KPforum
things we like
Susan
September 20, 2011 at 11:54: pm
I know many women who have had abortions and each said it was because they did not feel they could care for a child at that point in their life.
A couple were college students, one had broken up with her boyfriend already and the other had the abortion when she was 20 weeks pregnant. I don't think many doctors will do that any more. Another was married and already had two children when she found out she was carrying twins. She said it was a financial decision to end the pregnancy.
I love and support my friends, but it is complicated and if it had been my decision in any of those cases I'm not sure I could have made that choice.
A couple were college students, one had broken up with her boyfriend already and the other had the abortion when she was 20 weeks pregnant. I don't think many doctors will do that any more. Another was married and already had two children when she found out she was carrying twins. She said it was a financial decision to end the pregnancy.
I love and support my friends, but it is complicated and if it had been my decision in any of those cases I'm not sure I could have made that choice.
Danielle
September 21, 2011 at 1:28: am
I can't say whether I'm pro life, or pro choice in all aspects, but some circumstances abortion is necessary imo, BUT i agree with Kat, abortion shouldnt be seen as another form of contraception. We all make decisions we have to live with, that is just another form.
Mel
September 21, 2011 at 1:29: am
Totally agree. More people should think like you, world would be a better place..
miss_peg
September 21, 2011 at 1:49: am
I think you make some valid points, it's not as simple as it's sometimes made out to be. Pro life is so far an extreme, but as you say so is pro choice to an extent. Should a woman be able to decide 'I don't want a child until I'm in a certain place in my career so I'll abort this one'? I think there's almost an assumption that if all else fails, you'll be fine because you can get an abortion. It shouldn't be as simple as that. I think it's difficult though because it's like, where do you draw the line? Some say on all abortions (but we know from history that to make abortion illegal would be counterproductive - people used to have backstreet abortions for this very reason, which lead to death of those who didn't want to be mothers as well as the feotus'). But to allow abortion at any time probably isn't a good idea either. It should only be with restriction. If someone really cannot cope with being pregnant, or they don't feel bringing a severely disabled child into the world is a good idea, or if someone is very young and has no support system. I certainly don't agree with the inconvenience as a reason to abort a child. Why should someone who has a stable job and is in a loving relationship (or even if they're not) and who wants a child one day, but doesn't want one right then, abort their child? Just because it's not the time they wanted it to happen...
Yepyep
September 22, 2011 at 7:45: am
Pro Life or Pro Choice is like the argument of Religion vs Science. I mean there's no right answer. Though, I believe that abortion should only be considered if the pregnancy harms the mother's health or if it was a rape-related pregnancy. Other than that, my mind is close. Well, various contraceptives exist or folk methods like withdrawal or the calendar method. So for me there is no excuse. Poor judgment on people's part and uncontrolled sexual urges doesn't give you the right to end an innocent life. If you don't want a baby, well, practice safe sex or better yet practice abstinence (this i doubt). prevention is better than cure.
Gizou
September 23, 2011 at 8:55: pm
Awwh an heated topic again ... like kathtyn, I find it difficult to place myself between the "pro life" or "pro choice" ...
May be thinking about it though I'd be a little more pro-life supporter,but with many reservations.
Abortion is a right that women have achieved after many battles.it’s a very important and precious right.(exclusively a female problem, female who had long been little considered by men).
There are many valid reasons to use this solution and among them:simply the lack of love to give to your child(cause like kathryn said before:living in a family without love is not a decent life), a fetus malformation, a genetic disease,and simply if you’ve been raped.
The abortions, for precise reasons is a struggle, a symbol of law and freedom for every women and in any case it must be removed.
However,again like kathryn said before so rightly, abortion souldn’t become a routine contraception method and also should not becomes an easy way for all excess.
This is to stop "living" and it should not be taken lightly.We can not decide a baby death just as if it were a fact to eliminate a single virus .
The concern is, being able to separate things and have a frame around it, as a law that aims abuses. We must say yes to abortion, but in wich condition do we have the right to get it?
Currently the issue is not raised enough and a good number of women abuse of it.
What is not normal, is that you can have abortions for superficial reasons. Because it’s still strange and worrying that with all the means of contraception that exist today in the 21 century (unlike 30 years ago) all sex education, prevention and communication we have in school and around,that some people could still be surprised by an unwanted pregnancy.
Surely education is the primarily responsible, we must change attidudes but it’s definitely not for tomorrow yet….
May be thinking about it though I'd be a little more pro-life supporter,but with many reservations.
Abortion is a right that women have achieved after many battles.it’s a very important and precious right.(exclusively a female problem, female who had long been little considered by men).
There are many valid reasons to use this solution and among them:simply the lack of love to give to your child(cause like kathryn said before:living in a family without love is not a decent life), a fetus malformation, a genetic disease,and simply if you’ve been raped.
The abortions, for precise reasons is a struggle, a symbol of law and freedom for every women and in any case it must be removed.
However,again like kathryn said before so rightly, abortion souldn’t become a routine contraception method and also should not becomes an easy way for all excess.
This is to stop "living" and it should not be taken lightly.We can not decide a baby death just as if it were a fact to eliminate a single virus .
The concern is, being able to separate things and have a frame around it, as a law that aims abuses. We must say yes to abortion, but in wich condition do we have the right to get it?
Currently the issue is not raised enough and a good number of women abuse of it.
What is not normal, is that you can have abortions for superficial reasons. Because it’s still strange and worrying that with all the means of contraception that exist today in the 21 century (unlike 30 years ago) all sex education, prevention and communication we have in school and around,that some people could still be surprised by an unwanted pregnancy.
Surely education is the primarily responsible, we must change attidudes but it’s definitely not for tomorrow yet….
X
September 24, 2011 at 1:44: am
On September 22, 2011 at 7:45: am Yepyep wrote:
Pro Life or Pro Choice is like the argument of Religion vs Science. I mean there's no right answer. Though, I believe that abortion should only be considered if the pregnancy harms the mother's health or if it was a rape-related pregnancy. Other than that, my mind is close. Well, various contraceptives exist or folk methods like withdrawal or the calendar method. So for me there is no excuse. Poor judgment on people's part and uncontrolled sexual urges doesn't give you the right to end an innocent life. If you don't want a baby, well, practice safe sex or better yet practice abstinence (this i doubt). prevention is better than cure.
Pro Life or Pro Choice is like the argument of Religion vs Science. I mean there's no right answer. Though, I believe that abortion should only be considered if the pregnancy harms the mother's health or if it was a rape-related pregnancy. Other than that, my mind is close. Well, various contraceptives exist or folk methods like withdrawal or the calendar method. So for me there is no excuse. Poor judgment on people's part and uncontrolled sexual urges doesn't give you the right to end an innocent life. If you don't want a baby, well, practice safe sex or better yet practice abstinence (this i doubt). prevention is better than cure.
