ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Mar 6, 2017 16:14:08 GMT -5
I totally agree that the majority of abortions are done for selfish reasons. On the other hand, I firmly believe that if the mother's life is in danger or if the pregnancy results from rape or incest then there is a legitimate right to abort the child. It's self-defence in those cases. I do NOT support abortion for genetic defects; our eldest child was born with genetic defects and during my pregnancy the doctor advised me to have a termination. Mike said he would stand by whatever decision I made and I decided to keep my child. He will be 17 years old this year and though he is certainly a challenge I am glad that I chose life over death. Camille Paglia is a feminist who freely admits that abortion IS infanticide and who routinely disses her feminista sistas for being too dishonest or squeamish to admit that fact. Now I still believe in the cases I mentioned there should be a right to abortion. But abortion for 'social reasons' - the overwhelming MAJORITY of abortions - is just despicable. so the unborn child receives the death penalty because of rape or incest? I don't buy into that arguement. Well, you've probably (I certainly hope you have) never been in that situation. I don't think you can condemn a mother in that sort of position from a moral high ground. She is going through a terrible trauma and she will have to live with the results of that for the rest of her life. Now I know someone who WAS made pregnant as a result of rape and she agonised over what to do. In the end she decided to keep the child but I wouldn't have blamed her if she'd decided differently. As the Native American saying goes, 'don't judge a man till you've walked a thousand miles in his shoes.'
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Mar 6, 2017 16:21:27 GMT -5
It will create more amateur, back-room abortions. The number of abortions prevented would exceed the number of botched abortions. Thousands of lives would be saved. This is one of those rare occasions when I absolutely agree with Joe.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Mar 6, 2017 17:41:16 GMT -5
a casual attitude toward abortion for social/convenience reasons should not be legal, there ARE solid reasons to allow abortion when the mother's life is at stake. That was true before Roe v. Wade, a decision morally equivalent to Dred Scott v. Sandford. How do you figure that, Joe?
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 6, 2017 17:58:06 GMT -5
In both cases the U.S. Supreme Court defined human beings as personal property.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 19:01:49 GMT -5
I totally agree that the majority of abortions are done for selfish reasons. On the other hand, I firmly believe that if the mother's life is in danger or if the pregnancy results from rape or incest then there is a legitimate right to abort the child. It's self-defence in those cases. I do NOT support abortion for genetic defects; our eldest child was born with genetic defects and during my pregnancy the doctor advised me to have a termination. Mike said he would stand by whatever decision I made and I decided to keep my child. He will be 17 years old this year and though he is certainly a challenge I am glad that I chose life over death. Camille Paglia is a feminist who freely admits that abortion IS infanticide and who routinely disses her feminista sistas for being too dishonest or squeamish to admit that fact. Now I still believe in the cases I mentioned there should be a right to abortion. But abortion for 'social reasons' - the overwhelming MAJORITY of abortions - is just despicable. In good conscience I will take no position if the mother's life is at stake.... I will leave to the parents and their pastor to decide
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 19:04:19 GMT -5
so the unborn child receives the death penalty because of rape or incest? I don't buy into that arguement. Well, you've probably (I certainly hope you have) never been in that situation. I don't think you can condemn a mother in that sort of position from a moral high ground. She is going through a terrible trauma and she will have to live with the results of that for the rest of her life. Now I know someone who WAS made pregnant as a result of rape and she agonised over what to do. In the end she decided to keep the child but I wouldn't have blamed her if she'd decided differently. As the Native American saying goes, 'don't judge a man till you've walked a thousand miles in his shoes.' so in your view, you compound the trauma of rape or incest by killing the child.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 7, 2017 6:41:47 GMT -5
