Abortions: yes or no?

[Samson]

When a woman has an abortion, she hardly turns around and gives the money she would have spent on a child, to save lives in Africa or something.

My views are based on what I see in this country, where we have an national health service. So the very high cost of keeping some people alive is paid by the tax payer. Lots of other people die because of lack of funds for the NHS.

What happens over there when a severly dissabled child that requires significant medical recorces to keep them alive is born to a poor family?

 

[Dionysius]

1. Who is they in your answer? It was residents of the homes in mine.
2. The mother (with the father if he is around). You are putting yourself in the oposite possition. Who are you to do that (to decide to spend money on this child and let many other people die)?

1.i was refferring to the staff. but the residents will hardly say; "oh, and by he way we dont get raped by the staff here."
2.the same argument could be used for any baby. this child`s life is in your hands and should be taken care of first. how many people just have their ill babies put to sleep and send the money to somalia?

 

[Eukaryote]

should be legal but discouraged

Yeah, ditto. I don't know why it's so popular when you can give it up for adoption.

 

[Samson]

1.i was refferring to the staff. but the residents will hardly say; "oh, and by he way we dont get raped by the staff here."
2.the same argument could be used for any baby. this child`s life is in your hands and should be taken care of first. how many people just have their ill babies put to sleep and send the money to somalia?

1. It is just the sort of thing they would say, as I got the impression it was the norm.
2. No childs life is in my hands (fortunatly). It is in the hands of the parents first and formost, and then the hands of the tax payer if we so choose (esp. if we that the choice away from the parents, as I belive you are proposing). That is exactly the choce we have.

 

[Dionysius]

1. It is just the sort of thing they would say, as I got the impression it was the norm.
2. No childs life is in my hands (fortunatly). It is in the hands of the parents first and formost, and then the hands of the tax payer if we so choose (esp. if we that the choice away from the parents, as I belive you are proposing). That is exactly the choce we have.

1. have you been to every orphanage in every city on every country?
im guessing no. then how can you say with certainty all orphanages
are just pedophiles harems? have you reported any of this to your local police or done anything about it?
2. i am delighted to hear no-one was insane enough to entrust you with a child. babies lives are the result of taxpayers decision? you honestly think people have the right to kill their child when they dont feel like caring for it?!

 

[Samson]

1. have you been to every orphanage in every city on every country?
im guessing no. then how can you say with certainty all orphanages
are just pedophiles harems? have you reported any of this to your local police or done anything about it?

No. I have not been to any.As I said above, I am basing my opionion on other peoples experience. The result of this is that I would not want to subject any child of mine to that. Do you havce any better evidence to bring to the discusion?

2. i am delighted to hear no-one was insane enough to entrust you with a child. babies lives are the result of taxpayers decision?

Babies lives are the result of lawmakers decisions (to ban or otherwise abortion). Lawmakers are put there by voters. Most voters are taxpayers, and it is taxpayers (in this country at least) who pick up the tab. So close enough, yes.

I shall ask you (as I asked above), who pays to keep a severly dissabled poor child alive in your country? If the tax payer did not, then it would die, so again the baby lives because of the taxpayer.

you honestly think people have the right to kill their child when they dont feel like caring for it?!

Unless you include embryo or feotus in your definition of child then that is not what I am saying.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think he is including fetuses in his definition of "child"; if they are, in fact, as human as any of us are than to kill one is as bad as to kill an infant, and no parent has that right no matter how inconvenient the child may be.

 

[bigfatron]

When a woman has an abortion, she hardly turns around and gives the money she would have spent on a child, to save lives in Africa or something.

You have no idea what a woman thinks about before, during or after an abortion unless you have spent time with a woman in that position, and even then only vaguely.

I have spent time with a woman, my wife, who faced a difficult decision of this kind. It changed my view considerably, not least because whatever bullfeathers we men want to come out with, we get the fun having a shag but we aren't the ones doing the hard work of bearing and nurturing.

Sure we can talk all we want, but we should leave it to the ladies to decide what's best in an area we will never really understand.

 

[bigfatron]

<<Double post>>

 

[Dionysius]

You have no idea what a woman thinks about before, during or after an abortion unless you have spent time with a woman in that position, and even then only vaguely.

I have spent time with a woman, my wife, who faced a difficult decision of this kind. It changed my view considerably, not least because whatever bullfeathers we men want to come out with, we get the fun having a shag but we aren't the ones doing the hard work of bearing and nurturing.

Sure we can talk all we want, but we should leave it to the ladies to decide what's best in an area we will never really understand.

1. no i dont. but they DONT spontaeneously start giving money to african charities, do they?
2. why dont you?
3. the life of a child is nobodies area. if it can be born alive, it should be.

note to eran: was referring both to foetuses and the prematurely born children samson so loves...

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, ditto. I don't know why it's so popular when you can give it up for adoption.

Keep in mind that abortion and adoption are not the same thing. Adoption sloughs off the burder of a living child onto someone else's hands. And, statistically, adopted children tend to lead sub-par lives.

