Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 05:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. You don't get to tell me what I think.
I don't have that right?
Just trying to understand your position, putting it into my own words to ensure I am understanding. If I am still wrong then please correct me.
(09-10-2013 05:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Rights are defined by PEOPLE, who VOTE to define what "legal" rights are granted to people.
I agree with legal laws being defined by government, hopefully as a representative of the wants of society. But I don't agree with the "unqualified" rights. Leaving out the "Legal" qualify leads to much misinterpretaion.
(09-10-2013 05:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Some rights (the other category of rights), are inalienable ...
You sound American, "inalienable" that's in your constitution isn't it?
It doesn't hold water in my country and it doesn't hold water with me.
(09-10-2013 05:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...and are innate to the fact that one is a human person.
Unless there is an objective way to gain irrefutable knowledge of these said innate rights, I personally am going to consider this just your own personal opinion albeit with a grandious attempt to make your opinion apply to me. I have my own opinion and it differs from yours. How do we objectively resolve this? Who is correct, your opinion or my opinion?
(09-10-2013 05:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I never said I never disagree with the government, or the VOTED choices the people make. You make up shit, and make spurious definitions, and accusations.
I never said that you never disagree with government. I said if you think the government is the definer of rights then you are incapable of disagreeing with them on the grounds of rights. Does that make logical sense to you?
But now you have come up with a new term "inalienable rights", be interested to know who it is that defines those and which take priority legal rights or inalienable rights?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 05:18 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 04:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  If they were in a continuing relationship, his views matter.

They were not, so hers trump his.

My other point was that people put way too much on an early foetus - it is not a human being.

Nothing was put on the fetus. It was all about the potential child. And at that stage it's arguably more than just potential.

But it is still only potential. And it is most certainly not a baby.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 07:02 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(09-10-2013 06:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 05:18 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Nothing was put on the fetus. It was all about the potential child. And at that stage it's arguably more than just potential.

But it is still only potential. And it is most certainly not a baby.

You're not wrong Chas.




But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 12:11 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
God fucking damn it, 12 pages people, really?
I will respond don't worry, I got a couple more cents to share on this yet.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 03:34 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Quote:The children that regularly go missing from foster homes, for example, which you didn't address.

I didn't address it because I think how it relates to this topic is minimal.
Runaways from foster homes is a very low percentage (less than 1%).
The thing you have to remember is that foster home data includes kids that were taken from unfit parents. So there's no clear cut data between those children and child given up for adoption at birth.
Also, runaways have reasons to run away. And I don't know those reasons and so I don't know the exact data on children given up for adoption at birth later becoming runaways.

And besides, you'll are preaching little Hitlers, I was trying to suggest they could also be little Einsteins.

Quote:However, you seem to have ignored the majority of my post, and similar points others have made.

Actually sorry about that, I did mean to go back to specifically reply to your post first big post.

Quote:There are many circumstances (like mine) where even when the mother's life isn't in immediate danger, a pregnancy would put the woman's life, including her career and the rest of the family she already has, in jeopardy. No, modern technology hasn't made these situations nonexistent. Allow you to answer your own points here:

And if you continue reading you'll find that health reasons (and incest and rape all combined) total 2% of all abortions.

9 out of 100,000 births in the US (3 in a Singapore) result in death for various reasons. a) I don't know these reasons. b) I think 9 in 100,000 is an acceptable risk. We do far more riskier things in daily lives.

Quote:So, as a gay man, would you say that a gay man who has contracted HIV has no right to seek medical treatment for his condition because it was an inherent risk?

HIV is a health risk (to under-sell there) and as I've already said, I agree with abortion in the case of health related situations.

Quote:I agree with your points. I don't belong to the "it's a woman's body" camp of pro-choicers. It is a potential life, and any decisions regarding that potential life should be weighed heavily. Several people have raised the issue of overpopulation (including me) which you haven't addressed. I honestly believe that this devaluation of human life you're talking about is very closely related to overpopulation, which will only be made worse by discouraging or outlawing abortions.

