Abortions - Why so bad?

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: quintessentone

My mother was a polio victim in the 51/52 epidemic. I was 6.

I grew up with a disabled person. 30+ years before the Disability Act.

I know the pains and struggles. You do not stop living. You do what you can to have the fullest life available to you.

But -- I would NEVER intentionally bring a disabled child into this world. It is not a "gift from God" -- that is just stupid.

We have the technology to test fetuses at an early state. Science is not stupid.

Just curious, have you ever asked your mother is she wished she had never been born?

I was just reading another medical article where they performed a blood transfusion on a fetus with a deadly immuno disease which was attacking the muscles, the transfusion worked and although the child needs meds and enzyme shots she is growing normally. It was also mentioned in the article that they can perform in utero surgery to fix spina bifida. Great strides are being made in the medical field also in gene therapy.

Bringing a disabled child into the world without a appropriate support systems and enough money certainly would be a hardship for many people. And these supports are still not available to disabled people nor is social assistance financial help ever enough as here in my country disabled people are expected to feel themselves on $47.60 a week.

I guess my real point is that if adequate and appropriate support and financial aid systems were in place for women and families, in society, I am sure the abortion rates would fall substantially.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: quintessentone

Still murder.

Wednesday, November 9, 2022

This is a Sad and Tragic development from the state that prides itself on "anything goes".

THE PEOPLE of California have just sentenced themselves to horrible punishment from our creator...from GOD himself.

Nearly two-thirds of California voters approved a measure on the ballot to preserve the “right” to abortion and contraception in the state constitution.

Prop 1., would allow women to receive an abortion up until the time of birth, or when the baby is viable, meaning there are no limitations for when an unborn baby’s life could be cut off.

Source: townhall.com... es-n2615756

You create a life, and one of your children decides to destroy the life you created, as that life is nearing the point of emerging into the world.

That has to be so disappointing to the original creator-parent of that little human boy or girl.

Your source link does not work, can you provide another link. I can only find this:

Under California law, anyone in California who is pregnant has a legal right to choose to have an abortion before viability. A pregnancy becomes viable when a doctor determines that the fetus could live outside the uterus without extreme medical measures.

You can also have an abortion in California at any time to protect your life or health.

abortion.ca.gov...

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: quintessentone

My mother was a polio victim in the 51/52 epidemic. I was 6.

I grew up with a disabled person. 30+ years before the Disability Act.

I know the pains and struggles. You do not stop living. You do what you can to have the fullest life available to you.

But -- I would NEVER intentionally bring a disabled child into this world. It is not a "gift from God" -- that is just stupid.

We have the technology to test fetuses at an early state. Science is not stupid.

Just curious, have you ever asked your mother is she wished she had never been born?

She actually said that many times.

In relation to multiple occurrences.

One being when her husband/my father left her with 3 kids under 7 for another woman -- because having a disabled wife was too much for him.

She had 3 minor children depending on her. That responsibility took precedence.

One thing people do not understand about a physical disability is the exhaustion. Think about how much effort it takes just to get from a car seat into a wheelchair.

Exhaustion is probably more debilitating than the physical disability.

There have been disabled and terminally ill who have chosen euthanasia.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: quintessentone

My mother was a polio victim in the 51/52 epidemic. I was 6.

I grew up with a disabled person. 30+ years before the Disability Act.

I know the pains and struggles. You do not stop living. You do what you can to have the fullest life available to you.

But -- I would NEVER intentionally bring a disabled child into this world. It is not a "gift from God" -- that is just stupid.

We have the technology to test fetuses at an early state. Science is not stupid.

I guess my real point is that if adequate and appropriate support and financial aid systems were in place for women and families, in society, I am sure the abortion rates would fall substantially.

Maybe past generations, but I'm not sure I'd say that today.

I think today women take their independence seriously. An abortion isn't the stigma it used to be.

Rise of the only child The one-child family rose rapidly over the past generation. A Pew Research Center study found the number of mothers who reached the end of their childbearing years with one child doubled from 11% in 1976 to 22% in 2015. www.csmonitor.com...#:~:text=Rise%20of%20the%20only%20child %20The%20one-child%20family,from%2011%25%20in%201976%20to%2022%25%20in%202015.

a reply to: Annee

Most terminally ill people choose euthanasia due to horrific pain which it seems the medical field just can't get it right on pain management for us. They won't perform euthanasia if the patient is suffering just from psychological depression.

It sounds like your mother had psychological depression and perhaps that is the reason why she said that and why others would want a ticket out.

a reply to: Annee

You may be right on the very young women of today, but I still think that when some women hit their mid-30s that biological ticking clock goes off 'big time' and for the women that are not financially established wouldn't it be nice to get a leg up from society to be able to have that wanted child?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone

That statement is not true, 'generally and specifically' worldwide it is and was mostly legal for various good reasons.

