Pro Choice?????

[no name 1]

can't we close this thread already?

[garya505 2]

Some of them would have been born black boys -

We should abort all black boys?????? This is a birth defect now????

I realize I quoted that incorrectly.... sorry garya

quoting something in the context it is said, always helps

Some of them would have been born black boys - what of them? Statistically, the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a healthy, caucasian female newborn.

Yes, and the implication here is chilling indeed.

[MrsWhizz 0]

can't we close this thread already?

[ChristinaM 0]

Abortion has only become the "cornerstone of women's equality" because those who are anti-choice have made it so. If they would live and let live, not choosing a solution that they feel is not right for them in the same way that those who do not wish to smoke cigarettes do not smoke cigarettes, then those who are pro-choice would have not have to defend that right.

Those on the anti-choice side forget that nobody is forcing them to have an abortion. They are free to deal with the consequences of their actions in whatever way they see fit. However, to insist that if the legal right to abortion is abolished that all of the children that would never have been will be happily and quickly adopted is naive. Some of those children would have had serious problems - what of them? Some of them milder problems - what of them? Some of them would have been born black boys - what of them? Statistically, the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a healthy, caucasian female newborn. No matter how you look at it, there are never going to be enough of those to go round. So what of the rest?

So you are suggesting that the decision to terminate the life of a human embryo or fetus is equivalent to the decision to smoke a cigarette?

And, you are suggesting that children who might not be adoptable because they aren't perfect are better off dead?

Thank you Wenchie - nice to see that someone read it all, not selectively parsed it.

Gary, the anti-smoking lobby's main argument is that passive smoking kills, right? Kills innocent people who haven't even smoked!! Granted, it's not a perfect comparison, but can't you see the parallel?

I am suggesting that children who may never have the chance to experience a loving, stable home environment because they were unwanted to begin with, because they "might not be adoptable", because they don't fit this season's ideal of the "perfect baby" (although white caucasian female newborn seems to be a pretty consistant trend) might be better off not being born, yes. I am a believer in quality of life over quantity of life, and I would rather see those women who are alive already live to their fullest potential than bring an unwanted baby into the world.

VP, read it again. Acknowledge that the majority of babies who are adopted quickly are white caucasian female newborns, and that many of the foetuses being aborted would not fit that very narrow role. As a result, they are much harder to home, and spend more time living in orphanages, or being shunted from foster home to foster home. They are less likely to have the quality of life I feel everyone deserves - that of being born to parents who want them - be that biological or adoptive.

You may not like my views, and that's OK. I don't ask anyone to embrace them wholeheartedly and change their mind. However, I do expect that they are treated as fairly as I have treated others views, and whilst they are still legal views, you have no right to comdemn me for them.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ChristinaM

[garya505 2]

can't we close this thread already?

Is someone holding a gun to your head to read it?

[garya505 2]

Abortion has only become the "cornerstone of women's equality" because those who are anti-choice have made it so. If they would live and let live, not choosing a solution that they feel is not right for them in the same way that those who do not wish to smoke cigarettes do not smoke cigarettes, then those who are pro-choice would have not have to defend that right.

Those on the anti-choice side forget that nobody is forcing them to have an abortion. They are free to deal with the consequences of their actions in whatever way they see fit. However, to insist that if the legal right to abortion is abolished that all of the children that would never have been will be happily and quickly adopted is naive. Some of those children would have had serious problems - what of them? Some of them milder problems - what of them? Some of them would have been born black boys - what of them? Statistically, the vast majority of people who want to adopt want a healthy, caucasian female newborn. No matter how you look at it, there are never going to be enough of those to go round. So what of the rest?

So you are suggesting that the decision to terminate the life of a human embryo or fetus is equivalent to the decision to smoke a cigarette?

And, you are suggesting that children who might not be adoptable because they aren't perfect are better off dead?

Thank you Wenchie - nice to see that someone read it all, not selectively parsed it.

Gary, the anti-smoking lobby's main argument is that passive smoking kills, right? Kills innocent people who haven't even smoked!! Granted, it's not a perfect comparison, but can't you see the parallel?