I totally agree that the majority of abortions are done for selfish reasons. On the other hand, I firmly believe that if the mother's life is in danger or if the pregnancy results from rape or incest then there is a legitimate right to abort the child. It's self-defence in those cases. I do NOT support abortion for genetic defects; our eldest child was born with genetic defects and during my pregnancy the doctor advised me to have a termination. Mike said he would stand by whatever decision I made and I decided to keep my child. He will be 17 years old this year and though he is certainly a challenge I am glad that I chose life over death. Camille Paglia is a feminist who freely admits that abortion IS infanticide and who routinely disses her feminista sistas for being too dishonest or squeamish to admit that fact. Now I still believe in the cases I mentioned there should be a right to abortion. But abortion for 'social reasons' - the overwhelming MAJORITY of abortions - is just despicable. come on Lin you should know better than such a wide generalisation there are defects and then there are defects ...some vile defects you wouldn't wish on your own worst enemy let alone a baby/child you purport to love .... not for getting that the level of some defects are not at first noticeable and would no have been a aborted in the first place on health grounds like you I am against social abortions..and like you I believe its ultimately the mother right to choose .. its not about being pro abortion ..its about being unemotional and making rational choices and not being deliberately cruel and inflicting a life time of suffering on another human being abortion within the legal time frame is not infanticide ...it only becomes infanticide once life can continue independently without medical interference look at Downs... as you will be aware there are considerable degrees of disability both mental and physical..other than initial Downs its a bit of a lottery of the level of disability[inless there are seeable visible physicsal indications] why would any one inflict a life time of being blind..deaf..incapable of movement other than spasms..upto 4-8 fits perday .. double incontinent and painful daily injections ...annual operations ..no way of communication on another human being...handleable in a baby and small child..a very different scenario with a 16-30 yr old ..exactly who is served in such a case ?certainly not the patient and of course the dilemma of who will care for such case...its beyond most parents health strength and mental ability to provide the care needed as I said before I would like anti abortionists to spend time on the special wing of maternity units..and then at nurseries for 0-5yr olds and from their to institutions /hospitals and day care for 5-16-18yr olds and then onto the day care and closed institutions for the over 18s to point of death which can be as long as 60plus given the medical imput I would like to see anti abortionist made to understand the abject misery they would inflict on fellow human beings by their emotional dwelling on prebirth and not the reality of what life is really like for so many of their victims babies are emotive ...but babies grow and age..take account of the realities of no quality of life ..twisted limbs ..unthought out violence ..fed by tubes ..bed and chair sores ..constant toothache ...etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 7, 2017 7:14:08 GMT -5
Well, you've probably (I certainly hope you have) never been in that situation. I don't think you can condemn a mother in that sort of position from a moral high ground. She is going through a terrible trauma and she will have to live with the results of that for the rest of her life. Now I know someone who WAS made pregnant as a result of rape and she agonised over what to do. In the end she decided to keep the child but I wouldn't have blamed her if she'd decided differently. As the Native American saying goes, 'don't judge a man till you've walked a thousand miles in his shoes.' so in your view, you compound the trauma of rape or incest by killing the child. your not taking into account that its the mother who suffers the trauma of rape or incest... your not taking into account that some will will be to young to have a baby..others will not have the mental capacity..and others will see the baby/child and re live the trauma..that for them the child will be a constant reminder .. I have a close friend whose job it was to deal with mothers and babies pre and post natal who were in need of social care..ie the mothers who had history of abuse toward children they had already produced or were addicts of drug or alchol and mothers who had been abuse via rape/incest etc ..the job was hospital based...many of he patients were below average intelligence and grim backgrounds and had absolutely no concept of what having physically a baby meant or what was expected in the most basic levels of child care..part of the job was intervention deciding on behalf of the child whether it was safe to allow the mother to have contact or take the child home after birth [that is quite a responsibility]and deciding wheter to make the new born a ward of court..[making the state responsible for the childs welfare..and if the child would be eligible for adoption [iq] levels one wonders just how many anti abortionist have any idea the realities of so many of these cases ...its not a black and white issue..like many other issues there are a hundred shades of grey..and every case is individual and needs individual considerations
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 7, 2017 7:19:02 GMT -5
You're totally ignoring the top post and Mouse's post. I addressed that, separately. Pro-abortion is pro-death. absolute rubbish ...
|
|