Not to be contradictory, but I think there needs to be a practical element involved. Yes, people SHOULD practice safe sex or abstain if they are unable or unwilling to then deal with the consequences. Unfortunately, humans rarely do what they SHOULD do. We need to improve education, practical and realistic education that doesn't hold back out of shame or concern for harming children- what harms children is ignorance. But even with education, people make mistakes or condoms break or birth control that is meant to work 98% of the time doesn't 2% of the time, or withdrawl method?? really? thinking that works is what leads so many people to unplanned pregnancy, etc etc.
So then the question is, what to do? Would a mother who would normally choose abortion (i.e. is not willing or able to raise a baby) be a proper fit for a child? There is adoption, but that can be a brutally painful process as well, and if you were a drug addict or not white, most babies are not adopted right out and live for years in a loveless system, or parents who are unable or unwilling keep the baby out of shame or pressure and may grow to resent that "mistake they had to live with" or be too addicted to drugs, or too young and immature, or too poor to give that child a decent life (is THAT fair to the child?? any more or less fair than killing it before it knows what it means to exist?). I suppose a bigger ethical/philosophical debate for me is- what is better, to never really be, to die before you ever have a conscious realisation of existing or to live a miserable, painful existence on this dump of a planet? Should all unwanted children be born because 1 in 1,000 will grow up to be Mozart? The same could be said the other way, should unwanted children die because a handful might turn out to be on the dole, criminals, thugs due to how they were raised? Im not really arguing for either case, not entirely sure how I feel on the topic.
I do know that the mentality of, your mistake, you deal with it...isn't really realistic. maybe if you're talking of a failed class, but you're talking about a mistake that is a child who is wholly dependent on a person who does not want them or simply cannot afford them. And maybe if more people were willing to adopt instead of choosing to parasitically breed more and more kids into this over-populated planet or were less racist and xenophobic, the option of adoption would be a far more practical one in our society.
I tend to think that abortion would decrease the number of unwanted children, who statistically grow up to more criminalised, less educated, and tend to also have unwanted children, thus purpetuating a cycle. Conversely I can actually think of one argument against abortion besides the fact it is ending the potential for new human life- having abortion legal may put it into people's mind that there is a last resort option and may lead to more reckless sexual behaviour, because people think, nah I won't get pregnant and even if I do, I'll just get an abortion. But in reality, when many people are actually confronted with such a decision, can't or won't get an abortion and thus you may have even more unwanted births. That's just conjecture, I have no idea if there is actually any statistical correlation there.
It's a deeply controversial topic for a reason- it is morally contradictory. I don't like the idea of abortion (who does who isn't a sociopath or psychopath??), I wish there were better methods to solving this problem, but apart from restricting people's reproductive rights, people will continue to make mistakes. So the argument cant really be solved by saying, then dont make mistakes. It's a problem that exists and there needs to be a solution...?
yepyep
September 24, 2011 at 6:36: am
Yes, people screw up and various uncontrollable factors can lead to pregnancy and childbirth. Still, I believe that education can only get you so far as to make you aware of certain stuff but still of course everything relies solely in you at the end of the day. If people would just stop being stupid and selfish then perhaps there would be no abortion or no children being poorly raised and abused. But of course, this will never happen cos people will always be bound with human nature and negative traits.
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Growing up in a third world country, I can testify to the fact that the poorest of people are the ones that have the guts to give birth to a dozen children. Is this because of lack of education? or unavailability of contraceptives? Perhaps, that's true. However, ignorance is never an excuse. This is all about people's mentality, morals,and discipline and these things are hardwired into the human psyche.
I just want people to think before they leap. Be responsible for their actions cos if people screw up,they only have themselves to blame. I consider Pro Life or Pro Choice as a no-win situation , but the "irresponsibles" should be happy cos they are entitled to abortion...and shame to the people who decided to give birth but couldn't raise their children properly.
FYI, withdrawal and calendar method were meant for people who are ignorant about contraceptives. These methods maybe hokum but it postponed my classmate's pregnancy for a year, hahahaha!
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Growing up in a third world country, I can testify to the fact that the poorest of people are the ones that have the guts to give birth to a dozen children. Is this because of lack of education? or unavailability of contraceptives? Perhaps, that's true. However, ignorance is never an excuse. This is all about people's mentality, morals,and discipline and these things are hardwired into the human psyche.
I just want people to think before they leap. Be responsible for their actions cos if people screw up,they only have themselves to blame. I consider Pro Life or Pro Choice as a no-win situation , but the "irresponsibles" should be happy cos they are entitled to abortion...and shame to the people who decided to give birth but couldn't raise their children properly.
FYI, withdrawal and calendar method were meant for people who are ignorant about contraceptives. These methods maybe hokum but it postponed my classmate's pregnancy for a year, hahahaha!
On September 24, 2011 at 1:44: am X wrote:
On September 22, 2011 at 7:45: am Yepyep wrote:
Pro Life or Pro Choice is like the argument of Religion vs Science. I mean there's no right answer. Though, I believe that abortion should only be considered if the pregnancy harms the mother's health or if it was a rape-related pregnancy. Other than that, my mind is close. Well, various contraceptives exist or folk methods like withdrawal or the calendar method. So for me there is no excuse. Poor judgment on people's part and uncontrolled sexual urges doesn't give you the right to end an innocent life. If you don't want a baby, well, practice safe sex or better yet practice abstinence (this i doubt). prevention is better than cure.
Not to be contradictory, but I think there needs to be a practical element involved. Yes, people SHOULD practice safe sex or abstain if they are unable or unwilling to then deal with the consequences. Unfortunately, humans rarely do what they SHOULD do. We need to improve education, practical and realistic education that doesn't hold back out of shame or concern for harming children- what harms children is ignorance. But even with education, people make mistakes or condoms break or birth control that is meant to work 98% of the time doesn't 2% of the time, or withdrawl method?? really? thinking that works is what leads so many people to unplanned pregnancy, etc etc.
So then the question is, what to do? Would a mother who would normally choose abortion (i.e. is not willing or able to raise a baby) be a proper fit for a child? There is adoption, but that can be a brutally painful process as well, and if you were a drug addict or not white, most babies are not adopted right out and live for years in a loveless system, or parents who are unable or unwilling keep the baby out of shame or pressure and may grow to resent that "mistake they had to live with" or be too addicted to drugs, or too young and immature, or too poor to give that child a decent life (is THAT fair to the child?? any more or less fair than killing it before it knows what it means to exist?). I suppose a bigger ethical/philosophical debate for me is- what is better, to never really be, to die before you ever have a conscious realisation of existing or to live a miserable, painful existence on this dump of a planet? Should all unwanted children be born because 1 in 1,000 will grow up to be Mozart? The same could be said the other way, should unwanted children die because a handful might turn out to be on the dole, criminals, thugs due to how they were raised? Im not really arguing for either case, not entirely sure how I feel on the topic.
