Why I Became Pro Life

[The Uncola]

Actually a number of us, including me, have said that the FIRST thing we need to do is make adoption in the USA easier and cheaper. A lot of people who would love to adopt can't afford to spend $50,000 in legal fees, or more, and are disheartened by the idea that it could still take years with no guarantee of success. This is why so many adopt overseas, and one reason so many kids are stuck in our somewhat-horrible fostercare system.

I've had people try to tell me, in another thread about sex-ed, that birth control + safe-sex can be made nearly infallible... so maybe someone could explain why we need 1.2 million abortions a year in the US if this is so? Are that many people just being careless? If abortion wasn't quite as easy to obtain, would some people be a little more cautious about making sure they've got their birth control squared away?



Yes, I understand that women don't like anyone telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies, even though their bodies (in the issue at hand) are playing host to another human being that they "invited in" by taking a chance.

I can understand that. I don't like being told that I can't kill people who impose opon me in an a-hole-like fashion, but I have to live with it since society frowns on me playing judge/jury/executioner without legal sanction. There's one. :mrgreen:

Also, a lot of men don't like being told that if they knock up some chick who swore she was on the pill, and she decides to keep the baby regardless of what HE wants, that HE can be made to provide for the child from the resources of HIS body (labor/wages) for 18 YEARS... whether he likes it or not.

18 yrs > 9 months....

Well let's just say there are two sides to every argument. :mrgreen:

Let's cut to the chase. Exactly how many of those "poor helpless unwanted children" are you feeding, clothing, and sheltering in YOUR home? There are millions of them that could use the help, and all I can see you offering is excuses as to why you can't. So when the "pro-lifers" have done something to take care of that backlog, get back to me about adding to it. Lipservice only, doesn't cut it.

 

[digsbe]

Which is NOT the case in 99.83% of abortions performed in the USA. Why do you focus on the .17% that are done in this manner to save the life of the woman carrying the pregnancy? Wouldn't be just another blatant appeal to emotionalism via the use of sensationalism, would it?


"I see you."

The topic at hand was partial birth abortion, what is sickening is that all 0.17% of them were legal and went unchallenged. Is it not wrong that we can suck the brains out of a child so long as it's head is still in the mother? It's disgusting when society would allow such an atrocious thing! Why does the woman "have the right" to kill a completely developed baby during the birth process? Could they do this a few seconds later when the baby is completely out? What is the difference between the birthed baby and the baby that is being born aside from one being a few minutes older?

 

[Goshin]

Let's cut to the chase. Exactly how many of those "poor helpless unwanted children" are you feeding, clothing, and sheltering in YOUR home? There are millions of them that could use the help, and all I can see you offering is excuses as to why you can't. So when the "pro-lifers" have done something to take care of that backlog, get back to me about adding to it. Lipservice only, doesn't cut it.

I think I mentioned that I am currently a single parent. Adopting as a single person is practially impossible, even if I could afford the tens of thousands in legal fees.

However, I do currently have one child in my home that was originally unwanted and might have been aborted... Mine.

I was contemplating divorce when my wife turned up pregnant, supposedly on the pill. I was devastated: I had already come to the reluctant conclusion that I could not spend my life with this crazy woman and wanted OUT. When she realized that I was not happy about the pregnancy, she asked me if I wanted her to get an abortion.

I probably could have talked her into it. I thought about it for a moment. I REALLY wanted to get away from her, life with her was miserable and I didn't see it getting any better.

BUT, I didn't believe in abortion... I believed it was wrong, that it was ending a human life you created, for the sake of your own selfishness.

I DID NOT WANT THIS BABY. But... killing it just wasn't an option to me. I decided we'd just have to try to make a go of it, and told her that it was OK, I was just surprised and concerned about money/etc, but we'd have the baby.

Well, we did. Less than two years later we divorced anyway. I got custody of the child, and I've been raising him ALONE for the past 12 years.

