Snug if you don't want kids why are you
talking about abortion? How about just
avoid the problem all together!
Just for thought, what was your childhood
like? If your parents had preferred
abortion like you, You might not be here!
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-07-08 20:05pm
Catch25
wrote:
Snug if you don't want kids
why are you talking about abortion? How
about just avoid the problem all
together!
Just for thought, what was your childhood
like? If your parents had preferred
abortion like you, You might not be
here!
Why don't YOU become abstinent for the
rest of your life? Sound fun? Sound easy?
Sound SANE!? NO, it doesn't. Telling
someone who doesn't want kids to "not have
sex" is like telling someone who doesn't
want lung cancer not to inhale the air
around them.
On that note, if my mother had NOT chosen
abortion, I would not be here.
|
lucy315
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 122 Location: New Jersey, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:5
Posted: 03-07-08 20:07pm
Snug
wrote:
Oh, and in answer to the original question
in this thread, I would abort any
pregnancy that happened to me. But in
some hypothetical world where I actually
wanted kids, I would most certainly abort
any fetus that would develop a painful and
fatal disease seven years after
birth.
I feel exactly the same way you do, and no
kids for me either.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 388
Thanks: 44
Thanked:12
Posted: 03-07-08 20:15pm
Catch25
wrote:
Snug if you don't want kids
why are you talking about abortion? How
about just avoid the problem all
together!
Just for thought, what was your childhood
like? If your parents had preferred
abortion like you, You might not be
here!
Obviously I second every thing Eiri said
concerning not having sex for the rest of
your life. That's just plain stupid.
And what does it matter what her childhood
was like? Just because her parents didn't
have an abortion, she shouldn't? So
because they had children, she should too?
Or if they bought a Neon, she should too?
Just because her parents did something or
didn't, she shouldn't have to make the
same choices. And I'm pretty darn sure she
realizes that if her parents had an
abortion that she wouldn't be here. Some
pro-lifers have the most ridiculous
arguments.
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-07-08 21:50pm
Catch25
wrote:
Snug if you don't want kids
why are you talking about abortion? How
about just avoid the problem all
together!
Just for thought, what was your childhood
like? If your parents had preferred
abortion like you, You might not be
here!
I was a very wanted child. Thank you for
asking.
My parents are pro-choice.
And I refuse to abstain from sex for the
rest of my fertile years in an attempt to
avoid having an abortion.
Any other questions I can answer for you?
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 374 Location: ,
Thanks: 69
Thanked:43
Posted: 03-08-08 00:46am
Catch25
wrote:
Snug if you don't want kids
why are you talking about abortion? How
about just avoid the problem all
together!
Just for thought, what was your childhood
like? If your parents had preferred
abortion like you, You might not be
here!
What is with this misconception that
everyone who believes in choice aborts? A
man that truly supports a woman's choice
whether to abort or not doesn't try to
force her one way or the other. A woman
that supports her own choice and the
choice of others knows beyond a doubt that
she has a CHOICE to incubate a pregnancy
or not and therefore chooses to do so or
not. Personally I'm happy that my mother
is prochoice because it leaves no doubts
in my mind that I was a wanted child, not
a forced obligation.
Prolife women may incubate because they
believe there is no other choice but that
doesn't change the fact that it's not a
wanted pregnancy nor a wanted child. At
least a woman that understands and
exercises her own reproductive decision is
less likely to resent her own offspring.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 374 Location: ,
Thanks: 69
Thanked:43
Posted: 03-08-08 00:55am
While we're bantering on the subject, I'd
like to add that children are not going to
grow up to think, feel and act exactly
like their parents, so the prolife parrot
line of "prochoicers will drive themselves
into extinction" is a load of pucky. You
can't exterminate thought. Prochoice
isn't a race or a species that will die
out simply because we support female
rights. Sorry to disappoint.
