Abortion

Melancholy

I know I may get slated for this, but I have little to no sympathy for a girl who agrees to unprotected sex, finds out they're pregnant, then just wants to get rid of the 'baby'/zygote.
.

Firstly, I promise I'm not trying to slate you!

But I think the media places far too much weight on the teenage pregnancies out there - there are plenty of adults who have unprotected sex and have abortions too. Perhaps there are more teenagers than adults who get themselves pregnant, but as a teenage girl it's fairly galling to hear yourself grouped with every other girl your age and slated for not being responsible, as if it is only my age group who does this. I know you didn't say "teenager", but by the word "girl" I presume that's what you meant. If it's not, apologies!

Besides: by allowing a baby to born to parents who don't want it and are possibly not in a financial situation to look after it, surely we're condemning it to a life of hardship? Yes, many unwanted babies will bond with their parents even if times are a little rough, but others, far far too many others, will end up in children's homes. I did some research on this for a debate a while ago; according to a study, a scary percentage of children (between 30-70% from memory) feel angry, scared and unloved. Sounds corny but it's hardly the childhood any of us would choose.

I could go on but I don't want to get too ranty :p:

Reply 1906

15

Hotlips255

Firstly, I promise I'm not trying to slate you!

But I think the media places far too much weight on the teenage pregnancies out there - there are plenty of adults who have unprotected sex and have abortions too. Perhaps there are more teenagers than adults who get themselves pregnant, but as a teenage girl it's fairly galling to hear yourself grouped with every other girl your age and slated for not being responsible, as if it is only my age group who does this. I know you didn't say "teenager", but by the word "girl" I presume that's what you meant. If it's not, apologies!

Besides: by allowing a baby to born to parents who don't want it and are possibly not in a financial situation to look after it, surely we're condemning it to a life of hardship? Yes, many unwanted babies will bond with their parents even if times are a little rough, but others, far far too many others, will end up in children's homes. I did some research on this for a debate a while ago; according to a study, a scary percentage of children (between 30-70% from memory) feel angry, scared and unloved. Sounds corny but it's hardly the childhood any of us would choose.

I could go on but I don't want to get too ranty :p:

I'm generally pro-choice, but I never see the logic in this argument. OK, you're potentially condemning the child to a life of hardship, but which would you choose: tough life or no life? You would obviously choose life.

The idea that this decision should revolve around the foetus, I think, is flawed. The foetus, prior to the viability threshold, is nothing more than a very needy organ that contributes nothing in return. It's biologically part of the pregnant woman. It should be down to the pregnant woman to decide what's best for her body and her life, and the rights of the foetus shouldn't over ride those of the woman.

Reply 1907

Kinkerz

I'm generally pro-choice, but I never see the logic in this argument. OK, you're potentially condemning the child to a life of hardship, but which would you choose: tough life or no life? You would obviously choose life.

The idea that this decision should revolve around the foetus, I think, is flawed. The foetus, prior to the viability threshold, is nothing more than a very needy organ that contributes nothing in return. It's biologically part of the pregnant woman. It should be down to the pregnant woman to decide what's best for her body and her life, and the rights of the foetus shouldn't over ride those of the woman.

I agree - that argument's kinda for all the 'waste of a baby's life!' arguments. But I think that it isn't a case of these lives aren't worth living - more that a) in a very brutal economic way, you're creating more burdens on the state etc. and much more importantly b) it isn't the foetus's choice. It's not like we start with a happy life and the two options are a children's home or death. We start with no life - which isn't necessarily a bad experience (for want of a better word) - and we can either create a hard life which also impacts on others, making their lives harder, or we can just let there still be no life.

I know some people think the foetus is alive etc. but I mean life as in outside the stomach :wink:

That was a bit long winded. I know what I mean but I don't think I explained it very well! :o:

Reply 1908

Melancholy

20

Hotlips255

Firstly, I promise I'm not trying to slate you!

But I think the media places far too much weight on the teenage pregnancies out there - there are plenty of adults who have unprotected sex and have abortions too. Perhaps there are more teenagers than adults who get themselves pregnant, but as a teenage girl it's fairly galling to hear yourself grouped with every other girl your age and slated for not being responsible, as if it is only my age group who does this. I know you didn't say "teenager", but by the word "girl" I presume that's what you meant. If it's not, apologies!

Besides: by allowing a baby to born to parents who don't want it and are possibly not in a financial situation to look after it, surely we're condemning it to a life of hardship? Yes, many unwanted babies will bond with their parents even if times are a little rough, but others, far far too many others, will end up in children's homes. I did some research on this for a debate a while ago; according to a study, a scary percentage of children (between 30-70% from memory) feel angry, scared and unloved. Sounds corny but it's hardly the childhood any of us would choose.

I could go on but I don't want to get too ranty :p:

I think you may have let your own anxieties colour what I actually said! :p:

I never said that adults don't have unprotected sex, nor did I imply that every teenage girl is out there having sex. I guess what irked you was that I mentioned, on occasions, 'young people' or 'girl' (though I did mention 'women' as well) - but I think that's excusable given that I'm a student (well, I was probably at sixth form when I made that comment in c. 2007) and so I had more experience of the student culture. Sure, I shouldn't generalise student culture - but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to imagine that teenage pregnancy is a huge problem in Britain, and it was in no way intended to group you into a category.

