Political Crossfire Forums

[johnson]

I'm wondering what pro-lifers think should happpen to babies:

- born to drug addicts and homeless
- born to the unemployed and poor who can't afford them
- born to woman who didn't want them in the first place

I'm also wondering why prolifers fail to see how quickly a black-market would arise for babies, which would often lead to a life of HELL for the child.

Are you prolifer ready to adopt 20 kids or are you preaching without having the moral authority to do so?

The pro-lifers I know all have 1, 2 or 3 kids... not very "pro-life" if you ask me, they're like flower children who's etheral ideals quickly fall prey to their material desires.

[thesheesh]

I'm not a pro-lifer, but the answer to not affording children is fairly simple. Natural childbirth is free.

- Drug addicts and homeless: They feel every life is sacred even if it may have birth deficiencies. We have mentally retarted people in this country, and that's ok. We don't need to kill retarded people before they're born or children who have a higher chance of illness.

- Can't afford them: Give child up for adoption.

- Don't want them in the first place: Give them up for adoption.

People who are pro-life don't find it acceptable to "murder" an innocent life because the parents were either irresponsible or don't want them.

We have orphanages and foster homes. Pro-lifers don't have to support them, our tax dollar will if it gets bad enough.

What does the amount of kids pro-lifers (by your experience) raise have anything to do with your argument? If all they can afford is a few kids and that's all they want why should they have more or less by your standards? As long as they're responsibly raising the ones they have and that's all they ask of others, how are they being hypocritical?

The argument of being pro-life is not as complicated as you'd like it to be.

[superskippy]

So if you have a puppy and cant afford you should be able to put a bullet through its head?

Or a better example would be you have a child but after sveral years you find you are financially insecure because of said child, do you have the right to kill the kid?

The answer is obvious to me.

[Addison]

At every hospital and free-clinic, there is a "Safe Baby Station." Wherein, a new-mother can exchange her baby for a ticket out of motherhood, no strings attached and no questions asked. They simply take the baby and give it a chance at life in a special adoption, many nurses are said to even adopt these foundlings. The Safe Baby Station is a well-regarded and safe institution funded by charities, the government, and the host hospital. There is another choice between abortion and parenthood, many just overlook it.

And, if you are suggesting we put crack-children and other drug-deformed babies out of their misery by murdering them, then I feel I don't need even to address that portion of the argument, as any self-respecting human could see the error right away.

[galba]

superskippy wrote: So if you have a puppy and cant afford you should be able to put a bullet through its head?

Or a better example would be you have a child but after sveral years you find you are financially insecure because of said child, do you have the right to kill the kid?

The answer is obvious to me.

Well said. :tu:

[X-Shocker]

johnson wrote: I'm wondering what pro-lifers think should happpen to babies:

- born to drug addicts and homeless
- born to the unemployed and poor who can't afford them
- born to woman who didn't want them in the first place

I'm also wondering why prolifers fail to see how quickly a black-market would arise for babies, which would often lead to a life of HELL for the child.

Are you prolifer ready to adopt 20 kids or are you preaching without having the moral authority to do so?

The pro-lifers I know all have 1, 2 or 3 kids... not very "pro-life" if you ask me, they're like flower children who's etheral ideals quickly fall prey to their material desires.

PRO-CHOICE! Two tumbs way up.

[Demonic Spoon]

Abortion is acceptable for many reasons. The original post listed none of them.

[Prole]

thesheesh wrote: I'm not a pro-lifer, but the answer to not affording children is fairly simple. Natural childbirth is free.
Childbirth isn't free; it takes a huge toll upon the mother. If it didn't, then there wouldn't be around a million surgical abortions annually in the US alone.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Abortion is acceptable for many reasons. The original post listed none of them.
Abortion is acceptable up until consciousness for any reason; it's an amoral, personal choice. But Addison and superskippy already answered pretty well what happens to babies.

Regarding adoption, there is currently an actual demand for "normal" white babies, and possibly "normal" babies of all races. Older kids, and those with physical/mental disorders, have much harder times finding homes. And were many of the people who have abortions instead choose to bear the child and give it up for adoption, there would be a lot more kids in orphanages.

[thesheesh]

Prole wrote: thesheesh wrote: I'm not a pro-lifer, but the answer to not affording children is fairly simple. Natural childbirth is free.
Childbirth isn't free; it takes a huge toll upon the mother. If it didn't, then there wouldn't be around a million surgical abortions annually in the US alone.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Abortion is acceptable for many reasons. The original post listed none of them.
Abortion is acceptable up until consciousness for any reason; it's an amoral, personal choice. But Addison and superskippy already answered pretty well what happens to babies.