I haven't addressed overpopulation because it's stupid. Sorry but it's the most ridiculous argument against abortion I've ever herd.

Abortion in Japan is illegal (except in the case of rape and health), yet they have the lowest birth rate in the world.

What determines a populations birthrate/children per family has all to do with a) standard of living b) wealth (which comes under standard of living) and c) culture.

The one exception is purhaps China, where abortion is being used for the purpose of population control.

What I'm saying is, if you want to keep population growth down, than you need to improve people's standard of living. History and statistics show this.
Abortion has next to no say in population control unless you actively use it such as the way China does. And quite frankly, Chinese reputation of human rights sucks giant donkey dick.

If you're going to argue against abortion, than don't cry population control, it's a fucking retard excuse.

Quote:My #1 gripe with the typical pro-life crowd is that many of these people are also opposed to the use of birth control, which makes 0 fucking sense to me.

You and me both sister.
Like I said, I'm not against sex. Slight side note with this no contraception thing.
It's not good in the sense that you're spreading STD's a lot quicker. AIDS in Africa for example. And I don't believe in abstinence because I don't believe that sex is somehow sacred and I don't think people should get married but that's for a different discussion.

Quote:It's not a black and white issue, and doesn't deserve a black and white answer. There's a million situations that may lead a woman to make this decision. And you will never be able to personally understand a single one of them. No one can. Which to me, means that no one can judge or condemn for the choices of others.

I agree. It is a difficult thing. And in the cases of say every precaution was taken blah blah, everything was done right etc.. but the contraception failed. Yea, I could agree to abortion for that. But the problem with that is my opinion is in regards to the masses, or probably more specifically in regard to law. What I mean is, I hold this opinion in regards to if I was making a law for a country.

Because I agree with you, it is not black and white, every case is different. BUT in regards to the masses, in regards to if you were to write a law you HAVE TO draw the line and what I'm saying is, this is where I draw the line for the masses.
I feel the statistics back me and every argument you guys have presented me (mind you I'm saying this after only read the first 8 pages, I still got 4 pages to read yet) is purely in regard to small percentages and isolated cases where yes, purhaps, the law wouldn't work. But that is the nature of law and rules and opinions for the masses in general, you can't account for those outliers too well. That's why we have courts (well.. one of the reasons).


This forum's members like to pride themselves in thinking rationally. Well, IMO, thinking rationally about this, very hard and for some time, is what has made me changed my mind.
You all know me, I've been around long enough. You all know how I don't change my mind on pretty much anything.. I was a right wing libertarian the day I signed up, I'm still one today. I'm pro-business (in politics), I'm still very much today. I'm for euthanasia still, I'm still against guns, I'm still against I&I being around here, I still hate Mr Woof and I still think someone should burn that creation museum to the ground.
What I'm saying is, I'm pretty stuck in my ways, come 50 years from now I'm gonna be frowned upon for having such out of date thoughts probably. So shouldn't that ring a bell in people's heads as to why I would change my mind on something so critical and something people NEVER change their minds about?
I just get the impression noone is even trying to understand my point of view. (this must be what the worlds first atheist thought... (not comparing my view to atheism v theism, just saying)).

Quote:Hey Earmuffs, next time your sisters flat-mate eats sushi and as a natural consequence receives a tape worm, maybe she should keep it to full term- after all, she did eat the succulent sushi. And what's the real harm? I ate sushi last week and didn't get a tape worm unfortunately... but maybe my family and I want one, and she could have one for us and give it to us when it's matured since I tried but didn't host one. Also, don't take cold meds- those bugs got there through natural acts, like breathing!

You're suggesting tape worms have the same value as humans?
And before you answer and assume I have certain opinions I'll tell you my opinions so you know. Yes I value human's over tape worms. No I do not value humans all equally. I do not necessarily value humans more than animals. It would depend on the animal and the human. ie: I value the life of an elephant more than then the life of Ray Comfort (I probably actually value the tape worms life over that of ray Comforts..). I value the life of the Queen above the life of a tiger (maybe even 2 tigers, but come 3 tigers you're probably shit out luck Lizzy).
This also extends to objects. ie: I value the life of Ray Comfort less than that of my motorbike. Given the option to throw something into a pit of lava, I would throw Ray Comfort in long before my motorbike.

