I think of it this way: You're potentially saving a child from a life of neglect, abuse, or being forced to live in various foster families that could be a factor for a rough childhood and possible mental illness. This is all done before the child even has a glimpse of the hard life ahead.
A very large amount of children born in financially irresponsible households do end up being neglected. If you know for a fact that you aren't able to provide a good life for them, it's your choice whether or not to have an abortion.
But how can a better life for the child be ensured if you kill it prematurely? You could ensure a better life for a future, fictional child, but the living child right now is being killed.
“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even - this was seriously maintained - a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.” -Christopher Hitchens.
And so I'll bounce that question back to you: When does human life start? When it reacts to the environment - 8 weeks? Brain activity - 6 weeks? Heartbeat - 5 weeks?
Conception is the biological answer, it is the only definition that is independent of variables and interpretation. It is the only unarbitrary way to define when a human life begins. So, if we care to use a consistent definition of a human being, then the premeditated murder of an innocent human being is morally wrong applies to the fetus. Therefore, regardless of circumstances, abortion is wrong.
We tend to put more value on life the further along it is in the stages of development. Although late abortions are much more cruel to the baby, there is no moral difference between an early and a late abortion. If you do attribute more value to a more developed being, then you have to make peace with the fact that a 3-year-old is less valuable than a 45-year-old.
Being pro-choice has become this trendy liberal stance because it's associated with female empowerment. Supporting the movement has become some kind of democratic duty of all females. But abortion has nothing to do with women's rights, it's purely a moral issue.
[Awesomeo] Define when true life starts for us please. No one said kill the baby that is murder, but so destroying a fetus that is'nt developed yet should not be considered murder until it's truly now a BABY an no longer a fetus in momma's tummy.
Yeah, I... see what you're trying to say. Here's what I think:
Just as there's a chance that you're sparing a kid a harsh life (but not necessarily full of only agony), there is also a chance that you're sparing them a good life. People raise kids with no money all over the world, but many of them are content. So many incredible, talented and successful people were born to very difficult circumstances and raised by single mothers - and they turned out to be fine. To rationalize that someone will have a shitty life and would rather be unborn than born is deciding for them, and I think it's irrelevant, because we don't know what they want.
It's a difficult choice, but I don't think it's anyone's choice but theirs.
I think of it this way: You're potentially saving a child from a life of neglect, abuse, or being forced to live in various foster families … morethat could be a factor for a rough childhood and possible mental illness. This is all done before the child even has a glimpse of the hard life ahead.
A very large amount of children born in financially irresponsible households do end up being neglected. If you know for a fact that you aren't able to provide a good life for them, it's your choice whether or not to have an abortion.
I would be more alright with abortion if it didn't mean of mutilating a living person and then sucking them out. In fact I would prefer a solution that don't kill (or murder if you prefer.)
In some cases abortion would make sense but it shouldn't be used lightly.
Once, a colleague of my work told me something very interesting regarding to have children. he told me: "- I think is absurd that people are… more completely free to have a child. for example, if you want to drive a vehicle a driver's license is required! you need to prove you are up to the task, for obvious reasons. and if you are caught driving without a license, you may receive a fine and they will seize your vehicle."
A child is something MUCH more serious than driving a car. and yet, the state doesn't care if you're going to have them or not. or how many you will have. and they even allows you to kill them if you, for some selfish motive. do not want them...
Yes, yes. The final result is the same, ok. but the means for achieving the result is different. and I think that's what you're missing.
I am very skeptical of the idea that the minute sperm meets an egg = living thing that can feel pain and emotion.
I'll quote what Tobi-Is-A-Good-Boy said on It: "We're human from the get go. We don't need to speak, walk, etc. to be human, the ONLY thing that matters to define us is DNA. We start off dormant, then we awaken"
Your definition of human being is based just on sensory capacities. he can walk, he can talk, feel, cry, smile, etc.. then here is a human being do not kill It! but this definition is shallow and only includes the surface of something vastly more complex.
