What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Its a form of Irish polytheism - so anthropormophhic gods, tree-reverence, culture of honour, etc..

*This may sound callous. Tough*

Some people aren't fit to be parents. Full stop. In such cases abortion should be encouraged - I had a neighbour a few years ago who thoroughly f***ed up her kids - her oldest son at 18 is currently part of the way through his SECOND prison term, which frankly is where he now should be - he was beyond fixing before he was ten years old, sadly. I fear his brother will follow him. His sister may not, though I suspect she will follow her mother and grandmother - another excuse making, petty criminal, piss artist - in being a terrible parent producing more unemployable or criminal offspring. Abortion is a necessary evil - there will always be children who were never meant to be, a pregnancy too early in a woman's life may ruin it - and thus in the early stages of pregnancy should be viewed as unpleasant but necessary family planning, or, in cases where a child is granted to those who have neither the wit or responsibility to deal with parenthood responsibly, allow a child who will never have a chance of fulfilling their potential to develop into unhappy and destructive f'ups due to inadequate parenting.

I dislike abortion. I also dislike the consequences of not permitting it. At the end of the day prevention is better than cure, but some pregnancies *shouldn't* come to term.

I'm pro-life but there's no practical way to make abortions illegal. Making them illegal won't stop them but will only create another class of criminal in the from of back alley abortion shops and bring about fatalities from botched abortions.

Make abortions obsolete rather than illegal.

I think abortion should be legal, but the earlier the better, and birth control is always the more moral option (in my view).

What I disagree with are some of the absurd arguments put forth by some who argue for abortion (including late abortion). They seem to think that killing a fetus (especially one in the later months of gestation) is morally different from killing a newborn. Note that I do not agree with religious arguments against abortion as well.

I do not understand why this women, decided to repeat to procedure anyway, it was tragic mistake from the doctor side, but it maybe was the sign.

Then that should be the end of it, don't you think?


Well, you're Catholic, right? You'd agree that God created the universe, right? And God issued the commandment for us to "be fruitful and multiply?" So...if we're going to be running out of resources and people shouldn't be having so many kids, wouldn't it make better sense that limits on population and use of resources is better left up to God than us?


MOST people? Nah...but I like what you said next:


Yes and no... You don't have to tell a seed how to grow, for instance. God gives seeds all the knowledge they need.

Same thing with parenting. There's no manual, and no amount of psychology study really prepares you for it (I'd know, I have a degree in education, AND I have three children, all 5 and under). My feelings on being a father are that I never WANTED to be a father, was scared to death at the prospect of having children, and yet felt a strong conviction that making babies was something I was supposed to do. Now I can't imagine my life without them nor remember a time when I didn't have kids. I think parents who tie parenting down to something like a job-job miss the point--trying to be perfect mommies and such, keeping strict boundaries, and failing to relate to children as tiny human beings with minds of their own. I know parents like that and they're kids are horrible little monsters. Not that our kids are perfect little angels, either, but they're more like "little us-es." Think golden rule: How would YOU want to be parented? I'd want discipline that directed me towards being an amazing adult. I'd want to do everything my parents do and know what they do inside and out. The scary thing is my oldest son strongly resembles his deceased father-in-law and already shows some of his personality traits. If your father-in-law was your son (not in some creepy, redneck, inbred sort of way, but, if it were possible, reincarnated as your son), how would you show him due respect in raising him to be an awesome adult that reflects the character of an in-law that you had nothing but admiration for? That's MY experience, not every experience, but everyone who seeks to have children has to consider a similar pattern of thought if they want to understand how to grow their children.

I had to endure a lot of mental/emotional abuse from my own father. I don't disagree with EVERYTHING my parents did in the way of discipline, but my father certainly didn't go out of his way to act like he didn't enjoy it. Seemed like he did. My children KNOW that I'm uncomfortable punishing them for things and that the point of discipline is an expression of love, a concern for how they'll turn out, because making them the best human beings in strength of character and integrity WILL garner greater blessings down the road. I believe much of parenting involves wisdom in wielding the rod of discipline (whatever form that takes, not getting into a spanking vs. not-spanking discussion here) for the right reasons and helping children understand that.

And not only that, but you get to play and have fun! Being with my own children makes me feel about 15 or 20 years younger (I'm 35, btw). Children are awesome like that...



Just treat them like human beings, that's all it really takes. Just love on them.

Yes, I mentioned discipline and went on about it, but all you really have to do is be consistent and hold them to consistent expectations. It doesn't take them long to learn good behavioral patterns. Get that taken care of by 5 years and you're set for life.

Think about it...they need the same things everyone does. Feed them. Keep them clean. Keep them safe. Get the basics and it's EASY.



That's a shame...


Neither did I. In fact, I'd never held a baby before I held my firstborn. Made my wife mad, too, because I told her, "You held him for almost 9 months. It's my turn!"


You WON'T be miserable, and neither will they.

Well, if you feel it's mandatory to be married and have children, then you will. But WHY is being married and having children so bad?

If it's not for you, OK. There are people who aren't ready for marriage/children and people who SHOULDN'T get married and have children. I get that. If that's you, fine. But I think people who really shouldn't get married and procreate are about as common as people who can't learn music. Virtually anyone can learn, whether they admit to it or not.


Forgive the crudity of this statement, but if they can bleed, they can breed. Being REQUIRED to is a different story. But let's face it--it's a biological fact women are on a clock. I'm not a woman, nor can I speak for women. But I CAN say I'd rather regret something that I did than something I didn't do.