Now my view of abortion has been much revised since 2007; but I will say that your argument doesn't seem strong enough to counter what was being said. If abortion is deemed as murder, then it's surely far better to prohibit abortion than to disallow the baby from being born into an unstable environment, or even a foster home. So the argument would be missing the point - it's almost like saying that anybody who is likely to have a miserable future life ought to be killed.

Now you may have a fairly plausible argument in favour of abortion (indeed, I do!), but it needs to tackle the central objection that 'abortion' is murder and therefore immoral and ought to be unlawful.

edit: I don't happen to agree with Don Marquis, but to show the strength of certain secular philosophical/ethical arguments and approaches against abortion, I'll quote his article here [WARNING: PDF file]. It might be of interest to you (or anyone interested in the abortion debate).

Reply 1909

16

Hotlips255

I agree - that argument's kinda for all the 'waste of a baby's life!' arguments. But I think that it isn't a case of these lives aren't worth living - more that a) in a very brutal economic way, you're creating more burdens on the state etc.

Perhaps those who are ever reliant on the burden for financial help, such as the terminally ill, should also be killed? Looks like the welfare system is a fairytale. This is Sparta! Didn't some regime in western Europe do this before? :curious:

Reply 1910

15

NDGAARONDI

Perhaps those who are ever reliant on the burden for financial help, such as the terminally ill, should also be killed? Looks like the welfare system is a fairytale. This is Sparta! Didn't some regime in western Europe do this before? :curious:

You can't get a terminally ill foetus :wink:

(At least not in the sense you're implying)

Reply 1911

16

Kinkerz

You can't get a terminally ill foetus :wink:

(At least not in the sense you're implying)

You know full well I meant the living. :p:

I just find the amount of currency that the argument, "An unwanted baby will lead a terrible life not worth living" is a bit futile having seen the lives of a few disabled people. Shall we cull all sufferers of schizophrenia?

Anyway, can't you get a terminally foetus if it is one that suffers from a hereditary disease and will kill it like fatal familial insomnia or cystic fibrosis? Parents who knowingly have conditions which potentially put the foetus in such risks ough to be shot in the knee caps personally.

Reply 1912

15

NDGAARONDI

I just find the amount of currency that the argument, "An unwanted baby will lead a terrible life not worth living" is a bit futile having seen the lives of a few disabled people. Shall we cull all sufferers of schizophrenia?

I agree, it's a pretty weak argument. Well, when you compare it to the rebuttal.

Anyway, can't you get a terminally foetus if it is one that suffers from a hereditary disease and will kill it like fatal familial insomnia or cystic fibrosis?

But it won't die as a foetus. It'll die as a person. So no. Though I think our definitions of person differ, based on previous discussions with you in these types of threads.

Anyway, my comment was mainly in jest and simply making the point that killing people who've been born and are alive isn't the same as - nor should it be equated with - abortion.

Parents who knowingly have conditions which potentially put the foetus in such risks ough to be shot in the knee caps personally.

Heil Hitler!

I really don't know where I stand with that particular debate.

Reply 1913

16

Kinkerz

Heil Hitler!

I really don't know where I stand with that particular debate.

Well, some forms of nanny-state policies govern people, via the criminal law, regarding sado-machosism. The injuries sustained in this do not outweigh the moral ills of children whose parents have CF and then die of it. The same can be said with HIV although it's a different type of illness. Just find it a bit of a paradox. I do think it should be outlawed on principle, but hope adults do not risk such a situation out of hope and 'common sense'.

Reply 1914

NDGAARONDI

Perhaps those who are ever reliant on the burden for financial help, such as the terminally ill, should also be killed? Looks like the welfare system is a fairytale. This is Sparta! Didn't some regime in western Europe do this before? :curious:

I said 'in a very brutal economic way', and I also said that my other argument was much more important. I personally don't believe that requiring state support should affect any decision of this magnitude. It is just an argument. And I'm not 'killing' anything - as I said in my post, something which has never had life cannot be killed.

Reply 1915

I think my post has been misunderstood, I am definitely not advocating the killing of people with terminal illness! I'm saying that a foetus does not have life, as in experiencing things life. By aborting the pregnancy, this foetus loses nothing - it gains nothing either, but it doesn't lose life. So if a child is to be born, why have it when the parents aren't ready and the child will have a harder life than, say, if the pregnancy was aborted and a few years later, when the parents are settled, they have a child at a time of their own choosing? These parents will probably have the same number of children at whatever age they start, so why not let them choose the time of birth for their children and allow them to have an easier life free from the worry caused by financial difficulties or too young parents, or indeed ending up in a children's home. Chances are couples will go on to have children after having an abortion, it just gives the child a chance to have a happier life. The same number of children are being born, we are not 'denying' anyone life, but the parents and children will have an easier, happier childhood.

Reply 1916

16

I'm aware of when certain people view life as the start point but I still find it rather 'amusing' that the emphasis on having a good childhood and not have any disabilities or problems is used to justify abortions, never usually as the principle motive, but sod all is done about those in such conditions who are already born. By judging that potential people should not go through the ordeal of living in undesirable environments (and I wonder how lax these can be), it is just a form of social engineering.

There was one regime who viewed certain traits as weakenesses and people were killed for it. I believe the leader had a funny tash...

Reply 1917