Back on the subject, there are differing
opinions on how much suffering is
"enough", so the answer to the original
question is of course going to be very
diverse. This is why prolifers should
never be in charge of how close a woman is
to death before she can abort to preserve
her own life. This is also why prolifers
should not have the final say in what
constitutes serious health issues per
woman before an abortion can be performed.
You have no right to choose how much
damage other people must endure or how
close to death they get.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Re: Would you abort if... Posted: 03-08-08 10:06am
Jules
wrote:
...you would have a healthy
child for, say, seven years but then they
would go on to develop a serious, chronic
illness that would kill them? If you had
that foreknowledge, would you abort to
spare them the
pain?.
Interesting question. No, I would not
abort a child to "save" that child from
the pain of dying after seven years, or
seven minutes. We have hospice care for
the dying, but we don't automatically kill
them as soon as we have a fatal prognosis,
so I don't see why an unborn baby should
be given less of a right to die a natural
death than anyone else.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-08-08 14:19pm
Do you think a chronic patient should have
the right to euthanasia, off hand?
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1171 Location: ,
Thanks: 21
Thanked:8
Posted: 03-10-08 06:26am
Catch25
wrote:
Snug if you don't want kids
why are you talking about abortion? How
about just avoid the problem all
together!
Just for thought, what was your childhood
like? If your parents had preferred
abortion like you, You might not be
here!
As much as I enjoy reading your comedy of
misinformation and semantic manipulation I
do feel inclined to point out I am a Pro
Choice Parent!!
Thats right.
I had, as in gave birth to and raised, two
children.
I am pro choice.
My mother is pro choice.
Her mother was pro choice. (past tense she
died a few years ago)
My eldest daughter, who has joined the
abortion debate, like her mother and
grandmother, uses a signature that points
out she is the child of Choice.
What is with deciding that if a woman is
pro choice she has to abort every single
pregnancy.
For part two of your nonsense.
Would it matter? If you were aborted you
would never know. Not anymore then the
fertilized eggs that don't implant or the
fetus that is miscarried.
If you want to get technical what if you,
catch 25, had been miscarried? Died due to
a lethal chromosonal abnormality?
Do you see how ridiculous 'what it you had
been aborted' is? What if someone shot you
tomarrow? Would you know? Would it matter
to you?
Sheesh. Get a grip.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-10-08 09:16am
Eiri
wrote:
Do you think a chronic
patient should have the right to
euthanasia, off
hand?
I will assume that this post was addressed
to me.
I think that an adult who is in chronic,
severe, incurable pain with no hope of
relief and a fatal prognosis ought to be
allowed to deal with that pain in their
own way, but not "helped". I have no
religious objection to suicide per se, but
I don't think anyone else ought to be
involved in the act itself. And I would
note that the "right" to commit suicide is
just another one that is denied to all
aborted babies.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-10-08 10:52am
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
Do you think a chronic
patient should have the right to
euthanasia, off
hand?
I will assume that this post was addressed
to me.
I think that an adult who is in chronic,
severe, incurable pain with no hope of
relief and a fatal prognosis ought to be
allowed to deal with that pain in their
own way, but not "helped". I have no
religious objection to suicide per se, but
I don't think anyone else ought to be
involved in the act itself. And I would
note that the "right" to commit suicide is
just another one that is denied to all
aborted
babies.
Yeah; sorry I didn't specify. I managed to
post right after you so I thought it would
be clear.
So how exactly would you propose they go
about committing suicide if they are
bedridden, possibly by disease or
paralysis, and unable to get to any
medicine or device that could kill them?
Does their inability to be mobile remove
their right to a peaceful, merciful death
as opposed to weeks, months, years of
suffering?
A chronic patient is born. They are a
sentient homo sapien. They are independent
to the extent that they are not physically
attached (by a device their body made of
its own accord) to another homo sapien.
Because of this, they have rights that the
unborn do not. The ability to survive
outside the body of another homo sapien is
what dictates our rights. A 13 week old
fetus is incapable of surviving in the
outside world no matter how much medical
care it receives. The chronic patient,
with medical care, CAN survive.