I would like to know your other reasons to be pro-choice.
Well we gotta eat somehow...
Anyway, back on topic. Your argument was that abortion is stopping a natural process, and I compared it to n… moreot getting pregnant because both result in no child being born. Now for the record, I am very skeptical of the idea that the minute sperm meets an egg = living thing that can feel pain and emotion. Maybe I'm wrong (not that I'm too fussed about it, I've got other reasons for being pro-choice) but I'm just very doubtful.
As a adult i can control who i have sex with, i'm not a teenager anymore. If i had a child and it was aborted it would make me sad of course, but it would be my fault because i wasn't in a committed relationship to begin with;
You say that as a male you really have nothing to do with it.
What if it was yours?
Your own flesh and blood, and say she wanted to have an abortion, simply because she just didn't want to be bothered with being a mother?
What would you say then?
Yeah, I get what you're saying. But unfortunately, outlawing abortion would inevitably do more harm than good in a society.
Ultimately, it's all up to the woman to decide. We can bicker and moan about the right or wrongness of it but it isn't our body or our choice to make at all. Pro-choicers aren't here to force women to kill their children, so why outlaw it?
Yeah, I... see what you're trying to say. Here's what I think:
Just as there's a chance that you're sparing a kid a harsh life (but not n… moreecessarily full of only agony), there is also a chance that you're sparing them a good life. People raise kids with no money all over the world, but many of them are content. So many incredible, talented and successful people were born to very difficult circumstances and raised by single mothers - and they turned out to be fine. To rationalize that someone will have a shitty life and would rather be unborn than born is deciding for them, and I think it's irrelevant, because we don't know what they want.
It's a difficult choice, but I don't think it's anyone's choice but theirs.
According to a law passed in 1993, abortion is legal in Poland throughout pregnancy to preserve the life or physical health of the mother. During the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, abortion is also allowed in circumstances of rape, incest or fetal abnormality.
Defunding Planned Parenthood is actually one of the most closed minded ridiculous things ive seen in awhile.
Planned Parenthood does more… more then just abortions it does many important things like STI screenings that can be hard and expensive without it. Since I believe only 3% of Planned Parenthoods money goes to abortions (if im incorrect tell me) you're seriously going to try to something because you disagree with what 3% of its money goes too? Thats very ridiculous and makes about zero sense.
And as for making abortion illegal (which is basically then end goal for the peolpe trying to shut down planned parenthood) You arent actually Pro Life if you want abortion to be illegal and and I have a feeling you fucking know it, as hard as it is to come to terms with it the real pro life peolpe are ones who want abortions to be legal. I did a study on this and if someone wants links i can provide them but for now i wont. In Poland (A very relig… [view original content]
I would agree that it's her choice if it was only her body involved in the process, but because aborting by nature is dismembering and killing a baby, and I believe that the baby is equally human as any of us, and therefore has the same intrinsic rights and values of the mother, is why I don't think it's a light issue. I judge it the same way that I would judge a murder, because I don't see any difference between the words, as long as the mother isn't in danger.
That's why it's important discussing whether it's right or wrong; if she was destroying her own body and leading to her own death, I wouldn't stop her because it's her body, but once the baby, a seperate being that is growing inside of the mother, is being terminated, then it becomes an ethical issue.
Regardless... I find it amusing when people are inconsistent with their definition of the fetus. When the baby is desirable by the mother, it is suddenly is called a miracle and her child, but when she doesn't want it it's suddenly referred to as a blob of cells or a parasite.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. But unfortunately, outlawing abortion would inevitably do more harm than good in a society.
Ultimately, i… moret's all up to the woman to decide. We can bicker and moan about the right or wrongness of it but it isn't our body or our choice to make at all. Pro-choicers aren't here to force women to kill their children, so why outlaw it?