(09-10-2013 01:41 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 06:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  "Unsafe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is legal, and safe abortions sometimes occur where abortion is illegal.[20] Legalization is not always followed by elimination of unsafe abortion."

Holly crap your moral compass is out of wack,
please just read the first 5 words of this link

"Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic"
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/pu...ncet_4.pdf

They might not have popular support as say the discovery institute, but im pretty sure the WHO has reasonably reliable data.

Abortion should be legal for this reason alone, i welcome better psych evaluations for patients and maybe a set cooling off period.


Did you actually look at the data?
2 unsafe abortions for every 1,000 births. 97% are done in developing countries. My opinion is in regards to developed countries.
68,000 women die each year as a result. This means we are talking about 2,040 deaths across developed countries. Of which I have no idea how many live in countries where abortion is legal. So we're talking about a number less than 2,040.

That's why I haven't addressed it. (see further up my post).

You can't determine a law such as abortion based off that small of a number (remember, it's total across all developed countries, including those where abortion is legal).

(09-10-2013 05:59 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Y'all over-thinking this. Ya got one side that is rational and reasonable, and one side that is fucking nuts. If I ever had a change of heart - about as likely as birthing a T-Rex - I wouldn't be joining the other camp. I'd be I have no opinion.

You aren't thinking this through enough.
It's ok, I'll give you a pass, you're mind is all fulled with Gywnnies anyway. Tongue

Quote:Potentiality means nothing.

I don't want to play the "life begins at conception" card because I don't believe that.
I agree that a blob gunk isn't much of a life as we know it.
BUT I think the fact it is the primordial ooze of a human being means that we cannot dismiss it as "nothing" either. I would say it's in that complicated grey area.
Where you draw the line is complicated.

And no Bucky, I do not think the same for sperm. Sperm and eggs on their own are "nothing". But the primordial ooze lump of gunk that is a fetus, on it's on (you know what I mean) can become something.

I think because where you draw the line is complicated that you need other factors to take into account and make your decision.
This is why I don't think it's hypocritical of me to say "no to abortion" but at the same time say "if you're raped it's ok". Because in the case of rape you have the key factor, that being she was raped, putting it on the "ok" side of the fence.

So I guess what I'm saying is with this whole thing, all the factors have made me shift my mind on abortion from "ok" to "not ok". BUT if you factor in other situations, such as rape, it will be enough to swing it back to "ok".
See what I'm saying? Think of it like, if different factors had a numerical value. 0 being the middle. Above zero = not okay, below zero = ok. And you just add the numerical values up to get your opinion. Of course the key point though is what numerical value you place on different things.

Quote:It is very simple. I am existing life and you have no right whatsoever to use my body and mind and risk my life against my will to produce unwanted offspring.

You still have that right to choose if my opinion was law.
That choice is around the time you're naked in bed with someone else.
Under your opinion it's around the time you realize that probably should have used a condom.
The point being that both mine and your opinions do not restrict that right to the female, they only change at what time she can execute that right.

Quote:Reason 3: The outrageous expense of adoption make adoption impossible for far too many in the first place.

As I've said before, I agree that the current US adoption services (not family with many other developed countries, though they probably have better ones lets be honest) suck.
But as I've pointed out, the demand is there and will only increase with gay's now being legally allowed to fuck up their lives (get married).

AND, if the issue is adoption, why create a whole new thing (abortion), new clinics everything, the whole shebang, when you could simply improve the adoption services...

Quote:There is still one very loud excuse. "Its against my religion."

If using a condom is against someone's religion, they sure as fuck aren't going to go and get an abortion!

Quote:There exist many people determined to remove this easy availability of contraception. They are likewise determined to remove sex education from school and family planning from the community.

a) they're idiots. Contraception stops the spread of STDs, that alone is a good enough reason to make them readily available.

b) those people are failing.

I just wanna stress that my opinion is in regards to developed countries.

