Abortions.

Faye Merci:

EeVie !:

IMO the chance of a good life and possibly living in a foster home is better than no life at all

"IMO" it's better to have no idea what you're missing than to have the probability of living a miserable existence.

well its just different opinions, but i still would much rather have lived a horrible life than to not of had an existence. Kind of like the "its better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" point of view.

love is the movement:

This is another topic we talked about in one of my classes. I am definitely, 100% PRO LIFE. I don't believe in abortion. Human life begins at conception. No ifs ands or buts! Eliminating abortion is often named as "taking away a woman's choice." No. She chose to have unprotected sex and got pregnant. In the case of rape or incest, yes, I understand how hard that would be for the woman. But it's not the child's fault. You can't blame the baby. There is always adoption in this case. And there are always alternatives to abortion. A lot of people these days can't have children and are looking to adopt. But my stand on this is pretty much if you are going to have sex, wear a condom and use birth control or don't have sex at all.

Oh man.

Alright. Point one: "Human life begins at conception"

Just to get some facts straight, fertilization does not automatically result in a pregnancy. It takes several days for a fertilized egg to travel to the uterus and stage there. In those days, most eggs get washed out in a hormone cycle more commonly known as periods. Simply put, if you've had a period and you've had unprotected sex, you've probably flushed out a couple of these eggs. Does that mean you're a serial killer? Does that mean that because you had your period, you're murdering human lives? According to you, this would apply, because you said life begins at conception. Yet women do not have control over their periods, and often, condoms break and so sometimes they don't even have control over preventive methods. Accidents happen. But I guess an accident wouldn't be allowed to happen in this case, because the precious little fertilized egg is in your theory, a human being.

To paraphrase George Carlin: if fertilized eggs are human beings, why don't they get counted in the census? Why do people say "We have two kids and one on the way" rather than saying "We have three kids?" It's a legitimate question. Or are these exceptions to the 'human at conception' rule? Once you start making exceptions for a rule, it doesn't apply anymore, you know.

Point Two: "Abortion is not taking away choice because a woman chose to get pregnant, even if she got raped."

Now, I know that this isn't exactly what you said, but bare with me, my memory is hazy. Besides, once you lay down rules such as these, you might as well say the above. I'll address first things first: "Abortion is not taking away choice". It is true that the pro-choice movement has manipulated language to suit their needs the same way pro-life has twisted words; that is, choosing carefully which way they phrase their stance. Yet, the pro-choice movement is called such because that is exactly what it is. If you stop a woman from being able to have an abortion, you aren't giving her a choice at all. Now she has to have the child. If you want to extrapolate on the logic further, then let's continue. You claim that a woman already used her "choice" because she chose to have unprotected sex. Which is sometimes true. People do forget in the moment of passion to use a condom, and rarely, there are people who forgo the entire practice of stopping conception. But what about cases of rape? A 12 year old girl who was raped by her father did not chose to have unprotected sex. She didn't even chose to have normal sex. So when she is pregnant, she should be able to choose. A young child of her own age is hardly able to rear another child in pregnancy. You say that "it's not the child's fault". No, it's certainly not. But WHY would you force a traumatized victim of rape or incest to go through the most emotionally and physically taxing event of any human's life? If you really care about children, then you won't harm children who have been victimized by denying them choice.

Three - Adoption. I have just stated on the last page my stance on adoption, but to paraphrase again: "Most people don't get adopted. The ones who do don't usually get treated right and instead get juggled from foster home to orphanage and back again." I'd go back and read the posts for a better insight to my views, if you wish. Abortion in the face of an unwanted pregnancy is not only a sensible solution but a safer one.

Lastly, you say "Use contraception or don't have sex at all." This is a wise thing to advise, save for the last bit. Everyone with an iota of smarts agrees with the first statement. People who have sex and don't plan on having children SHOULD use contraceptive methods. However, rape happens. Incest happens. Forgetfulness happens. Punishment by forcing someone to birth a child is cruel and unusual. The final part of your statement, however, is asinine. To suggest abstinence is truly ignorant. Increasing studies have shown that virginity promises or rings do not work, and obviously, society itself has shown that abstinence is a flawed joke at best. Even priests have a hard time keeping their chastity vows - imagine how hard it is for horny young adults to do the same.

