Abortion - there is only one question that matters

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: slider1982

if you are grown up enough to get to that point you are old enough to deal with the consequences, those consequences are a living breathing person...

True , but if you are old enough to tell people what to do you should also deal with those consequences.

So when you tell someone to not abort within the first 8 weeks, you should also man up and offer to take and raise that child as your own.

Indeed,

We have spoken about a second child and since we will be leaving Europe for the Philippines within the next couple of years adoption is defo something we will look at...



RA

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: interupt42


How much responsibility should goverment have on raising somebody's kids?
Poor kids are on Medicaid so they get healthcare.
Parents get wic and other food stamp programs.
They get free lunch and book rental at school.
They get tax breaks from the Feds.
I mean really how much more help can anyone expect?

Im not talking about the govt who does a horrible job already, im talking about churches and individuals pro lifers.

The system cant even keep up with what we got i couldnt even imagine in what kind of environment these unwanted children would be raised in of pro lifers had their way.

a reply to: bender151

I usually avoid this topic, but I'm going to weigh in with not only a bunch of "what if's", and conjecture. It should be noted i'm not an American, where it seems this topic is most prevalent, so i might not understand some perspectives, or get something wrong from your medical services models. For that i apologise in advance.

For the record i'm pro-choice, i believe each person individually should make the right choice for their morality, religion or their own choice, but i do play devils advocate from time to time despite my personal views.

I have in the past played body guard to several young women so they could get into the clinics, I'd do it again in a heart beat if asked, some have gotten to the door and changed their minds, others have proceeded. But i dont want to derail the discussion further than i already am . Happy to discuss privately, on a different thread or unless asked too by the OP.

I've taken a few ethics courses over the years, but I recall a specific example from one class. Say you're walking in the woods and come upon a lake. You see someone is drowning in the lake. If you choose not to help them, are you in any sense guilty of causing their death?

This ethical dilemma doesn't apply without further discussion. IE can you swim, are you physically capable of delivering yourself and this person from danger without causing your own untimely demise, what will their quality of life be after you save them, did they even want to be saved in the first place? Who are we to push our individual morality onto someone else? Do we even treasure individuality anymore, does it fit into our social structures and frameworks?

But these questions also apply to the topic at hand.

Everyone of these threads i personally encounter, and all counter arguments from both sides are completely forgetting both Mother, Father and Child. Simply put everyone is putting over their agenda's, pushing their own agenda or simply want to get into an argument.

Lets look at some information - I wont bother putting in links to studies these are pretty logical:
NB - These scenarios are just a handful of the 'most common' events. I'm aware everyone slants to the 'oops' scenario, and completely disregard all others, because its too muddy or too uncomfortable to discuss.

1. Children conceived from non-consensual events
   - Non-adopted/fostered children of this scenario are typically socially maladjusted and poorly socialized. There is strong evidence that points to a higher chance to become violent, the mother's have a higher rate of suicide or mental health issues (PTSD for one). Why? - Great question, Mothers of non-consensual children are far more likely to relive the event each time they look at the children, and within these segments of people, they then start using that child as a source of blame for all of their woes (Money, medical, mental or social), so sadly that child does not have the best of chances in life.
   
   Then we hit slippery slopes, do we 'force adopt' these children? Do we treat the mother?
   
   The latter makes more sense, but society and the legal system isn't setup to handle this at all. The former? Well are we not passing that moral or ethical line of re-productive choice?
   
   It is also to be noted these are based on "commonality" of events, not all cases have the same outcome, some children grow up to become very well adjusted, strong and highly principled people.
   
   
2. Children conceived in an 'oops' scenario
   - From where i am from these are a VERY small segmentation, and from what i hear (not read), it too is a small segmentation in the US. From a decision point (from the people i've spoken to or read about) these do not take this choice lightly, and ultimately it comes down to this:
   "Can i love and support this child, and give them the best life possible?"
   
   This comes down to social ability to handle the child, can they economically support them. Having children is a large mental and economical challenge (depending on your origin country). Look at the statistics, studies and articles all around this topic (google is your friend)
   
   
3. Children conceived to 'save a relationship'
   - This pretty much falls into its own category. It happens, no one talks about it, but it happens. Couple are having fights, so one of the partners decide that having a kid will force themselves to integrate into their lives for well, ever.
   
   I wont go into the psychological damage this does to both parents and the child itself, the net end result (depending on circumstance) has the possibility to implode.
   
   
4. Children born to at risk mothers (Known medical complications)
   - This one isn't really an open discussion, its a choice, similar to what Bender posed above. Do we risk one life, to save another, or will the event kill off both mother and child? If you push the mother to go to term, and she dies are you responsible?
   