Quote:Hmm, curiously, I just lost a rep point.
My suspicion is that it's for this exchange, but I don't know who it was. I know it wasn't you. Consider

Wasn't me. Seriously.

Quote:The kid would either be motherless or fatherless or grow up with discord all around.

Or he could be grow up with loving adoptive parents, grow up become a doctor and preform life saving surgery on a bus full of orphans.
Or he could be the guy that cut the bus full of orphans off that made the bus driver swerve and drive off the bridge in the first place.

My point being, if you're going to go that route, than make sure to include all outcomes.

Quote:The man could sue her for child support.

Before I comment, what is your opinion on child support?
Because I suspect your comment was shrouded in sexism, but one can not be sure and I don't want to assume opinions of which you may or may not have.
I ask because you never mentioned that she could also keep the child and sue him for child support.

Quote:There are lots of reasons why this kid would have been a bad idea, and we don't even have any idea of what actually happened there. I am sure there are a lot more reasons, personal ones.

She has 1 kid, he has 3. We know they're fantastic parents and this kid would be well loved.
What I'm saying is Dom, yes there are plenty of bad reasons why this lady should keep the child BUT that is the same with pretty much every birth.
All those excuses were.
There's also many many good reasons why that child should have been born, I don't see you mentioning those.

Quote:Given all of the above, which kid do you think will have the better spot in life, the planned one or the accidental one?

In the above case I think that kid would have had pretty much the same life style as the other 4 kids.

Speaking from experience, my sister was accidentally and I was planned and the only reason I was planned is because I was born to keep my sister company. My parents originally had no intention of having kids. Both me and my sister had the same upbringing, we have different opinions on things but we have the same values. We had the same economic upbringing and we pretty much got the same things through out life.



@Dom, in the above situation in your opinion it doesn't matter what the male thinks/wants, he has no say. You can't say "they should get counseling" because it doesn't matter. You're already saying it doesn't matter what he thinks, all that matters is what she thinks.
This differs from my opinion. What I'm saying is that the power is at the point of sex. Both the male and female agree to the potential consequences at the point of consenting. This means both have the power. The male can say yes or no. The female can say yes or no. And there will be various factors that need to be taken into account for each person and will differ for each person.

I think my opinion is fairer because the power is shared as opposed to yours where the female has veto power.

And before you scream at the top of your lungs "her body her decision".
I agree. Her body, her decision. I just think that decision comes sooner than you do. No rights are being restricted here with my opinion.

(09-10-2013 04:15 PM)Caveman Wrote:  Completely agree with OP. There's just a flipside. Limiting the availability to victims of rape/incest/life of mother might cause women to falsely accuse men of rape in order to get an abortion.

It's happened. There's stories of false accusations in the news regularly.
It's a very thin line.

I have thought of this. Someone also comment a while back that "how can you prove she was raped, do you suggest we ask for proof" (or something to that degree).

It's tricky. BUT I don't think it would be that common.
It would certainly happen, I'd be stupid to deny that, but I don't think it would happen on a significant level.
Rape is a very serious accusation. We're talking many many many years in prison and so the burden of proof is high.
In these cases if a women claimed a man raped her to have an abortion, than there would be police investigation, trial etc.. And I think women wouldn't.. how do I say this? I think it would easier for women to have the baby than go through all that (with the risk of getting caught that you lied and ending up in jail yourself) and so it wouldn't happen often enough.

I think it's fair to say that if I can accept that 9 out of 100,000 births result in death. Than it's fair to say that a very small percentage of innocent men will end up in prison as a result is also an acceptable risk.




I think the statistics back my opinion as the rational one.
All the arguments you have presented against me have been in relation to very small percentage cases. You have to remember, this is a general opinion (for developed countries), there are going to be those cases that don't match the general opinion.

ie: Guns. You could loooooooooove guns. And I could make the counter argument that people use them for killing sprees. BUT mass shootings are only a small percentage of the whole picture.