I love him more than I love life, he is the light and joy of my every day, and I hate myself that I ever even considered abortion.

So yes, I've walked my talk. For a dozen years I've walked it alone, hard as that is. Maybe you should learn a little more about me before jumping to foolish conclusions and making yourself look bad.

 

[The Uncola]

I think I mentioned that I am currently a single parent. Adopting as a single person is practially impossible, even if I could afford the tens of thousands in legal fees.

However, I do currently have one child in my home that was originally unwanted and might have been aborted... Mine.

I was contemplating divorce when my wife turned up pregnant, supposedly on the pill. I was devastated: I had already come to the reluctant conclusion that I could not spend my life with this crazy woman and wanted OUT. When she realized that I was not happy about the pregnancy, she asked me if I wanted her to get an abortion.

I probably could have talked her into it. I thought about it for a moment. I REALLY wanted to get away from her, life with her was miserable and I didn't see it getting any better.

BUT, I didn't believe in abortion... I believed it was wrong, that it was ending a human life you created, for the sake of your own selfishness.

I DID NOT WANT THIS BABY. But... killing it just wasn't an option to me. I decided we'd just have to try to make a go of it, and told her that it was OK, I was just surprised and concerned about money/etc, but we'd have the baby.

Well, we did. Less than two years later we divorced anyway. I got custody of the child, and I've been raising him ALONE for the past 12 years.

I love him more than I love life, he is the light and joy of my every day, and I hate myself that I ever even considered abortion.

So yes, I've walked my talk. For a dozen years I've walked it alone, hard as that is. Maybe you should learn a little more about me before jumping to foolish conclusions and making yourself look bad.

So beyond taking care of the child YOU fathered and therefore have personal responsibility for, your answer is zero. Exactly the count I expected.

 

[Goshin]

So beyond taking care of the child YOU fathered and therefore have personal responsibility for, your answer is zero. Exactly the count I expected.

I have no time for clueless trolls who can't read or think or understand the simplest statements.

Adopting as a single person is practially impossible, even if I could afford the tens of thousands in legal fees.

which is part of why I said:

make the adoption process in the USA simpler and less expensive

Okay, now that you've been identified as a useless troll, I won't be bothering with you anymore.

 

[The Uncola]

I have no time for clueless trolls who can't read or think or understand the simplest statements.



which is part of why I said:



Okay, now that you've been identified as a useless troll, I won't be bothering with you anymore.

Well, putting aside your personal insults, I'll have you know that you are hardly the only person to have done the single parenting gig. I took care of my two kids by myself, without benefit of child support, ADC, Foodstamps or anything else beyond the ocasional assist of friends and my familly. I don't wear it as some sort of badge of honor that somehow gives me the right to tell others what they should be allowed to do with their own body.

Your attitude reflects what I've come to expect from "pro-lifers" when confronted as to what it is in ACTUALITY they are doing to better the lives of "poor helpless unwanted children" that are already living lives of misery in this world. I didn't ask you how many you have adopted, as it isn't necessary to adopt them to bring them into your home and care for them. There isn't any requirement of spending $50,000 to foster needy kids, as a matter of fact, in MOST states will help pay for their living expenses. Quite frankly, the "it costs SO much" line, is nothing more than an excuse to do nothing and dump it into somebody elses lap.

 

[prometeus]

The topic at hand was partial birth abortion...

No, that is just a blatant lie on your part. The thread title is "Why I Became Pro Life" and since you obviously can not add anything intelligent to the debate you are trying to change that subject. And again NO, no one can feel anything after having scissors stuck in their brains. Educate yourself.

 

[1069]

Well, putting aside your personal insults, I'll have you know that you are hardly the only person to have done the single parenting gig. I took care of my two kids by myself, without benefit of child support, ADC, Foodstamps or anything else beyond the ocasional assist of friends and my familly. I don't wear it as some sort of badge of honor that somehow gives me the right to tell others what they should be allowed to do with their own body.

