There are always a few who receive benefits, that people can recall - whether from papers or their own community - who seem to be "comfortable" financially, that does not however mean they represent everyone else in their situation. It isn't necessarily just about not having money, but the financial responsibilities parents have to manage; the finances involved in raising a child and paying for a degree are very different; degrees are also short term and significantly cheaper than raising a child, if you care to look at figures.
Yes, there are people who suffer financially, I see it all the time. But that's not an excuse to have an abortion. And I know an degree is less expensive and shorter-term than raising a child, but I know about not having much money and having all your savings wiped out.
So.
Admittedly i've not read every single post on here, but i get the jist of people's views for/against abortion.
As i stated a few pages back, i am pro-life, and i will forever stand by this choice.
I see the rape/disabilities arguement is being brought into the whole "choice" view.
So i figured i would elaborate on these, and give my personal story.
I was raped at the age of 14 years old.
Having started my periods at the age of 13, they were completely irregular.
I didn't find out i was pregnant until around 12(ish) weeks.
During this time, i both mentally/emotionally "zoned" out.
I was "lucky" enough not to show until i was around 20ish weeks - long enough to hide the "dirty little secret".
At 24 weeks gestation, i doubled over in agony and began to bleed heavily.
I went into pre-term labour, i had emergency ultrasounds, to find out my daughter had died.
I won't go into reasons as to why she died, as, to me, they're completely personal and irrelevant to this topic.
However, 15 hours of labour later (with my refusal of any intervention/medication) i gave birth to my stillborn daughter.
I refused to hold her, or even glance at her.
Now.
I had that choice to have an abortion. And, if it wasn't for the fact i was both emotionally/mentally screwed, i most probably would have thought more on it.
However, due to my age and my naivity, i was of the belief if i forgot about it.."it" would somehow "go away".
I knew who the father was. He was 5 years older than myself.
Did that make any of the situation easier? No.
I had my innocence taken away from me without my consent. I had no choice in the matter. I told the father of my predicament, which was most probably my biggest mistake, because i was then forced into continuing with the pregnancy through violence and abuse.
A year after losing Tamira, my daughter, i joined various online websites where i met many young women who have been in a similar position as myself. They continued with there pregnancy, and, i am still in touch with 2 of these women, and they have absolutely no regret in having there children.
The difference between us is, they didn't know who the father was.
They had the choice to abort the child, and they flat out refused. They were much more headstrong and mature than i ever was, and were of the belief the child growing inside of them did NOT ask to be put there, that child was completely innocent in conception, and as the years went by - if i had had the choice of abortion, i still don't believe i would have taken it, because my feelings were exactly the same as theres.
My daughter did not ask to be concieved. She was the innocent party out of everything.
When i've spoken to my friends, we have, on occasion, had discussions about the pro-life/pro-choice debate, and we feel angry at how rape is always brought into the arguement.
The rarity of concieving after rape is immense. Most women take the morning after pill to prevent anything happening, many women who don't seek medical help after a rape are lucky enough to not become pregnant.
The very few who do concieve after rape, go on to have successful pregnancies, or abort - for there own personal reasons.
However, rape is not an arguement to be brought into the pro-choice debate. Many women have the deal with the emotional turmoil of coming to terms with the rape itself, and decide that abortion is not for them because they simply couldn't cope with the guilt of killing an innocent child and cope with working through the emotions after the rape.
It is, in my eyes, such a ridiculous arguement. It is so rare to end up pregnant through rape it is unbelievable, and yet, us women who continued with our pregnancies are constantly reminded of the fact we were raped through this debate. We constantly feel like our children are some dirty little secret that we should have aborted because society deems it "acceptable" if you become pregnant through rape.
It's very possible i'm not explaining my point very well, although i'm sure you can understand how difficult it is for me to explain my circumstances so publicly.
In regards to the whole premature/disability arguement, over the years that i've been a member of diary (journelling) websites, i have met MANY people who have had very difficult pregnancies.
One of my friends has 3 children. Her first, Madison, was born at 38weeks - no problems.
Her second, Julian, was born at 30 weeks, and although he is behind on the charts in regards to growth, he is a very intelligent little boy who has thrived.
