'It's a child not a choice...but not if you were raped'

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yup that is my experience also. I don't know if you recall, but I have said before that my opinions on abortion underwent a change after I saw a live abortion at a hospital I worked in. I'm not certain how suctioning off body parts of a child is better for the child no matter that the child is barely an inch long. Sometimes, I think a lot of our ethics are based on ignorance.

Oh please the BBC aired a documentary titled 'My Foetus' that showed all of that. It hasnt changed my thoughts on abortion at all! Women are not idiots Sam. Abortion clinics explain the procedure, women are not going to carry a baby to term out of some strange sympathy. Why? Because of the one fact you keep missing which is that these women DO NOT WANT to be pregnant. Get it now? If choosing between saving the life of a woman or the potential of the unborn I would still choose that of the woman. You obviously would choose something else and that's fine. Most of these women do not think of the foetus as their child or a child, its as simple as that.

 

[S.A.M.]

Please the BBC aired a documentary titled 'My Foetus' that showed all of that. It has changed my thoughts on abortion at all! Women are not idiots Sam. Abortion clinics explain the procedure, these women are not interested in having a baby out of some strange sympathy. If choosing between saving the life of a woman or the potential of the unborn I would still choose that of the woman. You obviously would choose something else and that's fine.

Sure, isn't that what I said?

Btw, isn't it the bible that said, the sins of the parent are visited on the child? Perhaps that could be considered an endorsement of abortion. <--- this is for the OP

 

[wynn]

You see abortion as murder, yet you want an exception for rape. I'd like to know the logic behind your ideas.

While I am not in that camp, I think I can understand a part of the logic behind "Abortion is permissible in cases of rape."

Namely, that logic seems to be that rape is such a grievous action that it justifies killing; either killing the rapist (historically, there were times when a rapist faced a death sentence) or the product of a rape (aborting the child).

Another line of reasoning that supports this logic is that life is so valuable that only those who are deemed deserving should have it, others should have less or more restricted access to it.
We can see this reasoning at work in many facets of daily life, not only as far as abortion is concerned but also in terms of sentences for criminals, who qualifies for welfare, who gets to keep their job, and down to whom we give our affections and whom we deprive of that.
It's actually a sliding scale from killing to firing an employee to rejecting someone's friendship to not extending common courtesy to someone.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Sure, isn't that what I said?

Btw, isn't it the bible that said, the sins of the parent are visited on the child? Perhaps that could be considered an endorsement of abortion. <--- this is for the OP

LOL! You're quoting the bible to me?:roflmao:

I prefer Grimm's fairy tales. I also like Aesop. What does Aesop have to say?

No its not what I said. Its an obvious typo. If there is a god then I believe it would want for us whatever we want for ourselves. You religious folk are part of the problem with what is wrong in the world so I wouldn't suggest anyone reach out to you lot for advice.

 

[birch]

I guess I am a person who believes that abandoned children should be rescued, even if they are abandoned in the womb. They may not have much of a chance outside it, but it will be more or less equal to the chance that every child who is born is presented with.

everyone draws the line somewhere. just like i don't think it's illegal for someone to commit suicide, it's their life. i see fetus and mother as one and she has the decision. after birth, i see that as being different. a fetus isn't developed enough to know what it wants.

i don't see it as an abandonment anymore than it's not my place to dictate that someone doesn't drink too much or smoke or do things that are not always in their best interest. following your logic, someone should be able to dictate what is best for you at all times because you are a life. your self-determination is not important.

your argument is that you just want more people to be born in the world. doesn't india have enough people or does it need more? it's a collectivist mentality, you pretend that you care about the plight of every child but in fact, it's all about 'chance' for you. you don't place a high premium on life as much as you think.

there are people who have lots of children and are not as conscientious about their life but depend on 'chance' that maybe one of them may make it or survive. then there are people who will not bring a child into the world unless they can devote resources for that child.

I notice that most women who opt for an abortion are not thinking of what is best for a child but what is best for their lives, they are doing it because they themselves are not ready. They are doing it because they don't want to be pregnant (you should give that documentary a watch)

but look at this realistically. if one is not thinking of the best interest of the child or are not ready and are thinking of their own lives, then either way it's not good for the child. get it? forcing them to have it, is not going to be a good outcome.

also, many ghetto bitches have many children, doesn't mean they care about them either or thought about what is best for them.

 

[wynn]

The fact is that there is a lot more to a human than just the fact that they exist.
Where they live, what they do, what they look like, whom they associate with - and also the circumstances of their conception.

Just like it is a fact that our status in this world is in large extent determined by the other people in our lives (whether they like us or not, whether they find us useful or not, etc.), it is a fact that the circumstances of one's conception play a part in the status that a human will be given by the other people in society.

There tends to be a difference in how parents treats those children that they planned for, as opposed to those they didn't.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Signal

By the way you had addressed two posts to me in the other thread (freethoughts abortion irresponsible women) and I have gone back and answered them.

 

[wynn]

If there is a god then I believe it would want for us whatever we want for ourselves.

So if a child would want to test the hot plate with his hand, getting severe burns for the fifth time in a row, in your estimation, a good parent would allow for that?

 

[S.A.M.]

There tends to be a difference in how parents treats those children that they planned for, as opposed to those they didn't.