Frankly, it seems nearly every guy on this board who is a parent claims to be a "single parent".
This strikes me as statistically unlikely (and makes me wonder if we might be using different definitions of the term "single parent"), but for the sake of argument, okay. Let's assume that 75% of the fathers on this board are single parents.
I was raised by a single father myself- in every sense of the word.
My dad is everything to me.

Even so, he and I are in perfect accord as to how much say that gives him over my- or any woman's- reproductive choices: none.
He only has the right to make his own reproductive choices, and he exercised this right by getting a vasectomy a couple of years after I was born.
That is as far as his rights extend: not beyond the borders of his own body.
And that is true of each and every one of us.

 

[Chuz Life]

Let's cut to the chase. Exactly how many of those "poor helpless unwanted children" are you feeding, clothing, and sheltering in YOUR home? There are millions of them that could use the help, and all I can see you offering is excuses as to why you can't. So when the "pro-lifers" have done something to take care of that backlog, get back to me about adding to it. Lipservice only, doesn't cut it.

Since when are the rights of one group of children contingent upon the care and the sheltering that another group gets or doesn't get?

Using your logic,.... homeless people in the United States have no rights at all unless and until we take people from Ethiopia into our homes, feed clothe and provide for THEM.

This is a classic red herring fallacious argument that you are attempting.

 

[Goshin]

. And again NO, no one can feel anything after having scissors stuck in their brains. Educate yourself.

You are asserting that a person, having suffered an open head wound resulting in brain trauma, is unable in all cases to feel pain? This is in error.

I've seen people with open head wounds and brain trauma. Some of them were able to feel pain quite acutely.

One teenage boy, in a car wreck involving a truck loaded with scrap metal, was wandering around with a piece of rebar stuck completely through his head. The rebar entered the skull through the forehead and came out the back. He was walking around talking for several minutes, seemingly aware of what was going on around him. When asked how he felt, he said "my head hurts". Shortly after that statement he collapsed and died, approximately six or seven minutes after being injured.

 

[The Uncola]

Since when are the rights of one group of children contingent upon the care and the sheltering that another group gets or doesn't get?

Using your logic,.... homeless people in the United States have no rights at all unless and until we take people from Ethiopia into our homes, feed clothe and provide for THEM.

This is a classic red herring fallacious argument that you are attempting.

I have no interest in conversing with you. Your selective brand of reading, discussing, and honesty preclude you from my list of credible worthy adversaries.

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

The Uncola, you are now thread banned. If you post in this thread again, you will receive a 5 point infraction

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Since when are the rights of one group of children contingent upon the care and the sheltering that another group gets or doesn't get?

Using your logic,.... homeless people in the United States have no rights at all unless and until we take people from Ethiopia into our homes, feed clothe and provide for THEM.

This is a classic red herring fallacious argument that you are attempting.

Why do people feel that they hold the position to demand that a child be born/adopted when they (for whatever reason) refuse to adopt or foster?

It's a "You don't have to go home but you can't stay here" situation.
Or a "why doesn't anyone ever pick up the trash and throw it away!" belief . . . when just leaving the trash there and walking by.

Per the "Since when are the rights of one group of children contingent upon the care and the sheltering that another group gets or doesn't get?"
If this is how you feel, and you feel that all children should be born, and you support them being adopted rather than aborted, and you are not willing to take one of them into your home in some fashion, then through your choice and view on the "I will not adopt" end of the issue you have actually decided that their rights are contingent upon your situation by dis-associating yourself from being a provider.

I at least admit that my decision not to carry another child that I might end up pregnant with is actually undermining their (believed) right to live.

I prefer that people birth the children they carry and raise them, love them, and fulfill their parental responsibilities that they began without passing their responsibility onto anyone else. . . more than I prefer they flood unwanted children into the adoption system and more than I want people to abort them.

