after it's born, then when she can't take care of it because nobody gave her help, and she ends up being shunned and getting into legal issues. That's why it's a women's right issue.
(Sorry for the long paragraph)
ewwww children