Regarding adoption, there is currently an actual demand for "normal" white babies, and possibly "normal" babies of all races. Older kids, and those with physical/mental disorders, have much harder times finding homes. And were many of the people who have abortions instead choose to bear the child and give it up for adoption, there would be a lot more kids in orphanages.
I didn't know a huge toll on the mother cost money? The argument was what if the mother couldn't afford to give birth. The response is don't go to a doctor, the human species has been giving birth in this manner for millions of years. Some women prefer this method.

And the rest is just your opinion of why abortion is acceptable. Believe it or not, but there are some people out there who would prefer to fill orphanages with people and not biohazardous waste with human remains.

[Prole]

thesheesh wrote: Prole wrote: thesheesh wrote: I'm not a pro-lifer, but the answer to not affording children is fairly simple. Natural childbirth is free.
Childbirth isn't free; it takes a huge toll upon the mother. If it didn't, then there wouldn't be around a million surgical abortions annually in the US alone.

Demonic Spoon wrote: Abortion is acceptable for many reasons. The original post listed none of them.
Abortion is acceptable up until consciousness for any reason; it's an amoral, personal choice. But Addison and superskippy already answered pretty well what happens to babies.

Regarding adoption, there is currently an actual demand for "normal" white babies, and possibly "normal" babies of all races. Older kids, and those with physical/mental disorders, have much harder times finding homes. And were many of the people who have abortions instead choose to bear the child and give it up for adoption, there would be a lot more kids in orphanages.
I didn't know a huge toll on the mother cost money? The argument was what if the mother couldn't afford to give birth. The response is don't go to a doctor, the human species has been giving birth in this manner for millions of years. Some women prefer this method.

Giving birth itself doesn't cost money, as you rightly question. I don't know much about non-hospital births, but I do know that pregnancy is the leading cause of death in third world countries, and has throughout history been the greatest threat to women. There are of course many aggravating factors beyond simply not using a hospital (malnutrition being probably the biggest), but I'd say that as a general rule of thumb, hospital births are safer.

As far as money, many women are out of commision for weeks before and several days after their birth. If someone has paid maternity leave, that's great, but I'd say that generally if someone can't afford to have a baby, they don't have a job with such comprehensive benefits.

And that's just the financial perspective; pregnancy and birth, as well as giving up a baby for adoption, is a huge emotional and physical toll, can affect a woman's social standing and relationships, can cause a myriad of health problems, etc.

thesheesh wrote:
And the rest is just your opinion of why abortion is acceptable.
I don't see why a legal medical procedure is anyone's business but the patient's. But yes, I suppose that is just my subjective opinion.

[quuote="thesheesh"]Believe it or not, but there are some people out there who would prefer to fill orphanages with people and not biohazardous waste with human remains.[/quote]
I certainly do believe it, and respect it. But on the same token, some people would prefer that a child not come into existance rather than be subjected to an orphanage. And some people would prefer simply not to be pregnant.

[Brighton]

I am glad to read that pro-choicers are still appealing to a moral argument. It shows that there has not been a total loss of values. Unfortunately it will never prove itself. It only leads to a circular argument. Whining about the quality of these children's lives if not aborted is just asinine. If there is anyone out there who wants to discuss this subject in an intelligent way, please respond.

[thesheesh]

Prole wrote:
As far as money, many women are out of commision for weeks before and several days after their birth. If someone has paid maternity leave, that's great, but I'd say that generally if someone can't afford to have a baby, they don't have a job with such comprehensive benefits.

And that's just the financial perspective; pregnancy and birth, as well as giving up a baby for adoption, is a huge emotional and physical toll, can affect a woman's social standing and relationships, can cause a myriad of health problems, etc.
Good points.

[X-Shocker]

Brighton wrote: I am glad to read that pro-choicers are still appealing to a moral argument. It shows that there has not been a total loss of values. Unfortunately it will never prove itself. It only leads to a circular argument. Whining about the quality of these children's lives if not aborted is just asinine. If there is anyone out there who wants to discuss this subject in an intelligent way, please respond.

Moral... Often used, but never seem to hold values for just one side of the conversation. What is Moral? Hmmm...

[curdface]

The Moral argument is on both sides, we both believe in right and wrong, you believe parentless poor children are is inherently evil. If this isn't your augment please specify. I, on the other hand believe this about destroying a child in the womb. Is there another arena that we may take this discussion or are we permanently tethered to this point of evil/good, or right/wrong point.