I do know that the mentality of, your mistake, you deal with it...isn't really realistic. maybe if you're talking of a failed class, but you're talking about a mistake that is a child who is wholly dependent on a person who does not want them or simply cannot afford them. And maybe if more people were willing to adopt instead of choosing to parasitically breed more and more kids into this over-populated planet or were less racist and xenophobic, the option of adoption would be a far more practical one in our society.
I tend to think that abortion would decrease the number of unwanted children, who statistically grow up to more criminalised, less educated, and tend to also have unwanted children, thus purpetuating a cycle. Conversely I can actually think of one argument against abortion besides the fact it is ending the potential for new human life- having abortion legal may put it into people's mind that there is a last resort option and may lead to more reckless sexual behaviour, because people think, nah I won't get pregnant and even if I do, I'll just get an abortion. But in reality, when many people are actually confronted with such a decision, can't or won't get an abortion and thus you may have even more unwanted births. That's just conjecture, I have no idea if there is actually any statistical correlation there.
It's a deeply controversial topic for a reason- it is morally contradictory. I don't like the idea of abortion (who does who isn't a sociopath or psychopath??), I wish there were better methods to solving this problem, but apart from restricting people's reproductive rights, people will continue to make mistakes. So the argument cant really be solved by saying, then dont make mistakes. It's a problem that exists and there needs to be a solution...?
On September 22, 2011 at 7:45: am Yepyep wrote:
Pro Life or Pro Choice is like the argument of Religion vs Science. I mean there's no right answer. Though, I believe that abortion should only be considered if the pregnancy harms the mother's health or if it was a rape-related pregnancy. Other than that, my mind is close. Well, various contraceptives exist or folk methods like withdrawal or the calendar method. So for me there is no excuse. Poor judgment on people's part and uncontrolled sexual urges doesn't give you the right to end an innocent life. If you don't want a baby, well, practice safe sex or better yet practice abstinence (this i doubt). prevention is better than cure.
Not to be contradictory, but I think there needs to be a practical element involved. Yes, people SHOULD practice safe sex or abstain if they are unable or unwilling to then deal with the consequences. Unfortunately, humans rarely do what they SHOULD do. We need to improve education, practical and realistic education that doesn't hold back out of shame or concern for harming children- what harms children is ignorance. But even with education, people make mistakes or condoms break or birth control that is meant to work 98% of the time doesn't 2% of the time, or withdrawl method?? really? thinking that works is what leads so many people to unplanned pregnancy, etc etc.
So then the question is, what to do? Would a mother who would normally choose abortion (i.e. is not willing or able to raise a baby) be a proper fit for a child? There is adoption, but that can be a brutally painful process as well, and if you were a drug addict or not white, most babies are not adopted right out and live for years in a loveless system, or parents who are unable or unwilling keep the baby out of shame or pressure and may grow to resent that "mistake they had to live with" or be too addicted to drugs, or too young and immature, or too poor to give that child a decent life (is THAT fair to the child?? any more or less fair than killing it before it knows what it means to exist?). I suppose a bigger ethical/philosophical debate for me is- what is better, to never really be, to die before you ever have a conscious realisation of existing or to live a miserable, painful existence on this dump of a planet? Should all unwanted children be born because 1 in 1,000 will grow up to be Mozart? The same could be said the other way, should unwanted children die because a handful might turn out to be on the dole, criminals, thugs due to how they were raised? Im not really arguing for either case, not entirely sure how I feel on the topic.
I do know that the mentality of, your mistake, you deal with it...isn't really realistic. maybe if you're talking of a failed class, but you're talking about a mistake that is a child who is wholly dependent on a person who does not want them or simply cannot afford them. And maybe if more people were willing to adopt instead of choosing to parasitically breed more and more kids into this over-populated planet or were less racist and xenophobic, the option of adoption would be a far more practical one in our society.
I tend to think that abortion would decrease the number of unwanted children, who statistically grow up to more criminalised, less educated, and tend to also have unwanted children, thus purpetuating a cycle. Conversely I can actually think of one argument against abortion besides the fact it is ending the potential for new human life- having abortion legal may put it into people's mind that there is a last resort option and may lead to more reckless sexual behaviour, because people think, nah I won't get pregnant and even if I do, I'll just get an abortion. But in reality, when many people are actually confronted with such a decision, can't or won't get an abortion and thus you may have even more unwanted births. That's just conjecture, I have no idea if there is actually any statistical correlation there.
It's a deeply controversial topic for a reason- it is morally contradictory. I don't like the idea of abortion (who does who isn't a sociopath or psychopath??), I wish there were better methods to solving this problem, but apart from restricting people's reproductive rights, people will continue to make mistakes. So the argument cant really be solved by saying, then dont make mistakes. It's a problem that exists and there needs to be a solution...?
Baroness Warsi
September 24, 2011 at 2:23: pm
It's pretty much a no brainer - of course abortion should be legal. Perhaps not until 24 weeks though as it becomes slightly macabre at that stage. Most European countries have the cut off at 12 weeks which is easier to stomach.
Whoever said there's no right answer to the science vs religion debate - you're right, science is only a rigorously tested peer reviewed system of knowledge about the way our world works built up over centuries, that's all! It's not a patch on mindless superstitions which have been around for far longer and have brought us exciting things like religion, ghosts, witchcraft and demons...
Whoever said there's no right answer to the science vs religion debate - you're right, science is only a rigorously tested peer reviewed system of knowledge about the way our world works built up over centuries, that's all! It's not a patch on mindless superstitions which have been around for far longer and have brought us exciting things like religion, ghosts, witchcraft and demons...
meanie
September 24, 2011 at 9:03: pm
hahahaha!!! so science it is yeah?! miss smarty pants.
On September 24, 2011 at 2:23: pm Baroness Warsi wrote:
It's pretty much a no brainer - of course abortion should be legal. Perhaps not until 24 weeks though as it becomes slightly macabre at that stage. Most European countries have the cut off at 12 weeks which is easier to stomach.
Whoever said there's no right answer to the science vs religion debate - you're right, science is only a rigorously tested peer reviewed system of knowledge about the way our world works built up over centuries, that's all! It's not a patch on mindless superstitions which have been around for far longer and have brought us exciting things like religion, ghosts, witchcraft and demons...