Just a theory, based upon the information I see before me. I would imagine these issues displayed by that graph would have something to do with guilt. As many have said, abortion is, in many ways, tantamount to killing a life, and I think that these women aknowledge that, and thus feel horrible for it. I do not think that a reasonally minded person would feel nonchalant about having an abortion preformed upon their own would-be child. Those that do, however, have it done without a single care in the world for what they are doing, I personally find disgusting. I can be in favour of abortion depending on the reasoning behind a certain case and the amount of merit that comes with it, but to have it done without any remorse on the would-have-been mothers part is, in my eyes, reprehensible.
Women who had abortions had:
* 59 percent increased risk for suicidal thoughts
* 61 percent increased risk for mood disorders
* 6… more1 percent increased risk for social anxiety disorders
* 261 percent increased risk for alcohol abuse
* 280 percent increased risk for any substance use disorder
A fertalised egg (zygote) becomes an embryo within the first few days of pregnancy. The embriotic stage last until 8 weeks, when the fetal stage shall then begin.
I'll put it simple. Abortion: everything about it is messed up. Planned Parenthood: Good luck to that couple and have a happy family.
Now… more, I'm just going to leave some things to be thought about since I'm not exactly in the mood for debates (plus I know loops will/have been made involving the subject of abortion), so I'll just leave my thoughts here and try to move on from this thread.
I know for a fact that abortion is an act of killing another human being. For reasons mentioned earlier plus I some of my own I'll share. People can deny it as much as they want but if something is alive it is killing. A fetus is not like a rock. Humans are similar to plants in a way. In order to begin life, you need to have something alive and in this case, humans. We all start off as sperm (no shit) and use an egg along with to combine the human genetic material we are given.Human genetic material. If something has the same genetic make-up as another o… [view original content]
I would be more alright with abortion if it didn't mean of mutilating a living person and then sucking them out. In fact I would prefer a so… morelution that don't kill (or murder if you prefer.)
In some cases abortion would make sense but it shouldn't be used lightly.
According to a law passed in 1993, abortion is legal in Poland throughout pregnancy to preserve the life or physical health of the mother. D… moreuring the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, abortion is also allowed in circumstances of rape, incest or fetal abnormality.
Well, since this isn't getting locked, I'll elaborate on my stance.
I don't like abortion. My moral compass tells me that it's killing and that killing is wrong. That said, I think it's an individual's responsibility to make that call for themselves. I don't believe in forcing my moral standards on others and I don't want to live in a society in which the government starts making intensity personal decisions for us.
In the case of unplanned pregnancy, I believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My school taught abstinence based sex-Ed and the results were stunning. We had one of the highest underage pregnancy rates in the state. We should do away with abstinence based sex-Ed and instead teach more about contraceptives. America would also be better off if people were more conscientious about sex in general. No more "hitting it raw" because it feels better, or boning after a night of heavy drinking. Stupid shit like this causes way more accidents than you'd think.
But aren't we already enforcing our moral standards by making murder illegal? It's not like we're enforcing religion or beliefs, were enforcing people's rights. It's like saying that because there are rednecks who think slavery should be legal, then it's not in our right to prevent them from doing so.
It becomes our moral duty when peoples beliefs start affecting other people's lives in ways that violate their human rights, and that's exactly what I think happens during abortion.
Well, since this isn't getting locked, I'll elaborate on my stance.
I don't like abortion. My moral compass tells me that it's killing a… morend that killing is wrong. That said, I think it's an individual's responsibility to make that call for themselves. I don't believe in forcing my moral standards on others and I don't want to live in a society in which the government starts making intensity personal decisions for us.
In the case of unplanned pregnancy, I believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My school taught abstinence based sex-Ed and the results were stunning. We had one of the highest underage pregnancy rates in the state. We should do away with abstinence based sex-Ed and instead teach more about contraceptives. America would also be better off if people were more conscientious about sex in general. No more "hitting it raw" because it feels better, or boning after a night of heavy drinking. Stupid shit like this causes way more accidents than you'd think.