I agree with you here. It's only natural for parents and grandparents to want to see the family line continue. I assume you read the Bible, being a Catholic and all that... In the Old Testament, the Israelites didn't have a concept of the soul really living forever. The grave was the end, and the soul goes on to some kind of holding tank. I'm not Catholic, but I picture it as something like the Catholic idea of Purgatory, or the ancient Greek concept of Hades--neither heaven nor hell. Your existence on earth in some form for all practical purposes WAS your existence. So as long as you had children, you (in their minds) lived on after your death. You didn't really completely die off the earth until your progeny, all your descendants, were dead. I don't think anyone really likes the idea of death, so it gives us a little comfort knowing that we at least have a legacy to keep the old bloodline going. Now that I'm 35, I try to stay optimistic by saying the glass is still half full. But I'm also realistic because I see that half-full/half-empty, it's still draining away. I pray that I live to see my own grandchildren and that my children will raise their own the way I raised them. Even if God only grants me the former and not the latter I'll still find some peace in my 70's. It's just part of how we're made. We can't help it!

Getting back to the point of the thread, no matter how you slice it, abortion is the destruction of a human being. Whether a human being is "viable" according to some man-made technicality, it is the willful destruction of a fully human life. There are only TWO times that willfully ending a life is acceptable in any form--"kill or be killed," and in dispensing justice to surviving victims of murder. If having a baby would mean that the mother would die, that her death COULD NOT BE AVOIDED, then I'd say she has a choice to decide between her life and the life of her baby. I could not fault a woman for having an abortion in that kind of scenario. But I'd add that scenario is not THAT common. Yes, it happens, but it hardly represents every single pregnancy.

In the second case, having an abortion would have to be an act of justice. It's wrong, I believe, to terminate a pregnancy in the case of rape. However, rape takes away the choice a woman has to become pregnant by her own will and independent action. If she's to be given the choice of whether to continue the pregnancy caused by rape, then her rapist should be tried for murder if she does decide to terminate. And I think the rapist/murderer should face the death penalty.

If the REAL people responsible for destroying human life--and by that I mean any life from conception to death by any usual NATURAL cause (disease, famine, earthquake, etc.)--aren't brought to justice, then the guilt lies with the society that allows it.

You are incorrect on two points: first and most importantly, a 16 week old zef is *not* "conscious" by any standard definition of the word. Second, IIrc the earliest surviving pre-term infant was 24 weeks, not 26, and viability is not 'certain' even at full-term but rises on a continuum from 24 weeks.

It has voluntary movements—ergo it's conscious. 12 weeks is plenty of time for a woman to find out if she's pregnant or not.



The earliest surviving infant was born at 21 weeks and 5 days, and many pro-choicers pretend this never happened (or that the boy grew up to be healthy and intelligent). FYI, fetuses have been aborted at 26 weeks—even in western countries. In 2011 there was a sandal here in Norway where fetuses had been aborted at 22 weeks; their hearts would beat for 45—90 minutes without medical help before they died. As expected, this didn't bother any of the socialists, but pressure from the center and the right caused a massive investigation.

The only way I can see this happening is a bigger emphasis on safe sex education and family planning. Studies have shown that communities that are better educated in these areas have less illegitimate pregnancies than those that don't.

I also think that Birth Control and Morning After Pills should be sold over-the-counter and not behind it. Alot of people use them anyway and having them behind the counter might discourage sexually active people (especially teenagers) from going through the efforts of a doctor's prescription and such to acquire them. It's also very uncomfortable letting other people know that you are sexually active when it's something you want to keep to yourself.

A foetus does not do "voluntary" movments, not in terms of consciusly planing an action and thn carying it out liek the post-natal, maturin organism or the adult organissm - based on a post-natal organism uncoordination and generall inabilty to clerly delineate itself from the environmnt, awaerness of self and cognitive abilties that generaly are used to define consciousnes obviously arent learned/defined untill aftre birth save basic instints. I wuoldnt call instinctual behaviour consciousnes, such as the movments in the womb, which aer necesarily reflexes and unplaned, i.e. instinctual movemnts ( one could hardly call them anythng but instinctual whn the prenatal organism has absoltly no knowledgge of the outside world and therefore can only operatte on "genetic knowldge," i.e. instincts). That is what I wuold guess the other guy means that it is not conscious by anyy standrd definition of the word, i.e. it is not awaer of self and/or capablle of cognitiv abilitis/planning/coordination.

You don't. You believe that abortion is wrong. Theres quite a substantial difference.

On the other hand what is wrong is the death of Savita Halappanavar from Galway in Ireland who was expected to endure a non viable delivery even though it would kill her. The blood of that woman is on the hands of the Vatican because the doctors who refused the abortion cited Roman Catholic protocol.

Furthermore, poverty in the third world will persist as long as the reproductive autonomy of women is being curtailed. The catholic church have a lot to answer for in regards to the economic subjucation of vulnerable people in countries like Brazil, India and the Philippines.

Land reform will address poverty in third world countries.

I completely agree. It did wonders in Zimbabwe, for instance.

After land reform is implemented kids become an asset so abortion becomes obsolete.
if you are a landless peasant children are a burden.

I don't think they do have voluntary movements. I believe only reflex arcs have been demonstrated.

In any case, I would argue that "consciousness" is not the best standard. Most people have no qualms with killing insects, which move (whether they can be said to have a brain is something else), or even killing pigs, which are far more intelligent than new born children.

It is my opinion that the life of an adult pig should be valued ahead of the life of a foetus because pigs are more conscious than foetuses. In theory I would say the same of newborns, in practice I see practical advantages to protecting humans ahead of other species. An earlier cut off is better (so that 100% of conscious humans are protected) and it also has to be a clearly defined one, with birth being easily the most clearly defined.