sbrettt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,724
- Reaction score
- 783
- Location
- Prospect park, PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Disclaimer, I support abortion in instances where the mothers physical health is at stake.
I find the Democratic parties position on abortion to be both oversimplified, and self contradicting. For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice? I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right? Why do the financial details of the parent(s) matter when adoption exists? It's disturbing to me that the left is happy to strip away an unborn humans life, potential for greatness, and influences on other people that could better their lives simply because the mother and or father can't afford it? I feel like I'll catch a lot of flak for this sentence, but is it not inherently selfish to deny an unborn human being life because you can't afford? In my opinion living is better than having your entire life taken away just because you don't have a voice yet. I'm sincerely sincerely sorry if I come off as insensitive to anyone on this forum.
Should a child be born to parents who wanted to kill it in the womb?
Adoption.
Enforced?
"No abortions, just pick adoption" is the height of oversimplification.
I can't imagine how that would enforced. I figure if the parents don't want the kid why would they keep him/her?
Disclaimer, I support abortion in instances where the mothers physical health is at stake.
I find the Democratic parties position on abortion to be both oversimplified, and self contradicting. For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice? I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right? Why do the financial details of the parent(s) matter when adoption exists? It's disturbing to me that the left is happy to strip away an unborn humans life, potential for greatness, and influences on other people that could better their lives simply because the mother and or father can't afford it? I feel like I'll catch a lot of flak for this sentence, but is it not inherently selfish to deny an unborn human being life because you can't afford? In my opinion living is better than having your entire life taken away just because you don't have a voice yet. I'm sincerely sincerely sorry if I come off as insensitive to anyone on this forum.
There was around 1.2 million abortions in 2011. I believe less than 5% were because the mother had health concerns. So there would be a lot of extra children in bad circumstances. I'm no where near economically savvy, but Planned parenthood received $270 mil in government grants. That could go to running programs intended to help families who can't support a child support their child unless I'm overestimating how far that $270 could go.I mean, people are forced to give birth to children who will, hopefully, be adopted. That what you propose?
There was around 1.2 million abortions in 2011. I believe less than 5% were because the mother had health concerns. So there would be a lot of extra children in bad circumstances. I'm no where near economically savvy, but Planned parenthood received $270 mil in government grants. That could go to running programs intended to help families who can't support a child support their child unless I'm overestimating how far that $270 could go.
Disclaimer, I support abortion in instances where the mothers physical health is at stake.
I find the Democratic parties position on abortion to be both oversimplified, and self contradicting. For instance, how can you say everyone has a right to choice on the subject while also saying the human being aborted has no right to choice? I understand the fetus can't make decisions yet, but is the inability to make decisions enough to lose that right? Why do the financial details of the parent(s) matter when adoption exists? It's disturbing to me that the left is happy to strip away an unborn humans life, potential for greatness, and influences on other people that could better their lives simply because the mother and or father can't afford it? I feel like I'll catch a lot of flak for this sentence, but is it not inherently selfish to deny an unborn human being life because you can't afford? In my opinion living is better than having your entire life taken away just because you don't have a voice yet. I'm sincerely sincerely sorry if I come off as insensitive to anyone on this forum.
This may sound strange but I'd say that before any male advocate of Pro-Life speaks to the process of requiring a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term, they set up a personal "baby burden" experiment.
Anyone remember those old Home Economics projects where students taking the class had to pretend to take care of a baby? I say using modern technology we strap a growing "baby machine" to each man's stomach and let him endure 9 months of it as it slowly gains weight, kicks, puts pressure on his back, etc. To further simulate the process, he would be required to take medication periodically to simulate the internal upsets that occur during this process that women go through. Finally, to experience birth pains, strap an expanding catheter inside his penis and add electronic muscle spasms.
If at the end of nine months of this "baby burden" experiment he still thinks a women should be forced to endure this just to give a baby an opportunity to be adopted, we can count his vote as having some small value. Otherwise, any male arguing on behalf of forcing women to endure childbirth has no merit.
*snip*
At the times when it is legal to have an abortion there is only one human being and the rights of that human being that count. A fetus is not a person, it does does not have personhood rights.
The financial details of the parent/parents have nothing to do with the practice of abortion. Some parents might make that decide to have an abortion because they cannot feed the ones they already have but the reasons for abortion are personal decisions and none of the public's business.
And don't be silly, there are people with are way more insensitive (and I am sure people will have thought that of me at times).
You cannot help the way you feel but you are right, the pro-choice people like myself are going to vehemently disagree with you. Especially about the "human rights for a ZEF" issue. Most pro-choice people will not agree with you on that one.
I hope you're right.
Don't you ever think it's odd how you're putting the burden of pregnancy over human life? You can put me through whatever you want in your attempts to make me understand your argument but I assure you I never will. It is simply illogical to place so little value on life.
I'm sure some economics savvy poster will shut down my idea, and I will have no idea what happened.
I don't think it's odd at all. That's because you know FULL WELL from all my prior arguments in such threads that I support a woman's absolute right to chose ONLY during the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy. That period when a zygote and fetus are clearly not functional human beings. Unlike you, I do not presume some "spirit" invests itself at the time of fertilization. Therefore, as you are also fully aware, I don't consider the combination of developing cells during that period any more worthy of consideration than a cancer we excise to prevent harm to the bearer.
Why does an unborn human who has their entire life ahead of them have to have "some spirit" associated with them to matter? Also, I think it's silly to compare cells that will soon develop into a human being to cancer cells that generally kill human beings.
I don't know about a savvy economics member, but I'd simply point to all the medical and developmental expenses accrued from birth until a child reaches adulthood. Do you think $225 per birth (270 million / 1.2 million births) would cover it????
I meant math savvy. Regardless I can't place monetary value on human beings. I think there should be a survey of young adults who grew up in the worst of the worst of financial conditions in the US asking if they would have rather been aborted. Would you be open to such a survey?
Are you having some difficulty reading for comprehension? I'd suggest you take another look at what you quoted and you'll find the answer to your question is already there.
As silly as it may sound, I think it's unfair that someone who isn't born isn't considered a person merely because they're at the beginning of becoming a person.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?