Personally I'm pro-abortion, I'm not female and I will not tell one what to do with her body. There are a lot of situations where abortion should be considered; rape and incest being the biggest ones. I'd rather a female whom is unfit to be a mother have an abortion, rather then have a child she can't provide for or is unwilling to provide for. There are many children whom have parents that just don't give a crap about them, and those children grow up and repeat what was done to them.
Truth be told, some people just shouldn't procreate. So why should a child have to endure a life that may not be ideal? A life of abuse or poverty. It isn't fair to the child to have to pay for the parents shortcomings or idiocy.
Well seeing as I'm probably going to just stay out of abortion debates for too long, I guess there's no point in hiding my reasons. Just so you know, some of these will probably seem pretty heartless.
I don't consider the 'right to life' to include dependence on someone else's body (I know, shitty reason)
The world is becoming overpopulated, and we don't want to see anyone countries turn out like China, where we have to institute a one-child policy (although I've heard that having a sibling in China isn't too uncommon these days) to keep the population from getting more out of control (because, sad fact is that Earth's resources won't last forever).
Now this one is used and refuted pretty often. Children who get put up for adoption run this risk of being in an abusive family, which can result in things like drug abuse, criminal activity and then going to jail and being unable to find a job afterwards. Now granted, if the adoption system was changed to minimize the risk of children going to poor or abusive families, then I'd be satisfied.
Now as someone with an 11-month-old niece, I find it difficult to really decide where I stand on abortion. I think both sides have valid arguments and I find it to be a very grey area, morally. So I'm gonna just try to avoid the topic from now on. It really can be a shitstorm.
Yes, yes. The final result is the same, ok. but the means for achieving the result is different. and I think that's what you're missing.
… more I am very skeptical of the idea that the minute sperm meets an egg = living thing that can feel pain and emotion.
I'll quote what Tobi-Is-A-Good-Boy said on It: "We're human from the get go. We don't need to speak, walk, etc. to be human, the ONLY thing that matters to define us is DNA. We start off dormant, then we awaken"
Your definition of human being is based just on sensory capacities. he can walk, he can talk, feel, cry, smile, etc.. then here is a human being do not kill It! but this definition is shallow and only includes the surface of something vastly more complex.
I would like to know your other reasons to be pro-choice.
Personally, I've struggled to decide where i stand on abortion (even though I've been pro-choice through most of this thread), so I think some things need to change, not just in America, but in any country where this is a debate.
Firstly, I think we should continue to push sex education in schools, so that teenagers are at least aware of the risks that can come with sexual activity. Since sex is a natural human desire, I think trying to force abstinence is a waste of time.
Secondly, I think we should try to minimize the risk of children going to poor or abusive homes. Because those types of living conditions can push someone to drugs and alcohol, prison and then a difficult life afterwards. If we could cut back on the amount of kids getting abused soon after birth, then I'd be happy.
As someone with an 11-month-old niece, I really can't force myself to debate abortion anymore, so I'm just gonna avoid the topic entirely if I can.
That is your opinion.
But the truth is, it is morally wrong to kill a baby, under any circumstances.
Especially if the woman in question just doesn't wanna be "bothered" with the responsibility of taking care of kid.
I also was not intending to talk about it either, but I came here and started to read the comments and here I am.. debating.
I don't consider the 'right to life' to include dependence on someone else's body (I know, shitty reason)
Yes it is. haha. and I can answer it the same way you said about vegans, just changing one word: "Well, we gotta (born) somehow..."
The world is becoming overpopulated, and we don't want to see anyone countries turn out like China, where we have to institute a one-child policy
I really wish that there was a regulation on It, regardless of overpopulation. as I already mentioned in another comment here. if even to drive a car you need a driver's license, why the act of having a child (something MUCH more serious) is completely free of supervision?