Out of every 1,000 women that die every year of childbirth, there are 15 other women who die of abortion. Usually the cause of these abortion deaths are insufficient methods practiced by "back-alley" abortionists. Medically speaking, it is actually safer to have an abortion than to birth a child. In other words, if it weren't for people trying to make abortion such an impossible thing to get, forcing those 15 women a year to search for alternative methods, abortion could be one of the safest procedures ever. If you're really "pro-life", then you see the importance in saving these women's lives, rather than the sack of cells with no consciousness.

source is wikipedia for the numbers.

love is the movement:

But my stand on this is pretty much if you are going to have sex, wear a condom and use birth control or don't have sex at all.

Okay, well I'll make sure to remember that the next time I look into my crystal ball and see that, for some reason unbeknownst to me, my birth control pill decides to fail and the condom my husband is wearing breaks because we're having relatively athletic sex instead of missionary, with my nightgown on, with the lights out the way 'nice' people are meant to.

Because obviously only 'bad' girls get knocked up when they're not having intercourse in order to beget offspring.
(for the record, I had just booked into the clinic for an abortion when I had a miscarriage - and hell, was I relieved!)

<stands up and applauds Faye's thorough rebuttal>

EeVie !:

i still would much rather have lived a horrible life than to not of had an existence. Kind of like the "its better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all" point of view.

Sweetheart, that's a very misguided statement to make. I understand the emotion behind it, but it clearly comes from a place of having lived a life that could never compare to that of an abused or neglected child. I direct you now to the tragic stories of Nixmary Brown and Lisa Steinberg (and her baby brother) who survived six long and miserable years without a moment's love, peace or happiness. Surely you can't mean that such an existence is preferable to those "parents" having never brought them into the world, just to treat them that way? You can see from the stories too that CPS was unable to help these children, thus showing you another way that adoption as a solution does NOT always work out. You will note too that Lisa's biological parents were strongly opposed to abortion; but was this "life" really better for her? If you really love children, you would rather not see them suffer so; and these stories are just two snapshots into the lives of probably hundreds of thousands of children each year. Please think about this.

And because we are off-topic and need to get back on, here is the actual wording of the Roe vs. Wade Act, so everyone understands what is really being debated.

^ I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't abortion sort of taking away the child's ability to live?
i.e. the mother has a choice of whether she wants to have the child or not, but the child doesn't have the choice of whether he/she can live or not.
And how would you determine precedence in that situation? A mother's reproductive choice or her child's choice of life?

alwaysthe child:

the child doesn't have the choice of whether he/she can live or not.

The child also doesn't have a choice about what sort of life it leads. I'd much rather have it not here at all then be neglected or tortured (or both) wouldn't you?

The child has a choice of whether it wants to end its life from there
I see your point about not wanting to subject one to torture/neglect, but what are the chances of that happening?

Maybe more often than I think, but is it really that often?

Surely there are more abortions than neglected children?

ashes:

Surely there are more abortions than neglected children?

Do you know how overworked and understaffed CPS is, and how many children tragically slip through the cracks? You really would find it more acceptable for an innocent child to first be abused, then kill itself, rather than allowing the woman to just prevent the entire situation by having an abortion? It's difficult for me to comprehend this.

^ I don't, I'm just trying to provoke more debate. Sorry if it came off that way, I just want to hear your thoughts on this.

But I still don't think that as many children "slip through the cracks" as you do, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
At the same time, is it worse for someone to have been aborted, or to be born but possibly be abused?

ashes:

I still don't think that as many children "slip through the cracks" as you do, but maybe I'm wrong on that. At the same time, is it worse for someone to have been aborted, or to be born but possibly be abused?

So you can compare the rate of unanswered child abuse reports in the U.S. to the total number of abortions performed since Roe vs. Wade passed.

Alright, you wanted to hear my thoughts; I'd like to hear yours. In my eyes, a living, breathing, suffering child is infinitely worse than a mess of cells being vaccuumed out of a womb. What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that not every would-be-aborted child is abused, and that many of the abused children were with their biological parents, not adoptive parents.
And like someone else said before, you can't be sure if no life is better than having a bad life.

^ You're right - not *every* fetus that is aborted would have gone on to be abused. But the fact remains that the law determines an 8-week-old fetus as *not* human, and therefore the mother's right to govern her own reproductive choices overrides the fetus's 'right to live'.