It's pretty much a no brainer - of course abortion should be legal. Perhaps not until 24 weeks though as it becomes slightly macabre at that stage. Most European countries have the cut off at 12 weeks which is easier to stomach.
Whoever said there's no right answer to the science vs religion debate - you're right, science is only a rigorously tested peer reviewed system of knowledge about the way our world works built up over centuries, that's all! It's not a patch on mindless superstitions which have been around for far longer and have brought us exciting things like religion, ghosts, witchcraft and demons...
Miss Smarty Pants
September 24, 2011 at 9:34: pm
Hehe sorry I got a little carried away. I appreciate that it's a tricky subject with no right answers. I was just quoting Charlie Brooker, didn't mean to offend :-)
X
September 25, 2011 at 3:59: am
On September 24, 2011 at 6:36: am yepyep wrote:
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Just curious, but how do you draw the line at deformed or mentally retarded? Why is it okay to "kill" those babies, but not babies who will be disadvantaged by being born to young, poor (and perhaps even drug addicted, selfish, neglectful and ignorant) parents? I would say that is a big disadvantage. There are plenty of parents who can financially and emotionally raise and love deformed or handicapped children and many who can and do have pleasant lives. How do you define a disadvantage? Being blind? Being autistic? Having the DNA triggers for criminal pyschopathy? Being gay? Being fat? Club foot? No legs? I'm just saying that I don't particularly understand the logic in thinking it is a mercy to abort a deformed child but not a child who will be born into poverty or neglect. Both will have tough lives and face their own disadvantages.
And no, I doubt they thought of those things before engaging in unprotected sex (or protected sex that fails). I am guessing they are thinking, whoa, I shouldn't have had that fifth beer or oh my god I am so horny and s/he is so fit or "have you put the condom on?" "yep!" (but he didn't), or "Ah come on, it doesn't feel the same with a condom or ahh come on I forgot a condom and I really really love you and I'll always be there for you, just this once??". Or they are 14/15 and probably aren't thinking about potential bills or responsibilities because up to that point they've never really had them, or because they live in such poverty and misery that the only free entertainment is sex and they hate their lives so much that they don't really care the consequences.
People certainly aren't willing to pay more taxes to help support and raise all these innocent babies born into poverty...I guess my opinion is that if, as a society, we are unwilling to allow abortion, then we must step up and support these children.
Also, you have to remember this is also a debate on the autonomy of the woman. It is her body. She isn't just carrying the baby, but the baby is paracitically feeding upon her. It changes the body drastically. Certain things on the body will never be the same after childbirth, pregnancy brings a number of dangers and discomforts. Now on this point, I suppose the argument of you made the mistake deal with the painful consequences seems a bit more applicable. But for women who took every precaution against pregnancy and were either tricked or safeties failed, etc., should they have to bear those consequences for 9 months? I think the woman should have the right to choose that personally.
Steve
September 25, 2011 at 4:10: am
I'm okay with giving women the option of an abortion. (I guess that makes me Pro-Choice but I'm not a fan of labels/generalizations.) It can't be an easy decision to make, so if a women does decide to have one I'm hopeful that it's for good reason.
Because like you said, I hear news stories (here in the U.S. anyway) about children being neglected, molested and in severe cases, killed by their own parents. It's completely messed up that we live in a world where things like that occur.
I've always been of the mindset that if it were me who were to be aborted, I would at least want the chance at life, even if my childhood would be full of neglect and difficulty, however, I'm not everyone, so I can understand if other people think differently and respect that.
And I'm not sure on this but something else that could be influencing my opinion is that in some ways I see contraceptives being similar to abortions where, in the end, they both prevent new life. But, to be honest, I'm not sure how strongly I feel towards that as it's a grey area.
Because like you said, I hear news stories (here in the U.S. anyway) about children being neglected, molested and in severe cases, killed by their own parents. It's completely messed up that we live in a world where things like that occur.
I've always been of the mindset that if it were me who were to be aborted, I would at least want the chance at life, even if my childhood would be full of neglect and difficulty, however, I'm not everyone, so I can understand if other people think differently and respect that.
And I'm not sure on this but something else that could be influencing my opinion is that in some ways I see contraceptives being similar to abortions where, in the end, they both prevent new life. But, to be honest, I'm not sure how strongly I feel towards that as it's a grey area.
Yepyep
September 25, 2011 at 7:06: am
A lot of factors need to be determined if a parent is capable of raising a child. And by doing so, not only shakes the whole foundation of society but is also very difficult and time consuming. I mean how the hell would you propose we do that. Character Investigation? Examinations? Poor families can have it as a last resort option but never as to consider it a legal choice or worse as a habit. I don't want them thinking: Oh it's fine cos there's abortion.
Saying that a lot of parents are capable of raising a handicapped child, yes of course! That's why I said that it should be given as an option for them.
All people are capable of deciding for themselves. This is my opinion. If you get all technical about it then I'm sorry cos I'm not participating in writing your book. Don't over think stuff cos it's not gonna make things better anyway. If you really feel so strongly bout your convictions then do something rather productive.
Saying that a lot of parents are capable of raising a handicapped child, yes of course! That's why I said that it should be given as an option for them.
All people are capable of deciding for themselves. This is my opinion. If you get all technical about it then I'm sorry cos I'm not participating in writing your book. Don't over think stuff cos it's not gonna make things better anyway. If you really feel so strongly bout your convictions then do something rather productive.
On September 25, 2011 at 3:59: am X wrote:
On September 24, 2011 at 6:36: am yepyep wrote:
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Just curious, but how do you draw the line at deformed or mentally retarded? Why is it okay to "kill" those babies, but not babies who will be disadvantaged by being born to young, poor (and perhaps even drug addicted, selfish, neglectful and ignorant) parents? I would say that is a big disadvantage. There are plenty of parents who can financially and emotionally raise and love deformed or handicapped children and many who can and do have pleasant lives. How do you define a disadvantage? Being blind? Being autistic? Having the DNA triggers for criminal pyschopathy? Being gay? Being fat? Club foot? No legs? I'm just saying that I don't particularly understand the logic in thinking it is a mercy to abort a deformed child but not a child who will be born into poverty or neglect. Both will have tough lives and face their own disadvantages.
And no, I doubt they thought of those things before engaging in unprotected sex (or protected sex that fails). I am guessing they are thinking, whoa, I shouldn't have had that fifth beer or oh my god I am so horny and s/he is so fit or "have you put the condom on?" "yep!" (but he didn't), or "Ah come on, it doesn't feel the same with a condom or ahh come on I forgot a condom and I really really love you and I'll always be there for you, just this once??". Or they are 14/15 and probably aren't thinking about potential bills or responsibilities because up to that point they've never really had them, or because they live in such poverty and misery that the only free entertainment is sex and they hate their lives so much that they don't really care the consequences.