Her third, Dakota, was born at 24 weeks. She went into pre-term labour at 22.4weeks, and was in the throws of a debate with various medical staff over whether or not they would try to save her child if she came before 24 weeks.
She was on complete bedrest, however, Dakota was quite obviously in a hurry to come into the world, and at 24 weeks was born.
Her lungs - understandably - were very under developed. She had digestive problems, and was pumped full of drugs to keep her alive.
It was very touch and go for the first 2 months. But Dakota proved to be a little fighter.
She is 2 1/2 years old now, she is just starting to take a big interest in her "potty", she has learnt sign language, and although her speech isn't very good - she is an extremely intelligent little girl.
She has problems with her lungs, and often has to be hooked onto a breathing machine through the night, so her SATS can be monitored. Her immune system isn't quite upto scratch, so a simple cold will end up with her being hospitalised - but this isn't helped by how small she is. Luckily, the doctors have found that by a mixture of tube feeding (through her tummy) - which boosts her calorie intake, and eating finger foods throughout the day, she will at some stage become much stronger.
I often watch video's of her with a tear in my eye. I've read various other journals through my friend, of other children that were also in the SCBU unit with Dakota, who were born between 23 weeks - 29 weeks, and all are doing extremely well.
I also have to state that i recently read a book called "Midwifery in the 1950's". It's a book written by a woman now in her 70's, who was a midwife in London throughout the 1950's. The book is full of the most amazing stories.
One of which touched my heart.
A woman in her early 40's was expecting her 24th child (yes, 24th). With her previous pregnancies she had no troubles at all, and everything went smoothly.
She happened to slip on some ice in her backyard, at around 23 weeks gestation. She went into pre-term labour. The writer of this book was not trained in dealing with premature babies, and when the baby was born still in the sac, she scooped it up into a dish in the belief the baby had died, and put it to one side while cleaning the mother up.
When she glanced at the dish 10 minutes later, the sac was moving. Inside was a perfectly formed, very small, little baby boy, who was certainly a little fighter.
At this time incubators were few and far between, and had just been introduced to our NHS hospitals. An ambulance arrived with various doctors, to take the baby away to give it the best chance possible.
The mother flat out refused.
As she help her tiny little boy in her hand to her bare chest, she said that under no circumstances was her child going to hospital.
Now in this day and age the child would have been taken regardless of the mothers say so. But back in the day, even against the doctors wishes, the mother her the last say.
She fed her little boy with a small medicine baster every 10 minutes with breastmilk throughout the day and night. The child was constantly attached to her bare skin with a piece of material.
He survived without any medical intervention.
The writer went on to say how much of a miracle it was, but how it goes to show that all this modern medicine isn't always the be all and end all of the survival of premature babies.
What this mother done is now known as "Kangaroo" care, which is often used in the SCBU's today.
It makes you wonder if this is just more than a plain miracle. Do we depend too much on todays medicine to survive?
A very close friend of mine, Liz, became pregnant with her daughter in late 2006.
She was told early on in her first trimenster to expect a miscarriage, as her baby had fluid on the spine/brain.
By 16 weeks she was told to expect a stillbirth of her daughter within 4-6 weeks.
She made arrangements for her daughters funeral, brought her a tiny dolls outfit for her to be buried in.
At 38 weeks gestation her beautiful daughter was born, live and kicking.
She has what's called Turner's Syndrome, which is a missing down to a missing chromosone.
She had her first open heart surgery at 7 weeks old.
She has recently turned 1, and is hitting her developmental milestones right on track.
She will still need an operation on her heart again, and sadly will never beable to have her own children.
But she is the most precious little girl ever. And i'm very proud of Liz as a mother.
What is the point of these stories?
That, using disabilities/rape as an arguement to be pro-choice, for abortion to be acceptable, just isn't necessary.
Regardless of whether i am pro-life or not, abortion will still happen. Abortion will always be legal, and nothing i, or anyone else says, will change that fact.
But the point is - excuses should not be made for an abortion.