   These are the most common source of 'late term' abortions, from what i understand. The choice is made to save the mother over the unborn child. I don't feel it adds any weight into the discussion to include their reasons for doing it.
   
   

Human and social ethics are a very muddy area, nothing is clear, nothing is wrong, everything is permitted. Each time i see an ethics class taught, its always slanted to the teacher or the social zones (ethics taught in different college or universities differ quite heavily).

So to the OP, where does live begin?
Life begins when the Mother decides it begins.
The legal system(s) don't have a clear vision, some say its conception (where abortion is illegal). Some say its when the first breath is taken (New York State (US), Victoria (AUS), England (as far as i can recall).
Religions (for the most part) say at conception

Ultimately as a society we will always have this clash of morality, and there is no clear cut answer. I say we should empower the individual to make the right choice for their unborn child, and their life, proper education on birth control and human development (Parenting courses if you will).

I believe in the end the individuals moral compass should be pointed in the direction that they follow.

tl;dr - Both sides have arguments, but both sides need to consider the individual circumstances and show empathy instead of knee jerk reactions.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: interupt42


How much responsibility should goverment have on raising somebody's kids?
Poor kids are on Medicaid so they get healthcare.
Parents get wic and other food stamp programs.
They get free lunch and book rental at school.
They get tax breaks from the Feds.
I mean really how much more help can anyone expect?

The following isn't necessarily directed towards you (unless the shoe fits), it's more a general response, to arguments I often see.

Those things are available.... For now, but those same resources are always under fire, often by right leaning prolifers, who insist all pregnancies need to end in birth.

If you insist on births, you must also insist on food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care. If you do not support the latter, I'm afraid you are probirth, rather than prolife.

"But Daryllyn! What about personal responsibility?"

Well, forcing women to birth babies, will not automatically produce responsible adults, that will do right by their children. Having a sense of responsibility, isn't something that can be forced.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Your question is answered with varying beliefs. No one's beliefs reign supreme over others'.

So, the question you asked doesn't really matter at all.

a reply to: interupt42

Well most churches don't approve of premarital sex.
Hard to get pregnant without sex.

If pro lifers had their way, most abortions wouldn't be needed.

Not that I have a dog in this fight. I really don't care if people get abortions or not.

originally posted by: Tardacus
the only question that matters is, is quality of life more important and more beneficial to the human race than quantity of life?

after the baby is born the pro lifers are suddenly nowhere to be found do they suddenly lose their concern for the babies life after it is born?

There are too many murdering thugs running around destroying other peoples quality of life just because someone thought it was so important for them to be born when in fact it would have been better for society and the thug if he had been aborted.

a 16 year old ghetto rat who wants to have an abortion isn`t suddenly going to become a good loving parent just because she is forced to give birth to the baby she doesn`t want.

I've heard this said many times, usually from the pro-choice camp. Certainly there are people who claim to be pro-life on the abortion issue but then fall short in other critical pro-life areas.

But... this is more of a easy to mock caricature than it is a realistic representation of most pro-lifers. My church, which is fairly conservative and mostly pro-life congregants, has so many families that adopt children that they have their own support groups and organizations. Many many young families either adopt or have foster kids. These folks most certainly do care about the babies after they are born!

Other pro life activities... well, prison ministries abound, we help families with kids who have an incarcerated parent, food pantries, coat and school supply giveaways to anyone who needs it, etc etc

So I hope I don't sound overly defensive... although perhaps I do. But the idea of pro lifers not caring about the kid or the families after the baby is born is untrue. Most pro lifers are much more than anti-abortion. So this caricature really needs to be put to rest. It does nothing to help us find common ground and work together on issues we all care about.

a reply to: daryllyn


That sounds like rewarding irresponsibility.
Like I said, I'm not against abortion. I just tired of going in circles.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: interupt42

Well most churches don't approve of premarital sex.
Hard to get pregnant without sex.

If pro lifers had their way, most abortions wouldn't be needed.

Not that I have a dog in this fight. I really don't care if people get abortions or not.

Well, in Islam the penalty for premarital sex can be quiet harsh,...and yet it still happens,...funny thing about biology, it seems to be a driving force all on its own...

a reply to: Bluntone22

Me etheir , i just find it to conventient and easy to be hypocritical of others when it doesnt impact the person.

The abortion issue is far more complex and involved than just expecting to making abortions illegal as some moral win.

On abortion, I'd say there are two questions. Is it legal and is it ethical.