Now this one is used and refuted pretty often. Children who get put up for adoption run this risk of being in an abusive family, which can result in things like drug abuse, criminal activity and then going to jail and being unable to find a job afterwards.
like you said, the adoption system needs to be changed.
Now as someone with an 11-month-old niece, I find it difficult to really decide where I stand on abortion. I think both sides have valid arguments and I find it to be a very grey area, morally.
For me the only valid and justifiable arguments to perform an abortion are: Rape, risk of death for the mother, very early age and anencephalic fetus. anything beyond that is just a selfish personal decision.
Well seeing as I'm probably going to just stay out of abortion debates for too long, I guess there's no point in hiding my reasons. Just so … moreyou know, some of these will probably seem pretty heartless.
I don't consider the 'right to life' to include dependence on someone else's body (I know, shitty reason)
The world is becoming overpopulated, and we don't want to see anyone countries turn out like China, where we have to institute a one-child policy (although I've heard that having a sibling in China isn't too uncommon these days) to keep the population from getting more out of control (because, sad fact is that Earth's resources won't last forever).
Now this one is used and refuted pretty often. Children who get put up for adoption run this risk of being in an abusive family, which can result in things like drug abuse, criminal activity and then going to jail and being unable to find a job afterwards. Now granted, if the adoption sys… [view original content]
I also was not intending to talk about it either, but I came here and started to read the comments and here I am.. debating.
I don't … moreconsider the 'right to life' to include dependence on someone else's body (I know, shitty reason)
Yes it is. haha. and I can answer it the same way you said about vegans, just changing one word: "Well, we gotta (born) somehow..."
The world is becoming overpopulated, and we don't want to see anyone countries turn out like China, where we have to institute a one-child policy
I really wish that there was a regulation on It, regardless of overpopulation. as I already mentioned in another comment here. if even to drive a car you need a driver's license, why the act of having a child (something MUCH more serious) is completely free of supervision?
Now this one is used and refuted pretty often. Children who get put up for adoption run this risk of being in an abusive family, which can… [view original content]
Comments
Our society sheds light on its' own stupidity in various ways.
I think of it this way: You're potentially saving a child from a life of neglect, abuse, or being forced to live in various foster families that could be a factor for a rough childhood and possible mental illness. This is all done before the child even has a glimpse of the hard life ahead.
A very large amount of children born in financially irresponsible households do end up being neglected. If you know for a fact that you aren't able to provide a good life for them, it's your choice whether or not to have an abortion.
Define true life.
“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even - this was seriously maintained - a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.” -Christopher Hitchens.
And so I'll bounce that question back to you: When does human life start? When it reacts to the environment - 8 weeks? Brain activity - 6 weeks? Heartbeat - 5 weeks?
Conception is the biological answer, it is the only definition that is independent of variables and interpretation. It is the only unarbitrary way to define when a human life begins. So, if we care to use a consistent definition of a human being, then the premeditated murder of an innocent human being is morally wrong applies to the fetus. Therefore, regardless of circumstances, abortion is wrong.
We tend to put more value on life the further along it is in the stages of development. Although late abortions are much more cruel to the baby, there is no moral difference between an early and a late abortion. If you do attribute more value to a more developed being, then you have to make peace with the fact that a 3-year-old is less valuable than a 45-year-old.
Being pro-choice has become this trendy liberal stance because it's associated with female empowerment. Supporting the movement has become some kind of democratic duty of all females. But abortion has nothing to do with women's rights, it's purely a moral issue.
Well.... that was unexpected. I'm glad I got to someone
Yeah, I... see what you're trying to say. Here's what I think:
Just as there's a chance that you're sparing a kid a harsh life (but not necessarily full of only agony), there is also a chance that you're sparing them a good life. People raise kids with no money all over the world, but many of them are content. So many incredible, talented and successful people were born to very difficult circumstances and raised by single mothers - and they turned out to be fine. To rationalize that someone will have a shitty life and would rather be unborn than born is deciding for them, and I think it's irrelevant, because we don't know what they want.