If a woman choices to have an abortion, then so be it, but it is cowardly to admit that because the child has been diagnosed with a certain disability that it gives her the right to an abortion.
Medical advice is never, and will never, be completely correct. My mother was told i would have downs syndrome as she had me at 40, i came out perfectly fine - and my mother DID consider an abortion because of what she was told.
Liz, my friend, had the option to a termination because she was told her daughter would not survive. She refused. Her daughter is a living, breathing example of how wrong medical advice can be.
I've had friends who have actively tried to concieve a child, and turned round at 10-11 weeks to say "Oh, i don't want it", only to abort a perfectly innocent child because of there recklessness.
In regards to "medical abortions", i feel that ectopic pregnancies, in my eyes, is completely different to an abortion. That child will barely survive past 12 weeks, and it becomes a medical emergency if the tube was to explode. Many babies in ectopic pregnancies have already died, therefor it is merely a medical procedure to remove the feotus.
Although it has just been in the papers not so long ago about a woman who went through pregnancy to full term, with an ectopic pregnancy. So, who knows, maybe this is another step in the right direction in regards to medical science?
I feel regardless of whether you're single, in a relationship, or married, if you consent to sex - you're putting yourself at risk of pregnancy. It doesn't matter if you used all the protection in the world, you're still putting yourself at risk.
If you don't WANT that risk, if you don't WANT a child, do not have sex.
This is the 21st century, there are SO many other ways to get "sexual enjoyment" other than intercourse.
Sorry this is ultra long.
I just thought i'd type it all up now rather than saying it in bits and pieces along the way.
I will happily answer any questions asked. But i will not be getting into a personal arguement/feud with other people who disagree.
I completely respect other peoples views on being pro-choice, however, i do expect the same in return.
I have my reasons as to why i'm pro-life, as i'm sure you have your reasons to being pro-choice. I'm merely explaining some of the arguements brought up in pro-choice, and how i feel they simply don't have any substance to them.
WAY TOO MANY REPLIES FOR ME TO REPLY TO SO I'LL HIGHLIGHT A FEW. SORRY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One Who
If a man doesn't want a child at the time because it's inconvenient for him or he can't afford it
Sorry, but those are not IMO, valid reasons for termination of the fathers side of finance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animad
Has that arguement been thought through? What you're hinting at there is that if you have a miscarriage (which is accidental death of a baby whilst it is under your control so to speak) is Manslaughter?
I said it could be argued that Abortion would be equal to Manslaughter, but then counter-argued under the definition of Manslaughter, which is death by accident, so I was actually arguing against manslaughter being equal to Abortion. So, no miscarriage is not equal to manslaughter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratatouille strychnine
Reproduction is a potential consequence of sex
I disagree, it is the direct consequence without the use of contraceptives. I mean of course, there are chemical reactions too, but these are not as important as the transition of semen cells from the male entering the female and fertilizing the ovum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratatouille strychnine
but not the usual reason for it.
Well no, society has become emotional since the stone ages and put more emphasis on the chemical/emotional releases of sexual intercourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratatouille strychnine
With your logic a man and woman should never have sex unless they want a child.
Well, yes. I mean these days, we're fooled into thinking that the most personal emotional bond is one of intercourse, when in reality it's actually marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratatouille strychnine
Sex is not the process where sperm penetrates an ovum - that process is called fertilisation.
Well, no. But it is the transferal of the semen from one body to another and without that transfer, fertilization is impossible without science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratatouille strychnine
Sex is where the penis enters the vagina for the usual purpose of providing pleasure to both parties. Fertilisation may occur as a result but is not usually the primary reason for having sex.
Well, yes. However the fact that intercourse is misused as a means for more chemically-charged pleasure and not it's primary function, is a product of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Aidey~
The day men can carry a pregnancy I would be more than happy to say "if you don't want the fetus terminated, here ya go, you carry it for the next several months".
Thomas Beatie asks, would you like a spoon or a fork to eat those words with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Aidey~
It's insane to expect people to only have sex if they want a child.
Why is it insane? There are other sexual acts they can perform if they want to pleasure their partner, and there are more emotional/personal bonds than simple intercourse. There are other options than simply getting in the sack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Aidey~
If I was consenting to reproduce I wouldn't be using birth control.