Which has little or nothing to do with the child itself, doesn't it? And yet, rather than change the attitudes of the parents, we seek to choose whether or not the child deserves to live. Do you know of any other ethical situation where the victim is held responsible/accountable for the act?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So if a child would want to test the hot plate with his hand, getting severe burns for the fifth time in a row, in your estimation, a good parent would allow for that?

A child doesn't want the burn Signal. A child touches the hot plate because it doesn't know it is hot. A child is in the state of innocence a woman who decides on abortion is making an informed decision.

 

[birch]

I'm not certain how suctioning off body parts of a child is better for the child no matter that the child is barely an inch long

aww, you are so moral. but a lifetime of misery and pain is so much better, at least they might have a chance in the cold, cruel and unpredictable world. how responsible and so much more ethical. it all makes so much more sense, prolonged misery or devastation is so much better than a few moments of it. lol

 

[S.A.M.]

aww, you are so moral. but a lifetime of misery and pain is so much better, at least they might have a chance in the cold, cruel and unpredictable world. how responsible and so much more ethical. it all makes so much more sense, prolonged misery or devastation is so much better than a few moments of it. lol

Yup, security is not a valid excuse for giving up liberty

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yup, security is not a valid excuse for giving up liberty

The foetus never had any liberty

 

[birch]

Yup, security is not a valid excuse for giving up liberty

heh, that statement is actually the antithesis of your argument. it also has nothing to do with ethics.

 

[S.A.M.]

heh, that statement is actually the antithesis of your argument. it also has nothing to do with ethics.

It does, when your security is based on someone elses liberty. I don't think a woman has the right to kill her child when he does not have the option to be rescued. I think any pregnant woman who puts her wants ahead of her child's needs is being self serving.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

It does, when your security is based on someone elses liberty. I don't think a woman has the right to kill her child when he does not have the option to be rescued. I think any pregnant woman who puts her wants ahead of her child's needs is being self serving.

Sam you do realize that,

The human foetus feels no pain before 24 weeks, according to a major review of scientific evidence published today.

The connections in the foetal brain are not fully formed in that time, nor is the foetus conscious, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The findings of two reports commissioned by the Department of Health strike a blow to those seeking to reduce the upper time limit for having an abortion, currently at 24 weeks.

The studies suggest that late abortions, permitted for serious abnormalities or risks to a woman's health, do not result in foetal suffering because of increasing evidence that the chemical environment in the uterus induces "a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...-pain-24-weeks

What the hell does it know of security or liberty?:shrug:

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

It does, when your security is based on someone elses liberty. I don't think a woman has the right to kill her child when he does not have the option to be rescued. I think any pregnant woman who puts her wants ahead of her child's needs is being self serving.

So let me get this straight. You want a woman who is self-serving to have lot's of babies she doesn't want? Is that it?

 

[S.A.M.]

So let me get this straight. You want a woman who is self-serving to have lot's of babies she doesn't want? Is that it?

No, I think she should be more self serving and avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Everyone is self serving to some degree, but we usually don't condone it when it means that the rights of others are dismissed. For some reason though children are only accorded protection when they are visible. This is not true only for abortion. This is also true for children who are abused physically or otherwise. For some reason, the concept of abuse in the abstract does not have the same impact as the visual representation of such abuse. And it would seem, for some people, even that is not sufficient to create remorse or second thoughts.

Perhaps as a society we are moving towards greater self absorption, with less and less regard for others.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No, I think she should be more self serving and avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Everyone is self serving to some degree, but we usually don't condone it when it means that the rights of others are dismissed. For some reason though children are only accorded protection when they are visible. This is not true only for abortion. This is also true for children who are abused physically or otherwise. For some reason, the concept of abuse in the abstract does not have the same impact as the visual representation of such abuse. And it would seem, for some people, even that is not sufficient to create remorse or second thoughts.

Perhaps as a society we are moving towards greater self absorption, with less and less regard for others.

Oh please, stop playing captain hindsight. We know that women will always be in a position where they will get pregnant when they don't want to be, this was true when abortion was illegal as well as legal, as well as when there was sex education and contraceptives so lets deal with reality and not wishful thinking. You keep going on about visible children. This discussion isn't about children who are born its about the unborn. By the way any comment on post# 76?

 

[birch]

I think any pregnant woman who puts her wants ahead of her child's needs is being self serving.

and that person shouldn't be having kids (obvious?) and shouldn't be passing on her genes. voila!

No, I think she should be more self serving and avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Everyone is self serving to some degree, but we usually don't condone it when it means that the rights of others are dismissed. For some reason though children are only accorded protection when they are visible. This is not true only for abortion. This is also true for children who are abused physically or otherwise. For some reason, the concept of abuse in the abstract does not have the same impact as the visual representation of such abuse. And it would seem, for some people, even that is not sufficient to create remorse or second thoughts.

Perhaps as a society we are moving towards greater self absorption, with less and less regard for others.

and you are one to talk. you were going on about not giving two shits about what actually happens to kids as much as making sure they are born. what's abstract and overblown is your fixation that abortion is the worst imaginable or unimaginable. people kill animals everyday, they kill eachother everyday, they do it all with some type of justification. we even kill out of mercy at times. death, realistically as long as it's not drawn out to produce more pain, is really not more horrible than a lot of things people endure.

less and less regard for others, my foot! do you think before abortion clinics people had more regard for others? your arguments don't even make sense. what about all the killing, torturing, abusing, and warring people have done throughout history.