Besides that, what are the chances of a child being adopted by a pair of loving, caring parents? The truth is, *most* women are not so heartless as to have zero interest in their child's welfare, even if they didn't want the child to start with. A lot of women who *would* have had an abortion if they were able to get one, would not give up their flesh and blood for adoption - they may still mistreat the child as they don't know how to be good parents or they cannot afford to provide for a child (and imo homelessness etc is essentially child abuse), but they still have some attachment (or some sick psychological illness) that makes them want to keep the child now that it is in the world. I personally would never, ever consider giving a child of mine up for adoption, but I don't want any more kids - if I were to fall pregnant despite taking precautions, I would terminate the pregnancy rather than keep it. I consider the fact that my husband, daughter and I, as living, breathing humans who are already in this world, have more right to live as well as possible than something that technically doesn't exist yet. If it came down to it, I would put my husband and daughter first, and ensure their welfare, by terminating an unwanted pregnancy because *they* are here now, they need food, clothing and a roof over their heads more than something that may not make it to full-term.

It seems like such a black-and-white debate when you're 13, especially if you've never experienced hardship worse than an unrequited crush or a backstabbing friend. I'm not trying to devalue your opinions, I'm just saying that give it a few years, and when you have a bit more life experience under your belt, you may better understand the impact of certain things.

ashes:

My thoughts are that not every would-be-aborted child is abused, and that many of the abused children were with their biological parents, not adoptive parents.
And like someone else said before, you can't be sure if no life is better than having a bad life.

you can be sure abortion is better than 9 months of the most emotionally and physically taxing task a human being can go through.

ashes:

^ I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't abortion sort of taking away the child's ability to live?
i.e. the mother has a choice of whether she wants to have the child or not, but the child doesn't have the choice of whether he/she can live or not.
And how would you determine precedence in that situation? A mother's reproductive choice or her child's choice of life?

My personal if somewhat brash opinion is that since the mom is already living and here, she gets to choose. Plainly put, she's the one who's already been alive, so she gets to stay alive. A sack of cells a few weeks old doesn't take precedence to me because it doesn't have a family, friends, pets, home, life, etc, etc. And it's second to come, so it's second in importance to me. My somewhat simple opinion is that I honestly don't CARE what the hell the fetus may live to do or may not do. This is the shrodinger's cat stuff. Thing is, you never know anything for certain. Yeah, yeah, I might be killing the next mozart or whatever, or the next hitler. Or the next everyday, average joe. Whoever it is, I don't really care, because they're not a person yet. They're a non-sentinent, piece of bubble. I care more for lizards. At least they can think.

As an aside to more than the above quoted piece, i believe the question of whether it's a fetus or baby came up? Personally, I believe that it's whatever the mother needs it to be. If the mom wants to think of it as a fetus, then fine. If she wants to see it as a baby, fine. If she still sees it as a baby and aborts it, fine. The only person that should be allowed to decide is the mother.

Faye Merci:

you can be sure abortion is better than 9 months of the most emotionally and physically taxing task a human being can go through.

Maybe for the mother, but not necessarily for the fetus.

Faye Merci:

Plainly put, she's the one who's already been alive, so she gets to stay alive.

What if it's not a situation about life and death?

Cigarettes And Suicide:

It seems like such a black-and-white debate when you're 13, especially if you've never experienced hardship worse than an unrequited crush or a backstabbing friend. I'm not trying to devalue your opinions, I'm just saying that give it a few years, and when you have a bit more life experience under your belt, you may better understand the impact of certain things.

I should probably clarify this now. I am strongly prochoice, and I think most people on INO are prochoice as well, but the other side of this debate isn't really represented here. So I just wanted to bring a little of that here, and try and see it from a pro-life person's point of view. But thank you for that, I know things will seem different than they do now in a few years.

ashes:

Maybe for the mother, but not necessarily for the fetus.

I don't think it can tell. It's not like the baby can see movies of normal human life or anything. A fetus is not a dying soldier. It hasn't even breathed in oxygen or seen light yet. It has no idea of life. So why would it be worse for the fetus to not have life than risk a crappy or good life? If it gets aborted, it didn't miss a thing. For all it "knows" (i use this as a figure of speech, since a fetus can't think at the age most fetuses are aborted.) life was only about dying. It didn't think about marrying or going to college or possibly getting abused or whatever.

ashes:

Faye Merci:

Plainly put, she's the one who's already been alive, so she gets to stay alive.

What if it's not a situation about life and death?

Hmm, you're right bad wording. I think the thought I meant was

"The fetus is the one who hasn't been alive, so it doesn't get to stay alive."

I didn't say so because it's a bit mean, but that's what I meant. I'm saying it's life or death for the fetus. I think I meant that the one who gets to get the "live" side of the coin is the mother, not the baby, even if the mother wasn't going to die. Does that make more sense?