Legal? I think we can all agree that there are times when an abortion is medically necessary. That being the case, it makes no sense to make abortions illegal. And, adhering to the 10th Amendment, if it's legal for some, it must be legal for all. If it's legal for the woman who may die in childbirth, it must be legal for the rape victim, the poor woman who can't afford another child, and the rich woman who doesn't want to ruin her figure.

Ethical? That's a more personal matter. Even if I personally know the woman involved, it would not be my place to judge her on a decision like this. I certainly couldn't judge a stranger on her choice in the matter. Only the woman involved can say whether or not her decision was ethical or not.

a reply to: daryllyn

This is one of my number one arguments!

I'm pro-life, on a personal level.

However, I believe legislation should be pro-choice.

Why? Because the same group that is known for advocating for going through with a pregnancy doesn't give a damn about a person after they are alive. Life is sacred, but ensuring someone has any quality of life after they are born doesn't matter? What the hell, people. NOT what Jesus taught.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm not against it either, but I support the choice for others, even if it's not a choice I would consider for myself.

If I ended up pregnant, as nightmarish as that would be at my age, I would keep it.

I don't necessarily think these things are rewards, or are rewarding. I've been on both sides of that fence, and I would take the side I am on now, over the other, any day. I hated it and will fight everyday, for the rest of my life, to never go back.

I am grateful that programs exist for children, regardless of the reasons the parents are applying.

a reply to: VegHead

It's more a partisan thing. Conservatives are usually against the type of welfare that guarantees that kids/people in general get the help they need for a decent standard of living. They think "Trickle down" and charity and the like should cover all instances, when it's just not realistic.

It's hypocrisy really. I'd be willing to bet money that plenty of pro-life people do not donate to orphanages, etc...

a reply to: slider1982

exactly, and if they aren`t responsible enough to prevent getting pregnant when they don`t want a child then they certainly aren`t responsible enough to be a parent.

forcing them to be parents when they weren`t even responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy is just asking for trouble.

originally posted by: JD163
'Abortion - there is only one question that matters'

I disagree, there are plenty more questions that matters

The quality of life afforded to the child would be one......the last thing a single mother with a drug habit on welfare with 8 kids needs is another mouth to feed

Now that is more of an argument for prevention! I have heard that there are many people against standard birth control but I am not one of them. If there is one thing that we can subsidize that would make a difference it is preventive birth control. Of course that will only work if you stop importing poverty.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: slider1982

exactly, and if they aren`t responsible enough to prevent getting pregnant when they don`t want a child then they certainly aren`t responsible enough to be a parent.

forcing them to be parents when they weren`t even responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy is just asking for trouble.

But condoms break. Hormonal birth control has failure rates, even with "perfect" use. Hell, even vasectomies and tubal ligation, both meant to be permanent solutions, have failure rates that result in unintended pregnancies.

You cannot automatically assume a lack of responsibility, solely based on a pregnancy. Plenty of people are responsible and use methods of prevention, only to find that they failed.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: JD163
'Abortion - there is only one question that matters'

I disagree, there are plenty more questions that matters

The quality of life afforded to the child would be one......the last thing a single mother with a drug habit on welfare with 8 kids needs is another mouth to feed

Now that is more of an argument for prevention! I have heard that there are many people against standard birth control but I am not one of them. If there is one thing that we can subsidize that would make a difference it is preventive birth control. Of course that will only work if you stop importing poverty.

Of course, prevention would be optimal,...but as you know, not everyone is responsible, education helps but no matter what,, there would still be kids having unprotected sex, drunken hook ups and whatnot...and if a pregnancy should arise from such a union,...irresponsible actions usually leads to irresponsible parents and the one who suffers most are the 'unwanted' child.

a reply to: daryllyn

I think people tend to have the wrong idea about the types of people that have abortions. They instantly think it's some girl-from-the-ghetto that just wanted to do the dirty dance without any protection because she's too dumb and irresponsible, when actually it's a huge variety of people - From loving christian mothers with stable jobs and lives, to teenagers that aren't ready/don't have a supporting man in their life, to females with medical conditions/pregnancy conditions. That is why I cannot ever think legislation should reflect the "pro-life" stance - It's too far, we have a right to seek medical help, we have a right to privacy - And those are the two most important things to me.

Now, I do think that when someone can abort is up for debate, but I don't have an exact answer.

a reply to: JD163

One word... adoption.

It is a satisfactory answer for all but en utero medical conditions (for both mother or baby), and rapes (and only in cases of rape where it is asked for, not all would abort in this case either).