So now you're using science to stop biology. How about if you didn't want to reproduce, don't have intercourse? Bloody contraceptives have screwed up the system.
Just FYI, penetrative intercourse isn't necessary for fertilization, ejaculate coming into contact with the labia of a woman's vagina can cause it too in rare cases. Spermatozoa are made to move, and move they can.
You could use the calendar/timing method or the breastfeeding method (women don't usually ovulate while breast feeding so they can't get pregnant), that is using biology to stop biology.
Like I said, you're never going to be able to convince society that someone should never ever have sex, either inside or outside of marriage. I also don't think you can blame society for turning sex into an emotional activity beyond reproduction.
Dolphins, and several species of primates have sex outside of the female's fertile period, hell there are 1700 species of animals that have exhibited sexual behavior between same sex animals, so I really don't think sex for non-reproductive purposes is a human specific trait.
Well it breaks my heart to see you this way,
The beauty in life, where's it gone?
And somebody told me you were doing okay,
Somehow I guess they were wrong.
I said it could be argued that Abortion would be equal to Manslaughter, but then counter-argued under the definition of Manslaughter, which is death by accident, so I was actually arguing against manslaughter being equal to Abortion. So, no miscarriage is not equal to manslaughter.
The argument you made for abortion being murder did imply that miscarriages are manslaughter. You said that abortion is not manslaughter because it's intentionally. Well, a miscarriage (or more properly, a spontaneous abortion) is when the fetus dies 'naturally,' or at least not as the direct result of any actions that where intended to terminate the pregnancy. Since the fetus is dependent on the mother, it follows that, at least in cases where the miscarriage is the result of the mother's body rejecting the fetus or being exposed to harmful chemicals or such (as opposed to something like if the fetus simply had a severe genetic abnormality that was fatal in utero), the fetus was unintentionally or involuntarily killed by the mother, which is manslaughter. So yes, you did argue against abortion being manslaughter, but miscarriage is not the same as abortion, and your argument did imply that miscarriages would be manslaughter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interstella5555
Well, yes. I mean these days, we're fooled into thinking that the most personal emotional bond is one of intercourse, when in reality it's actually marriage.
Have you had sex with someone, and also been married to someone you have not had sex with? Otherwise, I'm not sure how you could possibly know that. But I have to say, based on my own experience and observations, I think sex is a lot more intimate than marriage. Marriage is just a formality -- lots of people are married but don't love each other, and even live their own separate lives. But married couples who are actually emotionally intimate are usually either having sex, or are old enough to have lost interest in it, but had sex when they were younger. There are also lots of people who live together in an intimate relationship and have a strong emotional bond, but aren't married. Really, marriage is simply a social construct, and it's hard to imagine that possessing a marriage certificate could create a stronger emotional bond than sharing an extremely intimate and biologically powerful physical experience that produces neurophysiological effects that are associated with positive affect and interpersonal relationships. We have a strong biological instinct to have sexual relations, and to eventually form a monogamous relationship with a sexual partner (and also to cheat on that partner, but that's beside the point), but I'm pretty sure we have absolutely zero biological instinct to obtain a piece of paper that says we're married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interstella5555
Well, no. But it is the transferal of the semen from one body to another and without that transfer, fertilization is impossible without science.
Like Aidey said, that's not true. In addition to what Aidey explained about fertilization not requiring penetration, putting some semen on something other than a penis and using that to transfer it to a vagina isn't exactly cutting-edge science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interstella5555
Well, yes. However the fact that intercourse is misused as a means for more chemically-charged pleasure and not it's primary function, is a product of society.