People certainly aren't willing to pay more taxes to help support and raise all these innocent babies born into poverty...I guess my opinion is that if, as a society, we are unwilling to allow abortion, then we must step up and support these children.
Also, you have to remember this is also a debate on the autonomy of the woman. It is her body. She isn't just carrying the baby, but the baby is paracitically feeding upon her. It changes the body drastically. Certain things on the body will never be the same after childbirth, pregnancy brings a number of dangers and discomforts. Now on this point, I suppose the argument of you made the mistake deal with the painful consequences seems a bit more applicable. But for women who took every precaution against pregnancy and were either tricked or safeties failed, etc., should they have to bear those consequences for 9 months? I think the woman should have the right to choose that personally.
On September 24, 2011 at 6:36: am yepyep wrote:
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Just curious, but how do you draw the line at deformed or mentally retarded? Why is it okay to "kill" those babies, but not babies who will be disadvantaged by being born to young, poor (and perhaps even drug addicted, selfish, neglectful and ignorant) parents? I would say that is a big disadvantage. There are plenty of parents who can financially and emotionally raise and love deformed or handicapped children and many who can and do have pleasant lives. How do you define a disadvantage? Being blind? Being autistic? Having the DNA triggers for criminal pyschopathy? Being gay? Being fat? Club foot? No legs? I'm just saying that I don't particularly understand the logic in thinking it is a mercy to abort a deformed child but not a child who will be born into poverty or neglect. Both will have tough lives and face their own disadvantages.
And no, I doubt they thought of those things before engaging in unprotected sex (or protected sex that fails). I am guessing they are thinking, whoa, I shouldn't have had that fifth beer or oh my god I am so horny and s/he is so fit or "have you put the condom on?" "yep!" (but he didn't), or "Ah come on, it doesn't feel the same with a condom or ahh come on I forgot a condom and I really really love you and I'll always be there for you, just this once??". Or they are 14/15 and probably aren't thinking about potential bills or responsibilities because up to that point they've never really had them, or because they live in such poverty and misery that the only free entertainment is sex and they hate their lives so much that they don't really care the consequences.
People certainly aren't willing to pay more taxes to help support and raise all these innocent babies born into poverty...I guess my opinion is that if, as a society, we are unwilling to allow abortion, then we must step up and support these children.
Also, you have to remember this is also a debate on the autonomy of the woman. It is her body. She isn't just carrying the baby, but the baby is paracitically feeding upon her. It changes the body drastically. Certain things on the body will never be the same after childbirth, pregnancy brings a number of dangers and discomforts. Now on this point, I suppose the argument of you made the mistake deal with the painful consequences seems a bit more applicable. But for women who took every precaution against pregnancy and were either tricked or safeties failed, etc., should they have to bear those consequences for 9 months? I think the woman should have the right to choose that personally.
Yepyep
September 25, 2011 at 7:06: am
A lot of factors need to be determined if a parent is capable of raising a child. And by doing so, not only shakes the whole foundation of society but is also very difficult and time consuming. I mean how the hell would you propose we do that. Character Investigation? Examinations? Poor families can have it as a last resort option but never as to consider it a legal choice or worse as a habit. I don't want them thinking: Oh it's fine cos there's abortion.
Saying that a lot of parents are capable of raising a handicapped child, yes of course! That's why I said that it should be given as an option for them.
All people are capable of deciding for themselves. This is my opinion. If you get all technical about it then I'm sorry cos I'm not participating in writing your book. Don't over think stuff cos it's not gonna make things better anyway. If you really feel so strongly bout your convictions then do something rather productive.
Saying that a lot of parents are capable of raising a handicapped child, yes of course! That's why I said that it should be given as an option for them.
All people are capable of deciding for themselves. This is my opinion. If you get all technical about it then I'm sorry cos I'm not participating in writing your book. Don't over think stuff cos it's not gonna make things better anyway. If you really feel so strongly bout your convictions then do something rather productive.
On September 25, 2011 at 3:59: am X wrote:
On September 24, 2011 at 6:36: am yepyep wrote:
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Just curious, but how do you draw the line at deformed or mentally retarded? Why is it okay to "kill" those babies, but not babies who will be disadvantaged by being born to young, poor (and perhaps even drug addicted, selfish, neglectful and ignorant) parents? I would say that is a big disadvantage. There are plenty of parents who can financially and emotionally raise and love deformed or handicapped children and many who can and do have pleasant lives. How do you define a disadvantage? Being blind? Being autistic? Having the DNA triggers for criminal pyschopathy? Being gay? Being fat? Club foot? No legs? I'm just saying that I don't particularly understand the logic in thinking it is a mercy to abort a deformed child but not a child who will be born into poverty or neglect. Both will have tough lives and face their own disadvantages.
And no, I doubt they thought of those things before engaging in unprotected sex (or protected sex that fails). I am guessing they are thinking, whoa, I shouldn't have had that fifth beer or oh my god I am so horny and s/he is so fit or "have you put the condom on?" "yep!" (but he didn't), or "Ah come on, it doesn't feel the same with a condom or ahh come on I forgot a condom and I really really love you and I'll always be there for you, just this once??". Or they are 14/15 and probably aren't thinking about potential bills or responsibilities because up to that point they've never really had them, or because they live in such poverty and misery that the only free entertainment is sex and they hate their lives so much that they don't really care the consequences.
People certainly aren't willing to pay more taxes to help support and raise all these innocent babies born into poverty...I guess my opinion is that if, as a society, we are unwilling to allow abortion, then we must step up and support these children.
Also, you have to remember this is also a debate on the autonomy of the woman. It is her body. She isn't just carrying the baby, but the baby is paracitically feeding upon her. It changes the body drastically. Certain things on the body will never be the same after childbirth, pregnancy brings a number of dangers and discomforts. Now on this point, I suppose the argument of you made the mistake deal with the painful consequences seems a bit more applicable. But for women who took every precaution against pregnancy and were either tricked or safeties failed, etc., should they have to bear those consequences for 9 months? I think the woman should have the right to choose that personally.
On September 24, 2011 at 6:36: am yepyep wrote:
Practicality, in my point of view, is to practice abortion if the pregnancy is a disadvantage to the unborn child and mother, e.g. deformed or mentally retarded baby, jeopardizes the mother's life, rape-related pregnancy. To resort in abortion because a parent is unprepared financially or emotionally is just utterly insane. It happens I know, but come on! Didn't they think about these factors before they engaged in unprotected sex? I just don't know what they are thinking.