I think we make accept things based on.. hmmm Consider how do I explain this..?
Take alcohol. We accept alcohol, we defend people's rights to use it etc.. yet, thousands upon thousands die each year as a result of liver disease and shit. Many many many more as a result of drink driving, alcohol related violence etc... blah blah blah. We look past these massive downsides and still defend alcohol.
The point being we look past HUGE counter points to accept the premise.
We do this with lots of things.

I feel with this, you're offering me tiny counter points and accepting those as acceptable proof against my premise. I truly think you lot are being irrational on this one and purhaps hypocritical on some level. But it is one of those grey areas so it can be tricky. I shall think on this some more.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 06:06 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 03:34 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  What I'm saying is, if you want to keep population growth down, than you need to improve people's standard of living.


I think my opinion is fairer because the power is shared as opposed to yours where the female has veto power.


Your first comment - the educated people die out, the uneducated ones multiply. It's already a big issue in Europe. God help the earth if that really happens all the way.

Your second comment - how is having your body used as a brood mare against your will sharing a decision?

Thirdly, in my opinion you don't have a voice in this until you simulate 9 months of pregnancy alongside an actual pregnant woman. Live with her, see the hormonal roller coaster, wear a weight around your body to feel what it feels like. All of it. You'll still never quite know what you are talking about, but you'll get an inkling.

I was lucky enough to never have needed an abortion, but I did have a high school friend who killed herself aborting with a knitting needle. I have friends who gave up babies at birth and they have never found peace. It's not a brain thing, it's the way we evolved, it is a physical thing. A part of you is out there somewhere. You don't know if it suffers or thrives. It is an almost unbearable situation. It's a life sentence.

Did you adopt this stance because you are gay and worry there won't be any babies you can raise? Not to worry, there are wayyyyyyy too many unwanted children in this world. You will have ample choice.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
10-10-2013, 06:48 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Quote:Your first comment - the educated people die out, the uneducated ones multiply. It's already a big issue in Europe. God help the earth if that really happens all the way.

Oh wow, where to begin?
Did you actual read what I wrote? Like, at all? Wealth and standard of living effect birth rates. The rich tend to have small families, the poor big families. I fail to see where abortion fits into this..
If abortion is legal or illegal it will be the same. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote:Your second comment - how is having your body used as a brood mare against your will sharing a decision?

Again, did you actually read what I wrote?
Go back and read it Dom. Let it sink in and than read it again. Than reply.

Quote:Thirdly, in my opinion you don't have a voice in this until you simulate 9 months of pregnancy alongside an actual pregnant woman. Live with her, see the hormonal roller coaster, wear a weight around your body to feel what it feels like. All of it. You'll still never quite know what you are talking about, but you'll get an inkling.

No, I reject this.
I don't need to experience something first hand to have an opinion on it.
I've never been an a theist, are you saying I have no right to have an opinion on theism?
You've never been a nazi in charge of a concentration camp, are you suggesting you have no right to have an opinion on those that were?
You've never had to give up your bus seat in the 60's (or 50's or whenever it was) because you were black, despite being old and having very sore feet. Are you suggestion you have right to have an opinion on those that have?

Hell, you yourself have never had an abortion. Under your logic your opinion means jack shit.

Quote:Did you adopt this stance because you are gay and worry there won't be any babies you can raise? Not to worry, there are wayyyyyyy too many unwanted children in this world. You will have ample choice.

I've made it very clear many times I hate kids and will never have one.
I hates in general. What? you think I'm taking this stance because I want more little shits running around the grocery store???
You're stupid if you do.
I take this stance for the reasons I've stated in my last several posts of which I'm not going to both listing again if you're not even going to bother to actually read them.

You haven't read a single thing I've written. Go back and read it before you reply to me again.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2013 07:55 AM by Dom.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
I don't have to read it. Over my dead body will I allow you to use my body and mind to produce unwanted children. That is all that matters here.

You try to force women to be broodmares in a world where more children are not a good thing.

You can come up with all the convoluted reasoning you want, this is a basic human rights issue. There was a lot of reasoning for using slave's bodies and minds to accomplish things for the owner too.

My body is mine and you have no say over it and that is that.