So was slavery at one point in history. It was considered "good" to those that benefited from it, did that make it right?
ETA: Context

Yes let's talk context: it was and is considered necessary to save women's lives, so saving women's lives is good. Your slavery and nazi context mindset is off track for this topic.

It is DIRECTLY on topic.
You using the informal fallacy called "faulty Generalization", is off topic. You are trying to use the VERY, VERY few to justify the many.
This is why you always see me say:

"Abortion is the premeditated, violent kiling of another human being for convenience, in 99% of cases".

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

Most terminally ill people choose euthanasia due to horrific pain which it seems the medical field just can't get it right on pain management for us. They won't perform euthanasia if the patient is suffering just from psychological depression.

It sounds like your mother had psychological depression and perhaps that is the reason why she said that and why others would want a ticket out.

Laws are changing.

Some birth defects involve a lot of pain.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

You may be right on the very young women of today, but I still think that when some women hit their mid-30s that biological ticking clock goes off 'big time' and for the women that are not financially established wouldn't it be nice to get a leg up from society to be able to have that wanted child?

All species have a built in need to procreate.

But women today have choices. And pressure to have children is less than in the past.

Many have pets instead.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

It sounds like your mother had psychological depression and perhaps that is the reason why she said that and why others would want a ticket out.

Wouldn't you in her circumstance?

But NO -- she was mostly positive -- until later in life.

Unfortunately, she hooked up with an alcoholic.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone

That statement is not true, 'generally and specifically' worldwide it is and was mostly legal for various good reasons.

So was slavery at one point in history. It was considered "good" to those that benefited from it, did that make it right?
ETA: Context

Yes let's talk context: it was and is considered necessary to save women's lives, so saving women's lives is good. Your slavery and nazi context mindset is off track for this topic.

It is DIRECTLY on topic.
You using the informal fallacy called "faulty Generalization", is off topic. You are trying to use the VERY, VERY few to justify the many.
This is why you always see me say:

"Abortion is the premeditated, violent kiling of another human being for convenience, in 99% of cases".

What you are missing is that the law states that abortions can be had to protect life and health...health encompasses many different factors for women, so it's not the very few it's the many when it comes to the broad strokes of maintaining one's health.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

It sounds like your mother had psychological depression and perhaps that is the reason why she said that and why others would want a ticket out.

Wouldn't you in her circumstance?

But NO -- she was mostly positive -- until later in life.

Unfortunately, she hooked up with an alcoholic.

I think some call that justified depression and I'm glad she managed to get through some of it to find some positivity in a part of her life. I wonder if her disability and bad choice partner hardships outweighed the joy she felt for having you in her life.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

You may be right on the very young women of today, but I still think that when some women hit their mid-30s that biological ticking clock goes off 'big time' and for the women that are not financially established wouldn't it be nice to get a leg up from society to be able to have that wanted child?

All species have a built in need to procreate.

But women today have choices. And pressure to have children is less than in the past.

Many have pets instead.

Don't I know it, my millennial daughter keeps collecting pets and treats them like her children. But isn't that the maternal instinct that some women have to address?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

Most terminally ill people choose euthanasia due to horrific pain which it seems the medical field just can't get it right on pain management for us. They won't perform euthanasia if the patient is suffering just from psychological depression.

It sounds like your mother had psychological depression and perhaps that is the reason why she said that and why others would want a ticket out.

Laws are changing.

Some birth defects involve a lot of pain.

Right, so we are back to lack of proper pain management from the medical profession. My elderly mother keeps complaining to me every time I talk to her about how much pain she's in and she refuses my recommendation of trying CBD because she said her doctor is against it, but that same doctor does not offer her anything for the pain. It boggles the mind.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone

That statement is not true, 'generally and specifically' worldwide it is and was mostly legal for various good reasons.

So was slavery at one point in history. It was considered "good" to those that benefited from it, did that make it right?
ETA: Context

Yes let's talk context: it was and is considered necessary to save women's lives, so saving women's lives is good. Your slavery and nazi context mindset is off track for this topic.

It is DIRECTLY on topic.
You using the informal fallacy called "faulty Generalization", is off topic. You are trying to use the VERY, VERY few to justify the many.
This is why you always see me say:

"Abortion is the premeditated, violent kiling of another human being for convenience, in 99% of cases".

What you are missing is that the law states that abortions can be had to protect life and health...health encompasses many different factors for women, so it's not the very few it's the many when it comes to the broad strokes of maintaining one's health.

Why move the goal post?
You said, " it was and is considered necessary to save women's lives, so saving women's lives is good."

Now it's, "protect life and health...health encompasses many different factors for women".

Regardless....
Laws are not always right.
Government does not grant our basic rights, it is supposed to protect them.
Basic human rights transect government and laws.
As I said, we can see throughout history laws that have negatively effected one or more groups of human beings. Over time, with effort and facts, those laws are changed, as they should be.
I am patient.