Just curious, but how do you draw the line at deformed or mentally retarded? Why is it okay to "kill" those babies, but not babies who will be disadvantaged by being born to young, poor (and perhaps even drug addicted, selfish, neglectful and ignorant) parents? I would say that is a big disadvantage. There are plenty of parents who can financially and emotionally raise and love deformed or handicapped children and many who can and do have pleasant lives. How do you define a disadvantage? Being blind? Being autistic? Having the DNA triggers for criminal pyschopathy? Being gay? Being fat? Club foot? No legs? I'm just saying that I don't particularly understand the logic in thinking it is a mercy to abort a deformed child but not a child who will be born into poverty or neglect. Both will have tough lives and face their own disadvantages.
And no, I doubt they thought of those things before engaging in unprotected sex (or protected sex that fails). I am guessing they are thinking, whoa, I shouldn't have had that fifth beer or oh my god I am so horny and s/he is so fit or "have you put the condom on?" "yep!" (but he didn't), or "Ah come on, it doesn't feel the same with a condom or ahh come on I forgot a condom and I really really love you and I'll always be there for you, just this once??". Or they are 14/15 and probably aren't thinking about potential bills or responsibilities because up to that point they've never really had them, or because they live in such poverty and misery that the only free entertainment is sex and they hate their lives so much that they don't really care the consequences.
People certainly aren't willing to pay more taxes to help support and raise all these innocent babies born into poverty...I guess my opinion is that if, as a society, we are unwilling to allow abortion, then we must step up and support these children.
Also, you have to remember this is also a debate on the autonomy of the woman. It is her body. She isn't just carrying the baby, but the baby is paracitically feeding upon her. It changes the body drastically. Certain things on the body will never be the same after childbirth, pregnancy brings a number of dangers and discomforts. Now on this point, I suppose the argument of you made the mistake deal with the painful consequences seems a bit more applicable. But for women who took every precaution against pregnancy and were either tricked or safeties failed, etc., should they have to bear those consequences for 9 months? I think the woman should have the right to choose that personally.
X
September 26, 2011 at 1:24: am
YEPYEP, I thought we were having a respectful debate, not espousing our convictions. I didn't mean any personal offence to you, I just don't share your opinion and/or wished for you to explain your thought-process so I could better understand your position. Specifically, it was my impression that it would be okay to abort a handicapped child either because the parent isn't willing or able to care for the child or because it isn't fair to bring a disadvantaged child into the world. I was simply arguing that if the former, then isn't that the root of the debate- the mother's choice in whether she is willing or able to care for the child? And if the latter, where do you draw the line on what is a handicap or unfair disadvantage worthy of warranting abortion? Personally, I'm not entirely sure where I fall, so I cant call it a conviction? It is a situation where no matter the path chosen, someone gets hurt. That will never be an easy debate.
yepyep
September 26, 2011 at 4:20: am
Oh my apologies, was it meant to be a respectful debate? cos I felt like you were grilling me bout my opinion not being realistic. This here is about opinions and they are subjective. If you want a debate then let's meet up and I'll give you one. Just stop pushing what you think ok? cos it's not cool. It's very obvious that no matter how I try to justify my ideas we will never meet into an agreement cos nobody wants to yield. I have my grounds and you have yours so let's just leave it that way. Stop making a fuss bout this XD
On September 26, 2011 at 1:24: am X wrote:
YEPYEP, I thought we were having a respectful debate, not espousing our convictions. I didn't mean any personal offence to you, I just don't share your opinion and/or wished for you to explain your thought-process so I could better understand your position. Specifically, it was my impression that it would be okay to abort a handicapped child either because the parent isn't willing or able to care for the child or because it isn't fair to bring a disadvantaged child into the world. I was simply arguing that if the former, then isn't that the root of the debate- the mother's choice in whether she is willing or able to care for the child? And if the latter, where do you draw the line on what is a handicap or unfair disadvantage worthy of warranting abortion? Personally, I'm not entirely sure where I fall, so I cant call it a conviction? It is a situation where no matter the path chosen, someone gets hurt. That will never be an easy debate.
YEPYEP, I thought we were having a respectful debate, not espousing our convictions. I didn't mean any personal offence to you, I just don't share your opinion and/or wished for you to explain your thought-process so I could better understand your position. Specifically, it was my impression that it would be okay to abort a handicapped child either because the parent isn't willing or able to care for the child or because it isn't fair to bring a disadvantaged child into the world. I was simply arguing that if the former, then isn't that the root of the debate- the mother's choice in whether she is willing or able to care for the child? And if the latter, where do you draw the line on what is a handicap or unfair disadvantage worthy of warranting abortion? Personally, I'm not entirely sure where I fall, so I cant call it a conviction? It is a situation where no matter the path chosen, someone gets hurt. That will never be an easy debate.
X
September 26, 2011 at 7:26: am
Yepyep, your opinion is not an uncommon one (I simply wanted to understand the logic of that opinion); forgive me for singling you out in an unwelcome debate, cheers xx
DANA
September 27, 2011 at 1:25: pm
"If people would just stop being stupid and selfish then perhaps there would be no abortion or no children being poorly raised and abused" - YEPYEP.
Very respectful.
As well as an extremely hasty generalization in regards to the situation of how a woman became pregnant. Human error doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity.
Don't stop posting if you have more to say X, I like reading your opinions.(And I don't agree with everything you've posted, specifically your controlling population on the other post). :)
Very respectful.
As well as an extremely hasty generalization in regards to the situation of how a woman became pregnant. Human error doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity.
Don't stop posting if you have more to say X, I like reading your opinions.(And I don't agree with everything you've posted, specifically your controlling population on the other post). :)
On September 26, 2011 at 7:26: am X wrote:
Yepyep, your opinion is not an uncommon one (I simply wanted to understand the logic of that opinion); forgive me for singling you out in an unwelcome debate, cheers xx
Yepyep, your opinion is not an uncommon one (I simply wanted to understand the logic of that opinion); forgive me for singling you out in an unwelcome debate, cheers xx
X
September 27, 2011 at 8:11: pm
On September 27, 2011 at 1:25: pm DANA wrote:
Don't stop posting if you have more to say X, I like reading your opinions.(And I don't agree with everything you've posted, specifically your controlling population on the other post). :)
Don't stop posting if you have more to say X, I like reading your opinions.(And I don't agree with everything you've posted, specifically your controlling population on the other post). :)
Thank you, I will :)
As for the controlling population comment I made, I just went back to reread and would like to clarify any potential misunderstanding- I dont actually think reproductive rights SHOULD be controlled (that isn't a practical or ethical solution). I was simply recognising that over-population and people who are not capable parents continually having children is a problem. I don't think that can be denied? Bringing children into a world where they cannot be cared for is a problem, which outside of better education (which can and should be done) and better support systems (which people do not seem willing to provide), I'm not sure how to solve that problem. It was more a question- how can we, as individuals and a society, help the situation? Same goes for over-population, it isn't sustaining for our species and isn't only harmful to our species but the planet as a whole. This is clearly a problem, but again...what can be done to solve this problem sort of reproductive regulation (something I'm certainly not advocating). In my opinion, war, famine, disease are nature's way of correcting a problem we can't correct, but such things are horrible and painful for us all, so that isn't exactly a great solution either. In sum, I do think population needs to be "controlled" (just mathematically and practically for survival of our species and this planet), but I was not at all advocating any specific method of controlling it, in fact I was saying to get into such a debate is a very slippery slope. I suppose that is why, as a species, we've largely left that to mother nature?