I'm curious - Do religious belief play into your view at all? (not just you, Chuz) if it were known to you (general you) that the souls of unborn children were given a chance to be born to someone else would you feel different about abortion?

 

[ecofarm]

Why do people feel that they hold the position to demand that a child be born/adopted when they (for whatever reason) refuse to adopt or foster?

That's not a fair argument. People think we should have cops but not everyone serves. We advocate plenty of stuff that we don't do ourselves, because one cannot do everything; despite our own personal limitations, we may still have evidence that those things are possible.

 

[1069]

That's not a fair argument. People think we should have cops but not everyone serves. We advocate plenty of stuff that we don't do ourselves, because one cannot do everything; despite our own personal limitations, we may still have evidence that those things are possible.

Our tax dollars pay for municipal law enforcement agencies and operations (and also military ones).
Your tax dollars do not pay for abortions.
It's none of your affair, and you have no say.

 

[ecofarm]

I think we want a say in regulating alot of things that are not supported by tax dollars.

 

[1069]

I think we want a say in regulating alot of things that are not supported by tax dollars.

Wish in one hand, spit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

:shrug:

 

[ecofarm]

What wish? We regulate alot of stuff that is not supported by tax dollars, including abortion.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Saying "I would if I could afford it/ manage it/ weren't dealing with financial issues/ etc etc"
is different than saying "I won't even if I could afford it/ manage it/ weren't dealing with financial issues/ etc etc"

As in:
"I would be in the military if they'd waiver me in . . . but they won't so I'm not"
rather than:
"I wouldn't be in the military no matter what . . . . but everyone else should be open to the idea"

The first ^ is quite balanced. Reason for lack of involvement which is understandable.
The second ^ is hypocritical or self-serving. Expecting others to dive in where one, for no reason, simply won't.


some pro-lifers/pro-choicers fall into example #1 "quite balanced"
others fall into example #2 "hypocritical or self serving"

It really does make a difference when discussing things.

None the less - on the note of logic, which has been brought up through this thread in support of pro-life . . . we must remember Caiaphas:

You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.

If a future child of mine has to die in order for me to adequately take care of the children I do have, now - so be it.

 

[ecofarm]

None the less - on the note of logic, which has been brought up through this thread in support of pro-life . . . we must remember Caiaphas:

If a future child of mine has to die in order for me to adequately take care of the children I do have, now - so be it.

You can only say that because you don't see the fetus as a "child". No offense, I understand that viewpoint and respect it; however, if the child was born and standing before you I do not think you could so easily dispatch it.

I should also note, it is ok for someone to be like "that's just not for me". Not everything is for everyone. We do what we can and some people do adopt. If someone is like "I would never join the military, it (violence, undemocratic hierarchy, discrimination, or any of many possible objections) is not for me", but they still want national security - that's ok; we're all in this together. We do what we can and, ultimately, here in the free world... we do what we want; noone is obligated to do it all, you just gotta pitch in - somehow.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So if said "the military person it not for me" encouraged people to add to a domestic or international military conflict or crisis - what does that do to the situation?

If someone is not able/willing to alleviate a pressure or try in some way to help solve the problem - and instead only do things that add to the problem - then they're merely part of the problem, not part of the solution. . . no matter how righteous or noble they feel their actions are.

You can only say that because you don't see the fetus as a "child". No offense, I understand that viewpoint and respect it; however, if the child was born and standing before you I do not think you could so easily dispatch it.

Actually, not so - whenever I was pregnant I considered the unborn to be *my* child - and already had a connection and conversations with him/her.
I'm pro-choice but I don't dismiss that the unborn *is* a developing child - I take a lot of other things into account - and the "developing" child is a key point to note - develop*ing* not develop*ed*. I feel, though, that the unborn doesn't quite rise to the top when it comes to having to choose "have another baby" or "take care of the kids I do have"

 

[German guy]

I was formerly pro choice because I believed that no woman intended to kill babies. It always sat wrong with me to demonize mothers, because I didn't believe their intent was to kill innocent children.

