Abortion regret

Post Reply New Topic

Well that is why i don't think they should be forced to birth them. For sure if I could just lay and egg and be done with it there would be no issue...but I cannot sacrifice 9 months and go homeless just so some family gets to adopt a newborn.

Because yeah me and my boyfriend need our jobs to afford rent, I could not continue at my job while pregnant since the job is largely scooping up dog s**t and cat crap...pretty sure pregnant people are supposed to limit their exposure to animal sh*t, which is impossible at my job.

Let’s not forget that many people who consider or elect an abortion do want children, but that baby has conditions which will render it incompatible with life which would cause it to suffer in development or die after birth. Likewise the mother might have complications in that specific pregnancy whether related to her mental or physical well-being. She might even be a child herself. Many parents also face the choice of selective reduction in pregnancies with multiples when they cannot all be viable. None of this means the mother “doesn’t want children”. It can be a gut wrenching decision based on love for the child and for the circumstance at that time.

This, also when a person wants to have a baby they obviously are not going to abort right away. So with putting a 6 week, 15 week or whatever ban on it basically mostly hurts women who are either trying for a first child or another child since obviously they would not get an abortion unless it became nessisary for their health.

Someone like me who does not want kids will abort asap as soon as pregnancy is confirmed, so for a lot of us we can probably still get a pill abortion by the time pregnancy is detected. It is more likely for women who want a baby to have later abortions due to the pregnancy going wrong. So basically the bans mostly hurt women who already have children or who are trying to have their first child and something outside their control goes wrong in pregnancy.

Try that argument for other crimes. Sometimes you have to protect children from the evil of their mothers. We allow ourselves to intervene when a child is sexually or physically abused or suffering under a parent with Munchausen's by proxy, but protecting them from a homicidal parent when in the womb is a strange concept to you?

It's only a strange concept if you strip human beings of their humanity. Remember: That baby isn't human. It's not even a baby. It's _______(fill in the blank, some alien-sounding technical or medical term to distract from the reality of what a human being is).

Religions and religious people have no right to inflict their beliefs on anyone but their voluntary religious prisoners.

Stay out of other peoples lives and deaths and stay out of government.
Life/death decisions should be defined by majority opinion in our secular government (referring to USA). Not by a bogus supreme court that’s trying to run the country with subterfuge. Nor by any religious faction.

Just because you think something is a sin doesn’t make it truth. It’s just belief.

We in the US were supposed to dispense with “religion as government” back in 1776.

We have many non-Christians here with more morals and ethics as many “devout” Christians.

*Misslizard wrote:
People seem to care more about the unborn than the living.
If anti-abortion believers truly cared about children there would be none left in foster care or group homes waiting for adoption.
It’s easy to say you care about the life of a fetus, it requires no action.Just words.*


So true.

Why care so much about the unborn but do NOTHING to provide adequate healthcare, food. housing, education etc for those already here!! !?! !
Have you studied the foster care system?
Too many failures and horrors to count.

So many hungry homeless children that these anti abortion activists should be caring about but they blame the parents and look away. That’s the shame here. Stop forcing more children to go hungry and homeless! Newsflash - every forced pregnancy does NOT result in a happy little adopted baby.

An embryo/fetus is not the same thing as a sentient baby/child and if you knew basic biology you'd be aware of that. I am all for protecting children I just oppose forcing women to carry pregnancy to term to create one if they don't want.

Why is not getting an abortion if you don't want one and staying out of other people's uteruses such a hard concept for you?

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 14 Jan 2023, 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists who believed God created us, then felt like He had to stay out of human affairs.

Many probably were in-closet atheists. There were consequences for overt atheism in the 18th century.

The US was founded as one of the first fully secular nations.

If we allow religion to determine a government action, we would be no better than a theocratic state like Saudi Arabia.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 14 Jan 2023, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

There where foster kids at my HS when I was a teen and none of them were having a good time with their adoptive family they where all being neglected and mentally abused. It was quite sad.

Ok, but that's a problem for the foster care system to fix. My oldest went through a phase when he didn't quite understand that some things are appropriate to say and other things aren't. I explained to all my kids what happens with CPS calls when overeager, self-righteous, "mandated reporters" hear you say something weird and how easy it is to split up siblings in the foster care system. One of the problems is that when kids are abused at home, they come to see it as normal behavior. They become abusers themselves.