Tommy
October 1, 2011 at 5:56: pm
As a male on this situation, I find it hard to realise where it goes beyond the woman choosing either way. While I'm not a religious person, there have to be medical and personal factors which help make the decision. The extreme of both sides are presented as a black and white choice, but that ignores so many other problems with individual situations. If you base your decision on predetermined belief's, good luck to you
Yepyep
October 3, 2011 at 4:27: pm
On September 27, 2011 at 1:25: pm DANA wrote:
"If people would just stop being stupid and selfish then perhaps there would be no abortion or no children being poorly raised and abused" - YEPYEP.
Very respectful.
As well as an extremely hasty generalization in regards to the situation of how a woman became pregnant. Human error doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity.
"If people would just stop being stupid and selfish then perhaps there would be no abortion or no children being poorly raised and abused" - YEPYEP.
Very respectful.
As well as an extremely hasty generalization in regards to the situation of how a woman became pregnant. Human error doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity.
Yes I agree, it is a generalization. Thanks for pointing that out.
And for X, yeah cheers mate. Didn't mean to push any buttons or whatever.
For women having this dilemma, i just hope they would think lots of times before resorting into any decisions. Be responsible with your body and the consequences of your actions. :D
X
October 3, 2011 at 10:32: pm
I thought of a better way to sum up my thoughts on this. Over-population and unwanted children being raised in unhealthy environments is a problem. It is either a problem we can ignore or attempt to solve.
If we ignore it, mother nature will take over and we will have poverty and fammine, disease, higher levels of depression, higher crime, harm to the planet and environment which will lead to more natural clamities killing huge populations. Basically a lot of painful, horrific, uncontrollable deaths.
Solutions that I can envision (which is not to say there are not others that could and hopefully will be proposed):
Post birth: Systematic killing of humans, genocides, etc. (Not a good choice).
Coming together as a community to financially and emotionally support unwanted children. This doesn't address the larger over-population problem, but would help against deplorable conditions for unwanted, innocent kids. Because if we dont, we cannot be outraged or surprised if many of these kids grow up to be adults who might have only ever known poverty or neglect and become the "chavs" or thugs people now reject from society (and treat as if people wished they had been aborted). Instead, we could willingly pay into high taxes and socialist paradigms becuase that is the price we are willing to pay to save the life of unborn children (ie put your money where your mouth is).
Pre-birth: Restricting number of births per family or keeping women from having children whilst at at age or station they would be unable to raise them. How do you restrict that? Surgically sterilise a women after her first or second birth? Force young girls to be on birth control despite potential health risks or her autonomy?
Abortion, letting the women decide what is right for her. Ending development of a foetus before it has cognitive ability to mourn the loss of existing (you might argue the life force is still there but I personally tend to think of it a bit like the movie Powder (if you haven't seen it you should)- he is so intellectually advanced and so empathic and aware that he ceases to need his body, he becomes pure energy and his life force doesn't cease to exist in death, he just may cease to have what we cling to as conscious thought and individual identity, I'm not arguing for this belief, but I think if we are going to get into semantics of what is "life" when you kill a foetus, that this is a valid point?)
I would love to say the solution could be pure education, but mistakes are made, not always in ignorance and sometimes you have lonely girls who just want someone to love (does that make them condemnable?). I think education is massively important in lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies though. But really, I also think more education needs to be done to encourage people to adopt or simply not have children. I think having children is such an expected next step, like we are all raised with this idea of what is it to be normal and human and and the evolutionary push to breed is there, but we've also reached an intellectual level that we can see over-population is killing our species and the planet. I think it should be more socially acceptable and not SOO encouraged to breed and have more and more babies. I really mean no offence to those who have or want to have children. I'm not entirely sure whether I will myself and I fully understand the desire to. I just wish more thought went into it for EVERYONE, no matter how qualified you are to raise a child. There is still a long-lasting social responsibility when you choose to bring a new life into the world.
Sorry, I ended up banging on forever and probably not really even making any new or clearer points...:S
p.s. it concerned me that this all might be rather offensive to a person who is now grown and was an unwanted child. To be clear, I realise that not all unwanted children grow up to be thugs or on the dole or criminals...at all. Nor do I think that even if you are a criminal or thug that it would have been better for everyone if you had been aborted :S I simply don't know.
If we ignore it, mother nature will take over and we will have poverty and fammine, disease, higher levels of depression, higher crime, harm to the planet and environment which will lead to more natural clamities killing huge populations. Basically a lot of painful, horrific, uncontrollable deaths.
Solutions that I can envision (which is not to say there are not others that could and hopefully will be proposed):
Post birth: Systematic killing of humans, genocides, etc. (Not a good choice).
Coming together as a community to financially and emotionally support unwanted children. This doesn't address the larger over-population problem, but would help against deplorable conditions for unwanted, innocent kids. Because if we dont, we cannot be outraged or surprised if many of these kids grow up to be adults who might have only ever known poverty or neglect and become the "chavs" or thugs people now reject from society (and treat as if people wished they had been aborted). Instead, we could willingly pay into high taxes and socialist paradigms becuase that is the price we are willing to pay to save the life of unborn children (ie put your money where your mouth is).
Pre-birth: Restricting number of births per family or keeping women from having children whilst at at age or station they would be unable to raise them. How do you restrict that? Surgically sterilise a women after her first or second birth? Force young girls to be on birth control despite potential health risks or her autonomy?
Abortion, letting the women decide what is right for her. Ending development of a foetus before it has cognitive ability to mourn the loss of existing (you might argue the life force is still there but I personally tend to think of it a bit like the movie Powder (if you haven't seen it you should)- he is so intellectually advanced and so empathic and aware that he ceases to need his body, he becomes pure energy and his life force doesn't cease to exist in death, he just may cease to have what we cling to as conscious thought and individual identity, I'm not arguing for this belief, but I think if we are going to get into semantics of what is "life" when you kill a foetus, that this is a valid point?)