It's a difficult choice, but I don't think it's anyone's choice but theirs.
I would be more alright with abortion if it didn't mean of mutilating a living person and then sucking them out. In fact I would prefer a solution that don't kill (or murder if you prefer.)
In some cases abortion would make sense but it shouldn't be used lightly.
While I can understand these reasons and can see their merit, it is still by majority - as AWESOMEO pointed out - very self centered.
Good point.
As much as that was in poor taste, I did find that somewhat humorous.
"Poor taste" is the foundation of a lot of comedy.
Yes, yes. The final result is the same, ok. but the means for achieving the result is different. and I think that's what you're missing.
I'll quote what Tobi-Is-A-Good-Boy said on It: "We're human from the get go. We don't need to speak, walk, etc. to be human, the ONLY thing that matters to define us is DNA. We start off dormant, then we awaken"
Your definition of human being is based just on sensory capacities. he can walk, he can talk, feel, cry, smile, etc.. then here is a human being do not kill It! but this definition is shallow and only includes the surface of something vastly more complex.
I would like to know your other reasons to be pro-choice.
Yes. what he said struck me. for I had never thought by this perspective.
As a adult i can control who i have sex with, i'm not a teenager anymore. If i had a child and it was aborted it would make me sad of course, but it would be my fault because i wasn't in a committed relationship to begin with;
Yeah, I get what you're saying. But unfortunately, outlawing abortion would inevitably do more harm than good in a society.
Ultimately, it's all up to the woman to decide. We can bicker and moan about the right or wrongness of it but it isn't our body or our choice to make at all. Pro-choicers aren't here to force women to kill their children, so why outlaw it?
According to a law passed in 1993, abortion is legal in Poland throughout pregnancy to preserve the life or physical health of the mother. During the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, abortion is also allowed in circumstances of rape, incest or fetal abnormality.
I would agree that it's her choice if it was only her body involved in the process, but because aborting by nature is dismembering and killing a baby, and I believe that the baby is equally human as any of us, and therefore has the same intrinsic rights and values of the mother, is why I don't think it's a light issue. I judge it the same way that I would judge a murder, because I don't see any difference between the words, as long as the mother isn't in danger.
That's why it's important discussing whether it's right or wrong; if she was destroying her own body and leading to her own death, I wouldn't stop her because it's her body, but once the baby, a seperate being that is growing inside of the mother, is being terminated, then it becomes an ethical issue.
Regardless... I find it amusing when people are inconsistent with their definition of the fetus. When the baby is desirable by the mother, it is suddenly is called a miracle and her child, but when she doesn't want it it's suddenly referred to as a blob of cells or a parasite.
What is the information's source?
Just a theory, based upon the information I see before me. I would imagine these issues displayed by that graph would have something to do with guilt. As many have said, abortion is, in many ways, tantamount to killing a life, and I think that these women aknowledge that, and thus feel horrible for it. I do not think that a reasonally minded person would feel nonchalant about having an abortion preformed upon their own would-be child. Those that do, however, have it done without a single care in the world for what they are doing, I personally find disgusting. I can be in favour of abortion depending on the reasoning behind a certain case and the amount of merit that comes with it, but to have it done without any remorse on the would-have-been mothers part is, in my eyes, reprehensible.
Not to be a corrective fanatic with you, but you omissed two details
It goes sperm/egg > zygote > embryo > fetus > baby.
A fertalised egg (zygote) becomes an embryo within the first few days of pregnancy. The embriotic stage last until 8 weeks, when the fetal stage shall then begin.
Murder depending on where you live, that is. Murder implies unlawful conduct.
Yes and rape, incest and fetal abnormality account for a very small portion of abortions.
Well, since this isn't getting locked, I'll elaborate on my stance.
I don't like abortion. My moral compass tells me that it's killing and that killing is wrong. That said, I think it's an individual's responsibility to make that call for themselves. I don't believe in forcing my moral standards on others and I don't want to live in a society in which the government starts making intensity personal decisions for us.
