Mother confronts woman with "I had an abortion" sh

Post Reply New Topic

I gathered that. What I was wondering was the reason for not having more kids. Financial? Not enough time to spend with more than three? Just couldn't be bothered? Something else?

If a couple don't have the sense to have unprotected sex I'm not even too bothered about early stage abortion, a woman should know that if she 'forgets' to have unprotected sex three is a chance of getting pregnant, and that could easily be tested for within the first few weeks. However when the baby is developed enough to hold thought and make judgement independently (some time between 12 and 16 weeks, compared to the legal limit which is up to 24 weeks) it's obviously the mother's own fault that she didn't care to have unprotected sex or to bother looking for an abortion for such a long time, and someone's entire prospect of life should clearly outweigh a this woman now wanting to get grumpy over having a child.

No. I (nor the woman that quote if from) never even suggested such a thing. If your mother wanted to kill you for say and she wasn't allowed to would that mean that you have more rights than her?

No, the mother should have rights, even more than the fetus as obviously if her life is at risk as well of the babies her's should take presidence, but someone's rights should never give them the power to decide whether something lives or dies.

They obviously had their reason to abort, but to tell you exactly why, I couldn't tell really. But the question is if it was good enough a reason to do so. Financially, they were doing quite fine. The husband had a big restaurant and was generating good income for the family.

I'd say they just didn't want any more kids and that it was an unwanted pregnancy. Maybe less stress and headache or something.

Re: income- they may have wanted to continue to provide a good living for their existing children, and decided that one more child would mean that they weren't able to provide the lifestyle they wished to.

I think that "less stress and headache" is an excellent reason for choosing not to have more children. I don't have children, but I've heard that raising them is a horrendously difficult job- maybe it came down to "we can raise three and stay fairly calm, but add more and we'll turn into screaming, stressed-out monsters".

Hold a thought and make judgment at 12 weeks? What? It can't do that until it's like 18 months old, at least.

The legal limit is 24 weeks because it can't even feel pain until around then (though I think the limit could be lowered to 21 weeks).

Why give it a go?

There's no moral rightness to bringing children into the world.

Hah, I was laughing at the idea while I typed it, so I guess we're both morbid.

Anyway, I think not being able to handle another kid in the family is a perfectly good reason not to have one and it's not "just for the hell of it." It's a decision in which many factors are usually weighed.

To get practical about the issue, a surplus of unwanted children would have a negative effect not only on the mother who is forced to carry, but on numerous countries as a whole. Unemployment is still high in many places and with less than adequate wages. Most of these children would be born into the poverty level because the wealthier have access to better education on reproduction and better access to various birth control. They have more means to travel long distances to abort if really needed. So, the people who can least afford them would be the ones having more. This would increase unemployment and keep wages low. These children would most likely require government aid. Women who are forced to become mothers will need even more help because in many abortion situations, it's because they know they cannot rely on the father for that help. This will strain the budget. Another option is for these surplus impoverished people to become cannon fodder in a military for some frivolous war, but that doesn't strike me as very pro-life. More like delayed death. Don't think this is worth it just to appease a segment of the population who decide to feel sentimental towards a fetus, most of whom either do not have the will or are not in the position to bear all the costs of raising them.

Last edited by mercifullyfree on 18 Jan 2013, 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly why I stated that in many cases it is justified. The scope of my argument was smaller and restricted to relatively wealthy and healthy people, not to the poor or victims of rape and abuse.

To puddingmouse, what exactly is morally right and morally wrong? It's all subjective at the end of the day. This is a debate about morals (in other words, opinions based on what seems reasonable and what seems not) and not about clear facts. It's just a "clash" of opinions.

To suggest that someone might as well make a go at it against their will, suggests that you think there is some virtue in having children as opposed to abortion. I see having kids as a morally neutral thing most of the time, but the circumstance of not wanting them makes abortion the more moral choice, imo.

Not until the child is born can it be called a life of its own.
All rights over a persons body deserve to be theirs alone.
Using the instruments of church and state against pregnant women further disempowers them and can lead to lifelong problems for their unwanted progeny.
Or do you argue from the hypocritical point of view of one who was raised in a grateful and loving family?

Yes.

And, IMHO, not wanting a child is a perfectly legitimate reason for not wanting a child.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2 ... ur-stories

Better to have an abortion than to have another prom night dumpster baby! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRj-S8Aklcw[/youtube]

You really loved ripping him a new one over that.

Seven billion people in the world not enough for you?

How exactly did you get from "perhaps they had a good reason for not wanting another child" to "EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE MOAR KIDS NOW!! !".
Try reading what my post actually said, instead of your (completely wrong) inferences.

i am related to someone who was a failed abortion, so i am in a sort of weird position of knowing exactly how harsh a person's existence can be when they are unwanted by their mother yet forced to exist still.

this relative got pregnant at age 18 out of wedlock and her father forced her to give the children (twins) up for adoption. she was living on her father's property (and she WAS her father's property, really) so she didn't have any other option except to do as he said. she was devastated and vowed never to care so much for any child again, because they could be taken from her so easily by circumstances or society. she knew she was a product of emotional abuse and that she shouldn't be a mother again if possible.

she was pregnant again many times. her lack of good education and bad background led to work as a prostitute. at that time, proper prophylactics were not really an option, so she used herbal abortifacients. these are no secret to many women throughout history. it has been argued that abortion rates have remained fairly static across time, but methods have varied. the only difference is that recently, with the standardisation of modern medicine as a largely masculine institution instead of the more feminine midwifery, men seem to think they should have a legal say in the matter.

anyway, back to this woman's story. essentially, she had two pregnancies that wouldn't budge. when those kids were born, she was quite honest with them that they were unsuccessful abortions and that "all their siblings were swimmers" (flushed down the toilet). she didn't give them up for adoption because she couldn't stand to have them raised by someone else like their twin siblings. i wouldn't exactly call it love, maybe more like a jealous possessiveness. when child welfare tried to take those kids away, she's escape cross country and hide with them, even though they'd be better off elsewhere and she knew it.

so... what is the point of all this? this was prior to the days of legalised and safe medical abortions (but after the days of common midwifery procedures), and this was really a worst case scenario. her kids were messed up 6 ways from sunday, and it went right down through the generations. it will take many more generations to remove that influence. that dysfunction should have stopped with her. i'd say she was a walking argument for pro choice.