It's actually a product of biology. The fact is, sexual intercourse triggers the release of neurotransmitters in a particular pattern associated with pleasure. That's why sex is fun, and that's biology, not society. Doing things that produce feelings of pleasure for the purpose of producing those feelings isn't a social construct, it's a basic biological instinct. In fact, the drive to preform actions that produce feelings of pleasure is a basic requirement for even the most primitive forms of learning. It's actually the idea that it's somehow "wrong" to have sex for pleasure that's a social construct -- doing it for pleasure is the natural result of our biology. Also, humans aren't the only animals that engage in sexual intercourse that's not for reproductive purposes, and I'm pretty sure that dolphins and bonobos didn't get the idea from human society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interstella5555
Why is it insane? There are other sexual acts they can perform if they want to pleasure their partner, and there are more emotional/personal bonds than simple intercourse. There are other options than simply getting in the sack.
Wow, that's not something I'd expect to hear from someone who seems so extremely conservative about sex. But anyway, it's insane because back here in reality, people have sex no matter what people do to try to stop them.
It's certainly an interesting concept though... Maybe instead of teaching kids about birth control, sex ed. should focus on how to preform different sex acts to try instead of actual intercourse. And instead of giving out free condoms, they should give out free dildos...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interstella5555
So now you're using science to stop biology. How about if you didn't want to reproduce, don't have intercourse? Bloody contraceptives have screwed up the system.
I don't even know what to say to that. Do you seriously believe contraception is wrong? But as has already been explained, having sex for pleasure isn't going against biology.
Last edited by ~invisible~girl~ : 27-10-2008 at 11:24 AM.
Reason: Added something so it would still make sense after it was edited.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
So i've just sat and read all 7 pages of this and think a lot of interesting points have been made. To answer the original question: i wouldnt subsribe myself to either. My education on abortion was from a catholic pro-life stance point and while i was at school i blieved this to be true, and morally correct, however now that I've grown up I can understand why someone would have an abortion. I am not saying the pro-life stance is wrong, just that to me, my views have altered and i can now see both sides. A point that was raised (quite far back i think) about better sex ed is somthing i agree with-as you may have guessed we werent allowed sex ed in my school-however not teaching it doesnt mean people wont do it. Safe sex must be properly taught,
I can see why some people can see it is a human from conception, I can equally see why others dont. I would like to think that I would never have an abortion however I refuse to judge those who do. If i were to fall pregnant just now I have a famiy taht would support me, however I know this isn't the case for everyone-and i dont just mean financially before anyone pounces. I think whether it is morally right or wrong is down to an individual to judge and I dont think it is right to condemn anyone based on what you believe to be right and wrong. I suppose u might want to put me in the pro-choice category? I dont say i belong to either realli-that ^^^ is my opinion.
Ok I don't think I can answer this very calmly right now. i respect everyone's views on the subject...But..in my opinion some of it is just, to put it bluntly insane. Just as my opinions will be to others. I am pro-choice. I will explain later. Once i have read through properly.
What is the point of these stories?
That, using disabilities/rape as an arguement to be pro-choice, for abortion to be acceptable, just isn't necessary.
Regardless of whether i am pro-life or not, abortion will still happen. Abortion will always be legal, and nothing i, or anyone else says, will change that fact.
But the point is - excuses should not be made for an abortion.
If a woman choices to have an abortion, then so be it, but it is cowardly to admit that because the child has been diagnosed with a certain disability that it gives her the right to an abortion.
In regards to "medical abortions", i feel that ectopic pregnancies, in my eyes, is completely different to an abortion. That child will barely survive past 12 weeks, and it becomes a medical emergency if the tube was to explode. Many babies in ectopic pregnancies have already died, therefor it is merely a medical procedure to remove the feotus.
Although it has just been in the papers not so long ago about a woman who went through pregnancy to full term, with an ectopic pregnancy. So, who knows, maybe this is another step in the right direction in regards to medical science?
Hey Laura,
Apologies for cutting short your post in my quote, but makes it a wee bit simpler for me to reply to, this way.
I don't think it is "cowardly" to think disability is a reason for abortion; like yourself, i've seen some incrediably survivals of preemies and preemie/full term babies who have been very ill. But none the less, i've also seen parents choose to deliver their babies early (so technically terminating the pregnancy) because they have such a longing not to see their child suffer. Downs syndrome is misdiagnosed/suspected in pregnancy so often it's rediculous, but there are some conditions which are irrefutable. One mum i know of, her wee baby barely had a heart - the worst her consultant had seen - and in the knowledge that their baby had a very low chance of surviving the first two operations (at birth and days/weeks old), among other reasons, they chose not to allow their baby to suffer any longer. In the cases like that, i see it as parents having the "choice" (is it a choice when you know your child will most likely die, whatever the decision?) to switch off the life support, as it were, in pregnancy, rather than days, weeks, months later in a neo natal unit.