Abortion, otoh, is not potentially ruining the life of an innocent child; it's preventing an innocent child from coming into existence.

 

[El_Machinae]

1. no i dont. but they DONT spontaeneously start giving money to african charities, do they?

They're less of a burden on the welfare system, freeing up money for international aid. If this isn't happening, pressure your politicians to put all the money they're saving from abortions into international aid

 

[Tycoon101]

Here's the answer: Abstain.

There you go, they key word which everyone hates because they view that it's religeous or something. But abstinence has a 100% chance of not getting pregnant, so it is the best thing.

And why are we talking about adoptions being bad? Why, I'm sure that a child would be a Hell of a lot happier in a sub-par family than dead.

 

[El_Machinae]

The best way to tell if someone is happier being alive or dead is to say "I'm going to kill you now" and clamp your hand over their airways.

If they struggle, they'd rather be alive.

But being dead and never existing in the first place are two different things.

 

[bigfatron]

1. no i dont. but they DONT spontaeneously start giving money to african charities, do they?
2. why dont you?
3. the life of a child is nobodies area. if it can be born alive, it should be.

note to eran: was referring both to foetuses and the prematurely born children samson so loves...

1 I really don't know what you are talking about - how did my comment have anything to do with african charities? I am saying that without the appropriate life experience we are (well, the large majority on here who are male) ill-equipped to opine on this issue. I reckon that is especially true in your case, since you appear to have no idea what is actually involved in being pregnant, giving birth or rearing a child.

2 I have no idea what you mean - why don't I what?

3 Bearing and raising a child is a profound and onerous task for any woman, far more so than for any father. There will always be a few expcetions, but I am absolutely certain that very few women will have an abortion lightly (or blithely choose to keep a baby when an abortion is a serious option); for most it will be a difficult and intensely emotional decision whether to keep or abort and unwanted or disabled child.

Your attempt to reduce a complex and difficult issue to childish soundbites is a sign not of cleverness but of immaturity. My honest advice would be to give it up, lead your life, and when you have some real experience to inform your opinion, come back and share it.

Whatever, good luck in what you do...
BFR

 

[Tycoon101]

But being dead and never existing in the first place are two different things.

What? There was a fetus, it existed. There was a ball of cells, it existed. There was a zygote, it existed.

Are you denying the existance of an organism? I'm curious as to your view.

 

[El_Machinae]

Can you say at what point their is sufficent neural activity to become a person? Would any such definition include some arbatry level?

The definition would have to be arbitrary, because each person develops differently. If you set a specific date, then you'll have either underachievers or overachievers accidentally included.

As to when that development occurs, I'm not too certain, truthfully. Half of me thinks that this development occurs after birth, when babies seem to consciously respond to their senses. The other half of me thinks that it occurs when neuronal branching occurs due to non-hormonal stimulus, which occurs inside the womb.

Once that neuronal branching occurs, it has recorded unique information and is a unique version of a witness to an event. As well, since I think that 'some' El_Mac would be recoverable if I were brain-damaged to that level, I easily set the set point there.

I'm not too sure about the specific time in the pregancy this occurs, though. Near the end though, at least.

 

[El_Machinae]

What? There was a fetus, it existed. There was a ball of cells, it existed. There was a zygote, it existed.

Are you denying the existance of an organism? I'm curious as to your view.

Of course there was an organism. Just like there's an organism under my nails when I scratch my skin. But is it a significant organism? When I scratch my skin, I have a few option:

- I could put the skin cells back onto my arm, and nurture them to grow back into my skin. This would preserve their unique life.

- I could cryogenically store them, save up a couple million dollars, and then use cell fusion technology to nurture them to become an embryo that's capable of being implanted into a woman, and then do so. That would preserve their unique life AND allow them to develop into the person they're capable of becoming.

- I could slough them onto the floor, and not give it a second thought.

Now - my mindset around abortion actually comes from my a priori belief that I'm allowed to kill my skin cells (or even your skin cells if I don't hurt you) without moral issues.

But, if everything that could become a living, thinking person has to become one, then you should really think about scratching your arm when you can't afford the cryogenic freezing. Because then you're just aborting a potential child because you couldn't afford it.

 

[Tycoon101]

But, if everything that could become a living, thinking person has to become one, then you should really think about scratching your arm when you can't afford the cryogenic freezing. Because then you're just aborting a potential child because you couldn't afford it.

Here is my stance: I do not view test tube babies, or whatever they are called, REAL CHILDREN. I view them as experiments that go against the natural ways of society. Why should I allow someone, if he had the money, to have thousands of children because he harvested his skin cells? That is entirely feasable, but they are illegitimate because they were not brought forth through sex.

Thus I do not accept the argument that anything other than sex cells are potential life.

 

[El_Machinae]

Um, okay.

But you'd be hard pressed to tell a 'test tube' person from a 'normal' person when you meet them in school.

So, in order to justify your stance against abortion, you need to consider 'test tube babies' as 'non-people'? Okay ...