If you want more children in this world - there are many, many women who do so too. Find them and make deals with them.

Once you have taken care of all the unwanted and mistreated children in this world, we'll revisit.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
10-10-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
I can't use a quote because my phone can't comprehend your wall of text, but runaways have absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Did you even read my post? These children are easy targets for kidnappers. Foster children are coming up missing at alarming rates and they didn't all disappear. Human trafficking is alive and well in the US, and across the globe. My point was, I would much rather destroy a clump of cells than worry every day for the rest of my life what happened to the child I gave up. Did they get adopted into a loving home, or end up being bought and sold as a sex slave on the black market? The guilt and worry of adoption would be far worse than that of abortion.

Concerning medical exemptions, where does that line get drawn? These stastitics often only include women whose lives would have been placed in jeopardy by continuing the pregnancy. There are many other women who could physically carry a pregnancy but whose careers and means of caring for their existing families would be undermined. Even if I didn't have any health issues, I'm a freakin embalmer. I spend all day around highly carcinogenic fumes and doing a lot of heavy lifting. There's absolutely no way those are safe activities for an expecting mother. I know other women who also work in dangerous and physically demanding positions who would have no choice but to quit their jobs if they chose to have a child. Even common morning sickness can place a strain on a woman's job and make her lose money, usually much needed income.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it- not even if I have said it- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ohio Sky's post
10-10-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(10-10-2013 07:44 AM)Dom Wrote:  I don't have to read it. Over my dead body will I allow you to use my body and mind to produce unwanted children. That is all that matters here.

You try to force women to be broodmares in a world where more children are not a good thing.

You can come up with all the convoluted reasoning you want, this is a basic human rights issue. There was a lot of reasoning for using slave's bodies and minds to accomplish things for the owner too.

My body is mine and you have no say over it and that is that.

If you want more children in this world - there are many, many women who do so too. Find them and make deals with them.

Once you have taken care of all the unwanted and mistreated children in this world, we'll revisit.

Didn't even read it..
Wow Dom, congratulations, you just wasted yours and my time.
Go back to your corner with your fingers in your ears screaming lalala, you know, the corner filled with all the theist who won't even hear the other side.

Why did you even come in here and post if you had absolutely no intention of even hearing out my side?

Fuck off Dom and take your unwillingness to even hear out the otherside with you, you've wasted enough of my time. There are people who actually have read what I wrote, I'd rather spend my time addressing them.

Quote:I can't use a quote because my phone can't comprehend your wall of text, but runaways have absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Did you even read my post? These children are easy targets for kidnappers. Foster children are coming up missing at alarming rates and they didn't all disappear. Human trafficking is alive and well in the US, and across the globe. My point was, I would much rather destroy a clump of cells than worry every day for the rest of my life what happened to the child I gave up. Did they get adopted into a loving home, or end up being bought and sold as a sex slave on the black market? The guilt and worry of adoption would be far worse than that of abortion.

Concerning medical exemptions, where does that line get drawn? These stastitics often only include women whose lives would have been placed in jeopardy by continuing the pregnancy. There are many other women who could physically carry a pregnancy but whose careers and means of caring for their existing families would be undermined. Even if I didn't have any health issues, I'm a freakin embalmer. I spend all day around highly carcinogenic fumes and doing a lot of heavy lifting. There's absolutely no way those are safe activities for an expecting mother. I know other women who also work in dangerous and physically demanding positions who would have no choice but to quit their jobs if they chose to have a child. Even common morning sickness can place a strain on a woman's job and make her lose money, usually much needed income.

Well show me the statistics and I'll comment on it.
But again, I understand that the adoption service (and foster care as an extension of that) isn't perfect. But I still hold that the solution to that problem is improving the adoption service, not legalizing abortion.

Which are factors that need to be taken into account at the point of sex.
Job is one of the many factors. IMO, job is =/= to human life. It is sacrificing a human life, not a fetus, if the reason for your abortion is so you can keep your job.
This is what I mean by I don't think the reasons are good enough any more.
Potential job loss is one of the consequences you need to take into account.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: