Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
The child is not a child until it exits the birth canal. If a mother decided as she was going through labor in the 9th month to kill the baby this is okay? If it is not okay then your argument is moot. It is taking a life, period. We play God, judge and executioner by claiming it is our bodies and no one can tell us what to do. The only time I would see abortion as an option is when the life of the mother is at stake and then the decision should rest with her as this is a life for a life. The baby is always innocent. The mother and father, may not be.
|
There's no safe place to draw a line, as long as a fetus is dependent upon the woman's body to live, there is no ethical reason to force her to use her body to support another human life. The only argument people have is that she deserves it which, since neither pregnancy or a child is 'punishment' is specious at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by violetpretty
Why is parenthood considered the only "noble" choice, even over adoption? Like, bragging that you took the toughest punishment. I don't know if I'm clearly explaining myself. I can't stand it when people who do choose parenthood get up on a high horse by saying they "took responsibility" for their actions, as if that's the only responsible course of action. AF, you were lucky you had the resources to care for a child, even though it probably seemed tough and most certainly changed the plans you initially had for your life.
|
I agree. Quite frankly the idea that women who have abortions aren't taking responsibility for their actions is ridiculous. Isn't it the definition of taking responsibility? Were I to find out I was pregnant tomorrow it is probably the choice I would make for multiple reasons - financial, relationship, living arrangements, etc. I'm not bringing a child into this world who I can't take care of, and I'm not going to bring a child into the world who I would unfairly resent for existing. If and when I have children it will be because my partner and I have agreed we want children. I'm not going to be pregnant for 9 months just to give a baby up for adoption, I wouldn't trust that I'd follow through and I'd probably never forgive myself for giving him/her up either.
And, I use birth control, condoms, Plan B, and in the past Depo. But none of that is 100% fullproof. I'm not going, nor do I expect others, to live up to the standards of groups like the Catholic Church where sex is only for procreation, and if you do it then you 'deserve' the consequences. But even having taken every reasonable precaution, I could still be pregnant. Abortion
is birth control in the very literal sense of the word. It's not something people go do for fun, it's being responsible, just like how taking Plan B is responsible, or using condoms is responsible. Just because some people disagree with that choice, doesn't make it LESS responsible.
[/quote]I agree this case is horrific. I hope it serves as an example of what happens when access to reproductive choice is blocked for those who need it most.[/QUOTE]
Word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk
Exactly.
The only government healthcare I would like is free abortions.
That would cut down on alot of undesirables breaking into my car and stealing stuff.
|
Weak troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bondino
Are your people ever responsible for their actions?
|
My people are never responsible for their own actions max. Centuries of irresponsibility, that's what my people are known for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Of course - that's completely irrelevant to the issue though.
This is a total side-track to the thread (which is why I didn't pursue it further), but if you search, there are plenty of papers espousing the link between Roe v. Wade and reduced crime rates. Freakonomics also made the argument front-and-center. The issue isn't that poor people, or single parents, or any other crime correlates are the ones who have all the abortions - it's that the wide availability of relatively cheap abortions made those groups the largest increase in abortions, because they lacked any access before.
Less at-risk babies = less at-risk youth = ... and so on. The irony I alluded to earlier is that a good number who are gung-ho "SAVE THE BABIES!" wouldn't step foot in the poor part of town to cash a check and are in favor of denying poor folks health care. Why not just start earlier? [/cynicism]
|
This is a correlation/causation problem though and not something that I think can have a true link drawn through it, although I've tended to avoid some of that literature.
Threaded Mode