In the case of unplanned pregnancy, I believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My school taught abstinence based sex-Ed and the results were stunning. We had one of the highest underage pregnancy rates in the state. We should do away with abstinence based sex-Ed and instead teach more about contraceptives. America would also be better off if people were more conscientious about sex in general. No more "hitting it raw" because it feels better, or boning after a night of heavy drinking. Stupid shit like this causes way more accidents than you'd think.
But aren't we already enforcing our moral standards by making murder illegal? It's not like we're enforcing religion or beliefs, were enforcing people's rights. It's like saying that because there are rednecks who think slavery should be legal, then it's not in our right to prevent them from doing so.
It becomes our moral duty when peoples beliefs start affecting other people's lives in ways that violate their human rights, and that's exactly what I think happens during abortion.
Ew..this shit terrifies me to death.
Personally I'm pro-abortion, I'm not female and I will not tell one what to do with her body. There are a lot of situations where abortion should be considered; rape and incest being the biggest ones. I'd rather a female whom is unfit to be a mother have an abortion, rather then have a child she can't provide for or is unwilling to provide for. There are many children whom have parents that just don't give a crap about them, and those children grow up and repeat what was done to them.
Truth be told, some people just shouldn't procreate. So why should a child have to endure a life that may not be ideal? A life of abuse or poverty. It isn't fair to the child to have to pay for the parents shortcomings or idiocy.
Well seeing as I'm probably going to just stay out of abortion debates for too long, I guess there's no point in hiding my reasons. Just so you know, some of these will probably seem pretty heartless.
I don't consider the 'right to life' to include dependence on someone else's body (I know, shitty reason)
The world is becoming overpopulated, and we don't want to see anyone countries turn out like China, where we have to institute a one-child policy (although I've heard that having a sibling in China isn't too uncommon these days) to keep the population from getting more out of control (because, sad fact is that Earth's resources won't last forever).
Now this one is used and refuted pretty often. Children who get put up for adoption run this risk of being in an abusive family, which can result in things like drug abuse, criminal activity and then going to jail and being unable to find a job afterwards. Now granted, if the adoption system was changed to minimize the risk of children going to poor or abusive families, then I'd be satisfied.
Now as someone with an 11-month-old niece, I find it difficult to really decide where I stand on abortion. I think both sides have valid arguments and I find it to be a very grey area, morally. So I'm gonna just try to avoid the topic from now on. It really can be a shitstorm.
Personally, I've struggled to decide where i stand on abortion (even though I've been pro-choice through most of this thread), so I think some things need to change, not just in America, but in any country where this is a debate.
Firstly, I think we should continue to push sex education in schools, so that teenagers are at least aware of the risks that can come with sexual activity. Since sex is a natural human desire, I think trying to force abstinence is a waste of time.
Secondly, I think we should try to minimize the risk of children going to poor or abusive homes. Because those types of living conditions can push someone to drugs and alcohol, prison and then a difficult life afterwards. If we could cut back on the amount of kids getting abused soon after birth, then I'd be happy.
As someone with an 11-month-old niece, I really can't force myself to debate abortion anymore, so I'm just gonna avoid the topic entirely if I can.
I also was not intending to talk about it either, but I came here and started to read the comments and here I am.. debating.
Yes it is. haha. and I can answer it the same way you said about vegans, just changing one word: "Well, we gotta (born) somehow..."
I really wish that there was a regulation on It, regardless of overpopulation. as I already mentioned in another comment here. if even to drive a car you need a driver's license, why the act of having a child (something MUCH more serious) is completely free of supervision?
like you said, the adoption system needs to be changed.
For me the only valid and justifiable arguments to perform an abortion are: Rape, risk of death for the mother, very early age and anencephalic fetus. anything beyond that is just a selfish personal decision.
I wish good health and success to your niece.
Thanks