Speaking of disabilities quintessen,
Can I ask, in your honest opinion, what is the absolute worse thing one human being can do to another?

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone

That statement is not true, 'generally and specifically' worldwide it is and was mostly legal for various good reasons.

So was slavery at one point in history. It was considered "good" to those that benefited from it, did that make it right?
ETA: Context

Yes let's talk context: it was and is considered necessary to save women's lives, so saving women's lives is good. Your slavery and nazi context mindset is off track for this topic.

It is DIRECTLY on topic.
You using the informal fallacy called "faulty Generalization", is off topic. You are trying to use the VERY, VERY few to justify the many.
This is why you always see me say:

"Abortion is the premeditated, violent kiling of another human being for convenience, in 99% of cases".

What you are missing is that the law states that abortions can be had to protect life and health...health encompasses many different factors for women, so it's not the very few it's the many when it comes to the broad strokes of maintaining one's health.

Why move the goal post?
You said, " it was and is considered necessary to save women's lives, so saving women's lives is good."

Now it's, "protect life and health...health encompasses many different factors for women".

Regardless....
Laws are not always right.
Government does not grant our basic rights, it is supposed to protect them.
Basic human rights transect government and laws.
As I said, we can see throughout history laws that have negatively effected one or more groups of human beings. Over time, with effort and facts, those laws are changed, as they should be.
I am patient.

Speaking of disabilities quintessen,
Can I ask, in your honest opinion, what is the absolute worse thing one human being can do to another?

In my mind, saving one's life could also mean to save them from a life of hardship causing clinical depression which could lead to alcoholism, drug addiction and perhaps suicide. It's a lost life.

That question should be put to everyone not to just me, but for me it is to take away a person's basic human rights. We already indirectly condone killing via our taxes and votes that go towards war, euthanasia, capital punishment, allowing military guns in our society, lack of mental health help for citizens so here we all are.

a reply to: quintessentone
In my honest opinion, the absolute worst thing one human can do to another is not premeditated killing.
It is the act of causing TOTAL loss of ability, making them unable to do anything, including walking, talking, and even thinking and feeling.
The act of causing the total, irreversible disability of another human being.
Removing from them every opportunity, every thought, every feeling they may have ever had.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

Most terminally ill people choose euthanasia due to horrific pain which it seems the medical field just can't get it right on pain management for us. They won't perform euthanasia if the patient is suffering just from psychological depression.

It sounds like your mother had psychological depression and perhaps that is the reason why she said that and why others would want a ticket out.

Laws are changing.

Some birth defects involve a lot of pain.

Right, so we are back to lack of proper pain management from the medical profession. My elderly mother keeps complaining to me every time I talk to her about how much pain she's in and she refuses my recommendation of trying CBD because she said her doctor is against it, but that same doctor does not offer her anything for the pain. It boggles the mind.

You ever been on pain meds? They don't really work. Maybe if your insurance covers a morphine drip.

CBD? Who can afford that?

I'm raising my autistic (high functioning) grandchild. He's on anxiety meds. When he turns 18 all assistance ends. Now what?

Mostly people in the USA who lose "everything" -- lose it because of medical bills.

IF IF IF -- not gonna happen. We're gonna see less and less financial/medical assistance.

Anyone intentionally bringing a disabled child into this world is beyond selfish and just plain stupid.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone
In my honest opinion, the absolute worst thing one human can do to another is not premeditated killing.
It is the act of causing TOTAL loss of ability, making them unable to do anything, including walking, talking, and even thinking and feeling.
The act of causing the total, irreversible disability of another human being.
Removing from them every opportunity, every thought, every feeling they may have ever had.

I agree but it's at the expense of another person, whether it be taking away their basic human rights, mental and/or physical health, or putting them in a position of dire hardship for life. So something has to change drastically so new life can have a chance and human rights remain intact. Nothing is being done by prolife government to put in place support and systems to help women carry to term. Why is that? To me it's obvious they don't really care about the health and/or quality of that person's life nor the child's life after the fact.

a reply to: Annee

You guys there need to get universal healthcare...it's a must. By the way, your country's infant mortality rate is very high.

The United States has a mixture of government-run and private insurance.

As a result, in 2020, 66.5% of Americans had private health insurance, mostly from their employers. The government subsidizes private health insurance through Obamacare. Another 34.8% of Americans had public government coverage. This includes Medicaid, Medicare, Children's Health Insurance Program, and military coverage including the Veterans Administration. Only 8.6% had no coverage at all.31

All health care service providers, except for the VA, are private. Some democratic candidates have promoted universal health care under the title "Medicare for All."32

In 2019, health care cost 16.8% of GDP.21 That was a staggering US$10,948 per person.22 The infant mortality rate was 5.4%, significantly higher than that of countries such as Australia and Germany.25

www.thebalancemoney.com...