18.11 28.4 6.5 22.31
My heart just needs his smile, that i can't forget, like so melancholy a kiss.
I just want to say that for humans biology means sex is not just about reproduction. It is about pleasure.
Us and the dolphins are the only animals which have sex for pleasure, it is a way of building relationships and exploring each others bodies.
We and some Old World Apes are the only species which are sexually active at all points in their reproductive cycle. If it was purely for reproduction then why would we not be like a cow; having a much greater fertility rate, a MUCH better ability to become pregnant and a female cow only being sexually receptive for around 36hrs every 21days or so. Their sexual behaviour IS for reproduction. As is pretty much every other species. In humans it is different. We are sexually receptive at all stages in our cycles. Yes we have times when we are more so which are our points where we are 'on heat' so to speak but if we were like any other animal that would be the only time a female would let a male near them, even if they truelly loved them, for sex... We are different, as are some primates in that and so sex is not just meant to be for reproduction.
It is also their for pleasure. Even a lot of religious people believe this and with Catholics who do not believe in contraception or abortion they still often work out their least fertile points and choose to have sex there is if they don't want sex at that point. A dog/ hamster/ cow/ pig/ pretty much any other species couldn't do that, it is against biology for them but humans it isn't.
So if you have sex for pleasure; which I think I have shown that is a main function of sex to us, and something goes wrong with contraception which can and does happen even if you are using 2 forms and you have reasons such as lack of money/ no home/ don't have the stablest relationship in the World (OK, say mariage broke down the week before you found out you were pregnant) then surely the right to relieve a woman's body of an effective parasite is fine. And yes, it is a parasite.
I could have a tapeworm inside me, I could call it Mary. Mary is a female tapeworm, she is developing cysts lovingly inside me right not (God what a disgusting thought). I ingested Mary whilst eating my dinner because I forgot to scrub my hands after I was looking after my flock of sheep. (Mary is an unusual species of tapeworm... before anyone wants to get into the zoology of it...) I therefore gave Mary concent to live inside me and as I can feel her growing side me, as her cysts develop a lump in my abdomen I decide I don't want to take meds to get rid of her because she is another animal, she needs to live. Though, she is effectively living off MY nutrients, the things that I need to survive as a baby would... Is Mary still a parasite because I love her? Is a baby who effectively whilst in a woman's uterus has the same role, it is developing for it's own purpose at the biological detriment of the woman, a parasite, biologically, however much you love Fred, the baby, he is until effectively you stop breast feeding them in a biological sense, others can say later than that. They are still humans (well obviously Mary isn't!!!) but that doesn't stop them being parasites.
I'd just like to throw this link into the argument. Basically, wether abortion is illegal or not, women are going to have them, they've always had them. The first recorded evidence of abortion is from ancient Egypt. In essence by making abortion illegal, no more foetuses are going to survive, all it means is that the lives and health of women is jeopardised through dangerous illegal terminations.
Sorry, but those are not IMO, valid reasons for termination of the fathers side of finance.
Neither is it a valid reason to have an abortion. At least not in the UK.
Of course people are going to have sex without wanting to reproduce, but we need to accept that even if using contraception in rare cases pregnancy can occur. It's just a consequence of having sex. Using both condoms and the pill (only if you use them properly) reduces the chances of this happening even further, but it is still not 100% safe.
I was meant to have been aborted.
I am the product of an abusive relationship.
I still get the feelings of not being wanted to this day.
And now I'm getting called a parasite.
But hey. It's only a support site. It's only peoples' feelings.
I think that before the point where the fetus becomes sentinant, then it should be able to be aborted, by whoever wants one. Reasons regardless. I think after that point however, unless there's a serious threat to the mothers life, abortions are wrong.