I would love to say the solution could be pure education, but mistakes are made, not always in ignorance and sometimes you have lonely girls who just want someone to love (does that make them condemnable?). I think education is massively important in lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies though. But really, I also think more education needs to be done to encourage people to adopt or simply not have children. I think having children is such an expected next step, like we are all raised with this idea of what is it to be normal and human and and the evolutionary push to breed is there, but we've also reached an intellectual level that we can see over-population is killing our species and the planet. I think it should be more socially acceptable and not SOO encouraged to breed and have more and more babies. I really mean no offence to those who have or want to have children. I'm not entirely sure whether I will myself and I fully understand the desire to. I just wish more thought went into it for EVERYONE, no matter how qualified you are to raise a child. There is still a long-lasting social responsibility when you choose to bring a new life into the world.
Sorry, I ended up banging on forever and probably not really even making any new or clearer points...:S
p.s. it concerned me that this all might be rather offensive to a person who is now grown and was an unwanted child. To be clear, I realise that not all unwanted children grow up to be thugs or on the dole or criminals...at all. Nor do I think that even if you are a criminal or thug that it would have been better for everyone if you had been aborted :S I simply don't know.
diceyJ
October 11, 2011 at 11:50: pm
It's been so long since I've visited the site! Sad times -- I guess life sweeps you this way and that. Glad it's still alive and well!
I think I'm rarely one-sided on contentious matters, and the one you've outlined is no exception. I like how attention has been drawn to the negative implications implied by 'Pro Life' and 'Pro Choice' -- as if having choice is akin to killing, and giving life resigns your right to choice.
I think a level of discretion matters, it's just hard to place that at an unambiguous level. It just reminds me of some laws we have, where they've had to go for an 'all or nothing' approach because it's easier to measure.
I think my view has already been documented: that abortion seems sensible if avoiding it would result in a child not being brought up in a favourable manner, but is not something to be abused as though -- as you say -- it's just another method of contraception. I don't know why a woman would want to treat it like that, but I guess it's a fact that these things happen unplanned, often. Perhaps not all, but I'm sure plenty of it happens through complacency and lack of forethought.
J
I think I'm rarely one-sided on contentious matters, and the one you've outlined is no exception. I like how attention has been drawn to the negative implications implied by 'Pro Life' and 'Pro Choice' -- as if having choice is akin to killing, and giving life resigns your right to choice.
I think a level of discretion matters, it's just hard to place that at an unambiguous level. It just reminds me of some laws we have, where they've had to go for an 'all or nothing' approach because it's easier to measure.
I think my view has already been documented: that abortion seems sensible if avoiding it would result in a child not being brought up in a favourable manner, but is not something to be abused as though -- as you say -- it's just another method of contraception. I don't know why a woman would want to treat it like that, but I guess it's a fact that these things happen unplanned, often. Perhaps not all, but I'm sure plenty of it happens through complacency and lack of forethought.
J
diceyJ
October 11, 2011 at 11:55: pm
Oh! Here's the article Kat was referring to:
http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/tanya-gold/why -i’m-prochoice-and-prolife :)
I'm still the Linkmeister, unless someone else has usurped my position whilst I've been away ;)
http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/tanya-gold/why -i’m-prochoice-and-prolife :)
I'm still the Linkmeister, unless someone else has usurped my position whilst I've been away ;)
Diana Abigail
October 12, 2011 at 11:26: am
Pues que esto se basa dependiendo de la moral de las personas (de cada quien) ya que en cierto punto esta mal quitar la vida a alguien, pero de otro modo para mi pues, si naciera en condiciones terribles como no tener nada estar en la calle no lo se vendiendome o trabajando como se ven los niños preferiria no nacer,aunque cada quien hace su destino y a lo mejor esos niños se pueden superar aunque es muy dificil recibir el apoyo de la gente, al igual si lo vieran las personas (mama) de una forma de que si no quieren tener al bebe que los den en adopcion estaria bien en vez de pues abortar osea asi estarian asegurandose de que sus hijos tengan una vida estable de la que ellos no les podian dar (o darlos no se en que pais pagan por tener hijos ja).
Anita Stone
January 9, 2012 at 5:59: pm
I believe in Pro-Choice, not because I think abortions are an acceptable form of contaceptive (quite the contrary - i think that is extremely irresponsible and wrong). However, I support Pro-Choice because i believe it is every woman's right to decide for themselves what can or cannot be done to their body. Who am I to stand here and say what choice you should make - whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or chooses not to have an abortion, i should not be a part of that conversation - it is between her and her partner and ultimately she should have the ability to freely choose without pressure or discrimination from anyone.
Julia
February 5, 2012 at 10:24: pm
Thank you. Your blog is well written and I think we are the silent majority. I don't think I would actively campaign for eiter side of the abortion debate. I am sad that women are put in positions where they feel their only choice is to have an abortion. I have never been in that position. I also think it is a great harm to raise children in an abusive/unloving home. :-)
Sep
20
'Pro Life' or 'Pro Choice' Neither.
Posted by Kathryn Prescott on 20 Sep 2011 | 28 comments
I read an article today on this precarious topic by Tanya Gold, unlike almost every other article I have read on the subject in the last few years, it wasn't an over zealous bunch of harshly worded opinions in favour of either the "Pro Life" or "Pro Choice" argument, rather an unbiased look at both sides of the fence. She starts with just how damaging and inappropriate both titles are-
"What subject makes women angrier- or sadder- than abortion? The debate is horribly polarised as either "Pro Life" or "Pro Choice", which makes the other side "Pro Death" or "Pro Tyranny""
She brings up the fact that only a tiny percentage of abortions now happen over 10 weeks and gives a brave, raw account of her own abortion during her years as an alcoholic.
I am not sure whether I completely agree with either side, abortion should not be something to constantly fall back on almost like a method of contraception and in a sense, you are ending life (or more appropriately, preventing it from forming further) but so often I see and hear about people raising children with so much neglect, surrounded by violence, abuse and general mistreatment which no doubt will lead to permanent mental scarring and the inability to bring up any children of their own with the love and care that every child deserves to be raised with, that I do wonder whether it was really ethical to bring them into the world in such awful and deficient circumstances in the first place, to condemn them to a childhood and possibly life without love and care and self worth. I'm not sure I would want to be born into that kind of life if I had the choice.
I had difficulty finding the exact article but I'm sure it will be here somewhere- http://www.stylist.co.uk/people/tanya-gold
What are your thoughts?
Kat