I am suggesting that children who may never have the chance to experience a loving, stable home environment because they were unwanted to begin with, because they "might not be adoptable", because they don't fit this season's ideal of the "perfect baby" (although white caucasian female newborn seems to be a pretty consistant trend) might be better off not being born, yes. I am a believer in quality of life over quantity of life, and I would rather see those women who are alive already live to their fullest potential than bring an unwanted baby into the world.

VP, read it again. Acknowledge that the majority of babies who are adopted quickly are white caucasian female newborns, and that many of the foetuses being aborted would not fit that very narrow role. As a result, they are much harder to home, and spend more time living in orphanages, or being shunted from foster home to foster home. They are less likely to have the quality of life I feel everyone deserves - that of being born to parents who want them - be that biological or adoptive.

You may not like my views, and that's OK. I don't ask anyone to embrace them wholeheartedly and change their mind. However, I do expect that they are treated as fairly as I have treated others views, and whilst they are still legal views, you have no right to comdemn me for them.

Basically, you are saying that a person's perceived quality of life, or whether they are wanted, or if they are adoptable, determines their right to live. I believe we have heard that argument before, in another time in world history.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, the anti-smoking lobby's main argument is that passive smoking kills, right? Kills innocent people who haven't even smoked!! Granted, it's not a perfect comparison, but can't you see the parallel?

More than a parallel - if you consider that changing the broad law on abortion on the basis of this one "extreme" case, could open up a can of worms whereby women may be prosecuted for miscarrying if there is a suspicion that it was deliberate. Hence I mentioned Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy.

Does this mean a person who falls down the stairs, or goes to a smoky restaurant should suddenly face criminal charges for deliberately endangering her pregnancy? I can see a lot of bitter couples fighting each other in court over some very questionable reasoning to prove deliberate negligence.

Basically, you are saying that a person's perceived quality of life, or whether they are wanted, or if they are adoptable, determines their right to live. I believe we have heard that argument before, in another time in world history.

I think you are reading what you want to read

Edited October 25, 2006 by erekose

[almaty 19]

[irishgirl73 0]

we ALL have different opinions on abortion

[mawilson 2,133]

And, you are suggesting that children who might not be adoptable because they aren't perfect are better off dead?

Of course they are better off dead. Unborn, to be precise.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

we ALL have different opinions on abortion

We do - but the issue that is being ignored here is that one "extremely unusual" case is being used as a justification to rubbish all "pro-choice" opinions. The "feminist" argument is equally suspect.

What happened to this specifics of this case?

[ChristinaM 0]

I was going to comment on that, but then I realised that it's not going to do any good. The debate has come too far from the original article to get back on track - it's too much an issue of abortion morality at this point.

However, it is very interesting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was going to comment on that, but then I realised that it's not going to do any good. The debate has come too far from the original article to get back on track - it's too much an issue of abortion morality at this point.

However, it is very interesting.

Agreed. These days it seems you must have an agenda in order to have a valid opinion. Crazy.

[Alex+R 0]

Sure, you think it's murder. But that's just your opinion and it will have no effect on changing the minds of those who choose to have abortions.

Fact: When abortion is illegal the same amount of abortions are performed as when it is legal.

Fact: More of them will be done poorly since the practice is not regulated and more women will die in the process. Especially if they attempt to do it themselves.

End result: When abortion is illegal, more women die or suffer severe physical consequences from a botched illegal abortion. Same amount of fetuses are terminated.

Anyone who advocates illegalizing abortion is deluded if they think it will reduce actual abortions. What I think you want is to enjoy watching more women suffer for choosing to have an abortion. You probably want them dead for their choice.

That sickens me.

[Yodrak 7]

garya,

I agree that you've identified the right question.

While we're looking for the 'right' answer, remind me - what's the definition of 'parasite'?

Yodrak

.....

Then there's the question of when do you consider a fertilized egg "life". In my opinion, it is not life until it can exist outside of the womb and survive.

I agree completely! Except about the fertilized egg being life -- imo it is life, but it being alive doesn't mean the woman who is pregnant with it should HAVE TO see it to term if she doesn't want to.

By your logic then, if I can sustain your life but you are a burden to me, then I have the right to terminate your life? The real question here is, when does the embryo/fetus/baby have it's own right to life, equal to yours?

.....