I know people don't like this comparison
but... just as half-cooked gooey cake
batter cannot be used as a birthday cake,
one cannot "use" a fetus as a born homo
sapien. It is too different from the final
product that it cannot function as the
final product functions. It is not
developed enough; thus, it is not actually
a "cake" or a viable homo sapien; it is
the stage before that.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-11-08 08:46am
Eiri
wrote:
So how exactly would you propose they go
about committing suicide if they are
bedridden, possibly by disease or
paralysis, and unable to get to any
medicine or device that could kill them?
I'd prefer not to go into any details
about how to commit suicide on a public
forum, thank you.
Eiri
wrote:
A chronic patient is born. They are a
sentient homo sapien. They are independent
to the extent that they are not physically
attached (by a device their body made of
its own accord) to another homo sapien.
Because of this, they have rights that the
unborn do not.
IMHO, you have simply posed a non-sequeter
and tied them together by saying "because
of this". Nothing in your list of
disqualifications poses any moral reason
to deny any human being the right to
determine the time of their own death,
IMO.
Eiri
wrote:
one cannot "use" a fetus as a born homo
sapien. .
An unborn Homo sapiens become a born one
soon enough, if allowed to live that long.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3743 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 72
Thanked:65
Posted: 03-11-08 11:37am
Jincks, I can see what you posted even
though someone reported it and I would ask
that you try to keep control of yourself
please. I was playing what is commonly
known as devil's advocate and at no point
did I say it was my opinion. Everyone was
saying they would abort and no-one had at
that point said the opposite so, to keep
the debate flowing, I merely said "So none
of you believe in 'It's better to have
loved and lost than never loved at all'?
I didn't judge anyone, I didn't say it was
my opinion, I merely asked a question.
I know it's sensitive subject for you so I
understand your reaction but, please, try
not to jump to conclusions and attack
someone when you do not fully understand
their intent.
I am posting this in case anyone else
thought I was 'mocking' the distress of
mothers with poorly children.
For the record, I would abort too, if
there was truly no way out other than my
child suffering and dying.
Last edited by Jules on 03-12-08 07:03am; edited 1 time in total
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-11-08 21:47pm
Yoda, potential existence is not the same
as current existence. Final answer.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-13-08 11:20am
Eiri
wrote:
Yoda, potential existence is
not the same as current existence. Final
answer.
That's absolutely true......... now what?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-14-08 00:30am
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
Yoda, potential existence is
not the same as current existence. Final
answer.
That's absolutely true......... now
what?
My comment is in relation to this:
"An unborn Homo sapiens become a born one
soon enough, if allowed to live that
long."
It's nice and all, when biology works the
way it should. But you cannot give rights
(as we're discussing on another thread) to
something that is not yet capable of
independence.
I'm simply saying that the unborn get
their rights when they are viable, not
beforehand. You can't give them rights
because they are POTENTIALLY viable, just
like I've said in other examples that you
can't give a driver's license to a child
who will POTENTIALLY become a driver, or a
scalpel to a teen who may POTENTIALLY
become a doctor.
You give rights when something IS
deserving of the rights, not before.
To answer the original question: it
depends. The first thing would be: "Am I
prepared to be a parent at this point in
my life, taking into consideration my
career, marital status, economic situation
etc.?". If I decided "yes", then I would
have to know if the severity of the
child's illness would make a notable,
detrimental impact on his/her quality of
life. Personally, I would generally tend
to lean towards keeping the baby. As
somebody earlier pointed out, doctors can
be wrong, so the child has a chance of
living longer (and shorter) or even not
dying at all. I would give the baby an
attept at life and I would try to make it
as comfortable, precious, and significant
as possible.
But as I say, if his/her life would be
very literally an existing burden on
him/herself, more than anybody, I would
have the dignity to spare him/her the pain
and terminate.