There's money to be made through federal programs and fostering, hence why some foster families are relatively large. There's no incentive for foster parents to supervise their kids. And with kids already inflicting the same mental/physical trauma they experienced on new, younger kids, it becomes a never-ending cycle of abuse. Foster homes become much worse than the homes they were removed from. And don't get me started on how dirty social workers are.

The film White Oleander dramatizes the realities of foster care, but it's not entirely fiction, either. Horror stories abound.

But killing babies to save them from a system that's broken? How about just fix the system, punish neglectful foster parents, and stop cycles of abuse from continuing? My understanding is that many jurisdictions are already working on it. I have friends who are foster parents who want to do everything the right way. It's unreal how many rules they have to follow to foster children, but outcomes for these kids are much better than what they might otherwise experience. It seems that rules are enforced for some parents/families and not others. But I'm hoping that the foster care experience continues to show improvement.

It says a lot when someone would prefer to kill babies rather than put them through foster care. The dead have no opportunities. The living can rise above circumstances. One very significant problem with foster care is that foster environments make studying, getting enough sleep, etc. next to impossible. So when kids age out at 18, they cannot get into college, cannot hold a job, and are forced out of their homes, leading to an increase of homelessness. So at least in some places fostering requires parents support these kids through college. FIX THE SYSTEM. Killing innocent people just because they'd be better off is never acceptable.

There's no reasonable certainty that the unborn aren't sentient or don't feel pain.

But I don't see sentience as even being relevant. When you reach a certain age, are you comfortable with other people judging your sentience and declaring you no longer need to burden society? If killing the unborn is acceptable, why not kill the elderly--without first asking whether they want to continue living? I don't think that any form of suicide is moral, but the fact remains that while none of us got to choose to be conceived and live in this world, we can always choose whether to keep breathing. Taking away the right to decide our own fate when we've done nothing deserving of death isn't much of a stretch of reason if we can deny the most vulnerable the right to life.

It's not that I think there aren't respectable arguments in favor of abortion. It's just that's not one of them.

We are free from having a government ESTABLISH a state religion. We are not totally free OF religion. I believe that even the rights of atheists should be respected in the USA. But it's foolish to imagine that with so many people who do follow Christian faith in one form or another, or who have Christian values but aren't strictly speaking Christian themselves, that Christian faith doesn't enter into law at all. Christians will want to vote for Christian representatives who will legislate in the interests of their voters.

There's no escaping that before you have a voting majority actively opposed not only to religion but to anything that has any relationship to religion. Exaggerated example: the Bible says "Do not murder." So to completely divorce law and religion, laws against murder have to be abolished. It's not that murder isn't objectively wrong. It's just that you cannot reasonably claim to separate religion and government as long as opposing ideologies such as atheism and Christianity maintain shared values. All you can do is abolish the establishment of a state religion and let voters and their elected representatives decide where to go from there.

We can reasonably compare the sentience of different animals. Foetuses compare very poorly to pigs. If it is acceptable to kill a pig that isn't hurting anyone because you want to eat it, then it is acceptable to kill a foetus lounging parasitically within your uterus.

(Actually, a foetus is extremely easy to judge the sentience of because we have all been foetuses and none of us have any memory of it. Foetuses are extremely unintelligent animals, below not just pigs, but even very stupid animals like chickens or fish.)

You've hit on precisely why sentience is relevant. Elderly people are sentient people, so killing them without their consent is wrong. Foetuses are not sentient and they are certainly not people, so there's no intelligent reason to be opposed to someone killing one that has taken residence in their womb - not unless one is broadly opposed to the killing of multicellular life. That's why the people who oppose abortion are nearly always deeply superstitious individuals who believe in imaginary creatures.

Not to say that people aren't entitled to be superstitious, but your right to superstition ends when you seek to control other people. No lover of human freedom will stomach unreasonable efforts to use the state to control others who aren't doing any harm. Religious authoritarianism in all its forms is an evil ideology. If you want to live your life in fear of imaginary beings, by all means - but don't try to force other people to live according to your superstitions. You are the master of your life, but nobody else's.

I don't support killing babies I support aborting unwanted fetus's/embryos.


I will agree that the foster system needs to be improved, that is true for sure.