However, I don't know when the fetus does become sentinant, I've asked many a sex ed or bio teacher and they haven't known. I've no idea how practical/impractical that makes it. I'm pretty ignorant on the subject tbh.
But I don't value life, I value sentinancy. So it doesn't really matter if it's life or not, it matters to me if it can feel and suffer.
However, I also find pro-choice reasoning very persuasive. So I'm still thinking this one through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphoria Blossom
And now I'm getting called a parasite.
TBH, the 'parasite' comment doesn't just apply to you, or even just to would-be-aborted, or aborted, babies/fetuses. It applies to every single member of this site, and every single mammal. Including the memebers who wrote those comments. So I really don't think people should take it personally...
/Shrugs.
Hunger only for a taste of justice, hunger only for a world of truth, for all that you have is your soul.
I was meant to have been aborted.
I am the product of an abusive relationship.
I still get the feelings of not being wanted to this day.
And now I'm getting called a parasite.
But hey. It's only a support site. It's only peoples' feelings.
*does the same as Stellata and leaves thread*
Chels no one is calling any member of this site a parasite, because we are all people now and by having been given birth to and now being capable of functioning without or mother's are no longer parasitic.
No one is trying to hurt anyone's feelings. It's an emotive topic people feel strongly for on both sides of the argument. I really value being able to discuss and debate things openly and it would be a shame if this thread had to be shut down because people have to take it personally. Most of the situations being discussed here are hypothetical, they are not meant to apply to anyone in particular
I'm pro-life, but that's just because I find the whole process amazing.. but then, you have to take into account the circumstances. eep. I'll go. Sorry for any offence.
i am echoing "invisible girl"'s point here, but this, i really do not understand. and i am not picking you out "control freak" because it is a point that many people bring up in this discussion, you were just the last to post.
i don't understand why you think that an abortion is okay if a woman is raped because it is STILL MURDER. how can it be okay to murder "a baby" in any circumstance, even if the girl/woman was raped or in no condition to handle a baby. i guess the "woman's life in danger" aspect is (only slightly) different. surely that is not an ethical judgement (ie. it is wrong to murder a child) than a moral one (ie. it is wrong to not use protection), and i don't think that judgement has any basis at all really.
Personally, if I was raped and fell pregnant, there would be no way I could carry through with that pregnancy. Every time I looked into the eyes of that child I would be reminded of the rape. It's NOT the child's fault, I know that, but again how would you feel knowing you were the product of a rape? How would you feel knowing everytime your mother looked at you, she was reminded of that day? I couldn't do that to a child, I couldn't do that to myself.
But on the other hand, I'm not saying that is the right thing to do at all. A lot of people have babies from abusive relationships, they love and care for the child and put the bad stuff behind them. I'm not saying at all that the child should feel guilty for the circumstances of their conception, or that the mother should have aborted them. I can only talk about this from what I think I would have done, but who knows, IF it happened and I fell pregnant, I could feel overwhelming love for the baby and keep it. No-one really knows what they would do until it happens.
Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes but when you look back, everything is different…
you once called your brain a hard drive, well say hello to the virus.
They may be surviving, but I don't think we are doing anyone any favors by trying to save premies born at 22 or 24 weeks.
That's hit a bit of a nerve for me. Nineteen years ago, I was born at 28 weeks. Nineteen years ago. Medicine has come a long, long way in that time. It would be the equivalent of me being born at 24 weeks now, probably. And you're saying they shouldn't be kept alive? People shouldn't bother because they might be disabled?
My parents had no idea how I would develop, if I would be brain damaged or disabled, but they loved me all the same, wanted me to survive. They would have loved me even if I were disabled. People should always do everything in their power to keep prem babies alive.
Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes but when you look back, everything is different…
you once called your brain a hard drive, well say hello to the virus.
I was meant to have been aborted.
I am the product of an abusive relationship.
I still get the feelings of not being wanted to this day.
And now I'm getting called a parasite.
But hey. It's only a support site. It's only peoples' feelings.
*does the same as Stellata and leaves thread*
Chels.. everyone is a parasite we were all in the womb and we were all born, so we were all parasites.