[WsTxRedRaider06]

Quote: And that's just the financial perspective; pregnancy and birth, as well as giving up a baby for adoption, is a huge emotional and physical toll, can affect a woman's social standing and relationships, can cause a myriad of health problems, etc.


Substitute the word abortion for the words, pregnancy, birth, and adoption, and this statement still makes perfect sense. The health, emotional and physical problems caused by abortion at least equal those caused by pregnancy and giving birth. Not in all cases, but it works the same both ways. And probably more-so in the case of abortion, because nobody has sex for the sole purpose of having an abortion. But in order to become pregnant and give birth, one must have sex.

If one doesn't want to kill somebody, if one cant afford an attorney and legal fees and fines, jail time, etc....Then one shouldn't drink and drive. And if one is going to drink, they should take a cab or find a safe way home.....a form of protection against drunk driving. People are still going to drink, just like people are going to have unprotected sex....But everyone knows the consequences of both of these acts, and what they might face should something go wrong.....

How many of us are thankful we were not aborted. I know I am.

[bubblybuddy]

Prole wrote:
As far as money, many women are out of commision for weeks before and several days after their birth. If someone has paid maternity leave, that's great, but I'd say that generally if someone can't afford to have a baby, they don't have a job with such comprehensive benefits.

And that's just the financial perspective; pregnancy and birth, as well as giving up a baby for adoption, is a huge emotional and physical toll, can affect a woman's social standing and relationships, can cause a myriad of health problems, etc.

thesheesh wrote: Believe it or not, but there are some people out there who would prefer to fill orphanages with people and not biohazardous waste with human remains.
I certainly do believe it, and respect it. But on the same token, some people would prefer that a child not come into existance rather than be subjected to an orphanage. And some people would prefer simply not to be pregnant.

The answer is simple: don't have sex because pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility.

[johnson]

If a puppy is sick or cannot be adopted, our society PUTS IT DOWN.

Same should go with babies. They're a dime a dozen.

[LostSoul3412]

I find myself split on the issue of abortion...

On one hand, I would personally never want to have an abortion done on any of my potential children, planned or not. I would probably put them up for adoption to give them a better chance at life with a family that could support them better than I could.

On the other, I feel it's not my position to tell other parents what to do with their children. The way I see it, I have no right to tell another parent how to treat their children, what to do with their children, or how to raise (or not raise) their children. That is why I am pro-choice. While I am personally pro-life, I cannot impose my morals on another individual.

Regardless of any exceptions or anomalies, a parent has the right to raise their child their own way, just the same as they have the right to choose not to have a child. While abstinence is the easiest path to not having a child, no one can expect the general society to follow that. It's like passing out condoms in public schools. It doesn't promote sex, it prevents pregnancies because students are already having sex.

So what if she can't afford to give the child the life he/she deserves? That's a case by case scenario for each parent. So what if the baby is completely healthy and the family can support him/her? See above. No one has any right to tell someone else what to do with their body and children.

How's that for intellectual, Brighton? 8:)

[Æ]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Abortion is acceptable for many reasons. The original post listed none of them.
Remind me again of the reasons that justify the coercion of one individual by another.

[Prole]

WsTxRedRaider06 wrote: Quote: And that's just the financial perspective; pregnancy and birth, as well as giving up a baby for adoption, is a huge emotional and physical toll, can affect a woman's social standing and relationships, can cause a myriad of health problems, etc.


Substitute the word abortion for the words, pregnancy, birth, and adoption, and this statement still makes perfect sense. The health, emotional and physical problems caused by abortion at least equal those caused by pregnancy and giving birth. Not in all cases, but it works the same both ways. And probably more-so in the case of abortion, because nobody has sex for the sole purpose of having an abortion. But in order to become pregnant and give birth, one must have sex.

I won't pretend that abortions are great, because they aren't. Invariably, abortions are chosen as the lesser of two evils (the second being pregnancy), but that is still a preferred choice for many women. I don't think that people should decide what choice is better for them.

Raider wrote:
If one doesn't want to kill somebody, if one cant afford an attorney and legal fees and fines, jail time, etc....Then one shouldn't drink and drive. And if one is going to drink, they should take a cab or find a safe way home.....a form of protection against drunk driving. People are still going to drink, just like people are going to have unprotected sex....But everyone knows the consequences of both of these acts, and what they might face should something go wrong.....

How many of us are thankful we were not aborted. I know I am.
Drunk driving is illegal and threatens other's safety, while abortion is legal and threaten's no one's safety. Your comparison does not stand.