As i have researched the topic I have found that there is only one central topic that is important to issue. What is the unborn? If it is not human life then it can be discarded, willi nilli, no problem. However if it is then the reasons generally given for abortion are not sufficient justification. The reason I say this is the only important issue on the subject of abortion is simple, If my daughter were to come up behind me and say "daddy can I kill it" my first question would be what is "it". If it's a bug...that might be fine, but if it's her sister...well that's another story.

In the same way we have to make our decision about abortion based on whether or not the unborn is human life.

First I we can know that the unborn is human life for many reasons.

1) because it has it's own DNA completely separate from the mother/father.

2) If allowed to let grow naturally it will never turn into anything else but a human, and species reproduce after their own kind (though sometimes it may die due to natural causes...but everybody does that eventually)

3) Under the law in any other circumstance if it is killed against the mother's will it is considered murder.

4) It metabolizes nutrients and transfers them to energy

5) It has it's own brain, lungs, heart and blood that are totally distinct from the mother

6) It responds to stimuli

Thank you very much for sharing your insight. I appreciate it very much that you provide a good rationalization of the topic.

I'd say, though, that the points you bring up here do not necessarily say that an embryo or fetus deserves the same degree of protection a born human being does. These points apply to animals too, without any doubt they are life, yet it's common opinion that animals do not deserve the same kind of protection as human beings. (But of course that doesn't mean either that animals, or an embryo, don't deserve any protection at all. IMHO, they do, just not to the same degree as born human beings).

For me, it boils down to the question from which point on, an embryo or fetus can be reasonably considered a sentient being. And I think the case can be made that until around the 3rd month of pregnancy, that is not the case yet, since the embryo is not yet sufficiently developed. My conclusion is that within these first 3 months, abortion should not be generally illegal, and the woman's right to decide over her body still has more weight than the need to protect the embryo. After that third month, the case can be made the fetus is developed enough to deserve more protection, and such late-term abortions should not be generally legal (of course there are possible exceptions, like in case when the life or health of the mother is at stake, or in case of rape).

This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. But I applaud every woman who decides against an abortion, just I think that within these first 3 months, it should be her choice.

There is an often advanced argument against early-term abortions that depends on the concept of the human soul, which allegedly enters the embryo in the moment of conception. But this doesn't convince me. There is no scientific support for the idea of a soul defined this manner. It's a matter of belief: Either you believe in the concept of a soul, or you don't. It's not illigetimate or unreasonable not to believe in it, because there is no support for that concept in hard facts. But since I respect the belief of people in the concept of a soul, I'd recommend them to decide against an abortion, if they face the choice. But I don't think they should legislate their personal belief and thus force it onto others who don't believe in it.

 

[ecofarm]

I just wanted to note, if we define soul as influence...

 

[Mell]

I was formerly pro choice because I believed that no woman intended to kill babies. It always sat wrong with me to demonize mothers, because I didn't believe their intent was to kill innocent children.

I dont think women intend to kill either. And, I dont think the decision to have or to not have an abortion is an easy one for any women. And, yes, demonizing women is ridiculous, by any individual who does not support mothers and womens rights, because this individual is not taking any responsibility either for reducing the situations that cause some women to feel they cant cope with pregnancy and/or motherhood.

 

[1069]

There is no "helping" or "saving" children by harming or restricting or abrogating the rights of women.
Over one in four women in the US has had an abortion.
The majority already had one or more children at the time.
Women will do what they feel is best for their families, one way or the other.
They are the only ones who are in a position to judge what is best.
If a woman feels her body is doing something which she does not want it to do and which will harm her family (ie, gestating a fetus she doesn't want and can't afford), she will stop her body from doing that. And likely won't feel bad about it, either, nor should she.

Criminalizing abortion would only harm children and families in the long run.