RaviNJCLs

iTrader: (4)

I guess we now know your form of birth control. Talking about tax payers, bills and goverment.

leedogg

Well lets see here. Put yourself in the position of that child whose future life is in question. Which would you prefer, a hard life or none at all? You're ok with your own extermination because you're such a HUGE responsibility? Its a good thing your parents didnt have such sentiments huh?

I love people that are PRO-CHOICE and have such strong opinions when they have never been in the shoes of the being whose life is in balance.

RaviNJCLs

iTrader: (4)

You seriously just said blastocyst, gestation and embryonic. Someone's been brushing up on their biology.

Slimey

CUNextTuesday

If you put it that way, I certainly think that the parents' lives are "in balance." Having a child will change everything. Maybe it's selfish, but so be it...

leedogg

oh please, they arent going to die if they have a child. Its called being self centered plain and simple. Dont try and couch it in fancy pc terms like 'right to choose', it's you putting your way of life over your baby's physical life, an easy way out for your irresponsibility (you dont want to be responsible for the baby, and therefor you lack responsibility).

Personally I dont care what you do, if you want to off your offspring then hey, go darwinism. Just dont be sanctimonious about it.

atsxdude

I got a girl pregnant when i was 17. We decided to have the kid. I changed my life around getting prepared for a new life. she had a miscarriage at 5 months.

i'm pro-life.

Slimey

Considering a human cannot choose or will it's own existence, having a child is the singular most self centered indulgent act a human can perform.

CUNextTuesday

Would you rather someone raise an unwanted child in an unsuitable environment? I just don't see how that's acting in the best interest of the child either. I get it, it's better to be in a broken home than never be alive at all, but why should the child's feelings be put above all else when he/she is not even a child yet!

It may be somewhat selfish, but no one is entirely selfless.

atsxdude

thats what we were put here for.

CUNextTuesday

Oh really! Hey everyone, atsxdude finally figured out the meaning of life!!! Please, tell me, where do we go when we die?!

Slimey

Hmmm....news to me


Someone put us here?

leedogg

Do you mean having sex or having the child? If you mean having sex, then yes I agree that it is self centered and self indulgent. When it comes to the having the child part you get the choice of either continuing to be self centered and self indulgent or not.

Slimey

I think the statement stands on it's own.

I suppose an abortion is also self-centered, but is it less so, more so, or equal to making the embryo to begin with? Considering that I don't put much value to an embryo, I think that point is moot.

leedogg

Well guess what? If that child thinks its life is so damn miserable, it can make its own damn mind up and throw itself off a bridge rather than you presuming it would rather be thrown off a bridge to begin with.

I guarantee you though, 'abortion' and 'acting in the best interest of the child' do not belong in the same sentence.

fdl

I think most times, having the child and bringing him/her up in a relatively good way is POSSIBLE. If the parents are too young , well then you CAN man up, and grow up and make the sacrifices you need to make. Same goes for financial situation - you CAN get a second job, or make whatever sacrifices you need to make. Or lastly, you CAN give the kid up for adoption and live with that.

To me, these are clearly the "right" choices to make. The most moral things to do. But its also a VERY hard thing to do in many cases. I'm not even saying I would make that choice if I was very young, or very poor, etc. Its not easy, but I stil thing it is the "right " thing, and the most moral thing. Its the choice we should aspire to, even though for many we wont be able to do it. We are all human, and dont always do whats right.

CUNextTuesday

The fact remains that an unborn child is not a child. A fertilized egg is not a human being - I guess this gets back to that whole science vs. religion thing.

Why ruin three lives when you can save two?

fdl

How does it ruin three lives? A kid does means big sacrifices, but it doesnt "ruin" anyones life. Besides, you can give it up for adoption so that a couple who perhaps cannot have kids can provide a loving home for the child.

CUNextTuesday

The issue with adoption is that some people cannot give up their children. They just can't. Some people are just as adamantly against adoption as they are abortion when faced with the decision.

Teenagers are essentially still kids themselves....how can two kids raise a kid?

atsxdude

if you boil it down, continuing the species somehow remains the prime objective.

fdl

I understand. I'm just saying the right thing to do, is to have the kid. But I understand its not easy and I'm not even saying I would be able to make that choice is all circumstances.

Oh its possible. You can mature pretty fast if you need to. People used to have kids when they were 15 & 16 years old. Not easy, but possible.

CUNextTuesday

People had children at that young age when they were raised in a society that prepared them for that. I think you can buckle down and become more responsible, but nothing will make a couple of teenagers who are not emotionally ready for a child become ready over night.

I don't know...I don't really see it as right vs. wrong because I don't think it's wrong destory a fertilized egg.

fdl

fertilized egg = life. Lets not beat around the bush, by destroying the fertilized egg, you are destroying the human it will become as well. But thats a choice you have the right to make, and I am fine with that.

Georgiapeach

IMO, making parental consent a law poses a lot more problems than it fixes.[/QUOTE]

Georgiapeach

Agreed

astro

it's not life until it pops out and takes a breath on its own.

I will NEVER understand those of you who feel otherwise.

GIBSON6594

Are you saying that a 8 month old baby (not premature) isn't alive? I don't think that's what you're saying, so maybe i'm not following your logic.

fdl

Its not human, perhaps, but it is LIFE, even by scientific definition.

fdl

life (līf) pronunciation
n., pl. lives (līvz).

1.
1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

http://www.answers.com/life&r=67


Life is the characteristic state of organisms and individual cells. Properties common to the known organisms found on Earth (plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria) are that they are carbon-and-water-based, are cellular with complex organization, undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt in succeeding generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

astro

if it's never been a part of this world without being encased in the womb, it's not a person.

I can see how some may consider it to be a human after the 2nd trimester is over, but any more than that, and IMO, it's not a person, human, or baby.

fdl

I agree.

Street Spirit

It may not have taken an INDEPENDENT breath yet. However, at that stage of the game, it can certain feel, directly respond to stimuli, drink, hear, sleep, swallow, breathe, show signs of a "personality" and some of its traits (subdued, very active, suck its thumb, etc). And if it were removed from the womb at that stage, it certainly could survive on its own.

astro

SS, sure, but IMO, it's not a person until it actually does take that breath.

Street Spirit

Just trying to clarify, Astro...

So does that mean you wouldn't have any problem 'killing' a "baby" at 9 months gestation --- fully matured --- but who isn't BORN yet? It is completely full-term, but could be 2 days from delivery, so technically, it hasn't entered this world, so it doesn't count?

Don't mean this in a sarcastic way, just trying to clarify.

EDIT: And I'm not even debating the whole Abortion thing. I am just trying to understand your point of view on this specific topic (abortion or not).

ericajackhannahjamie?

How can you be in the shoes of the being whose life is in balance? Even "the being" itself can't even think at that stage of "life". The so called being you're referring to is still technically not a human being nor have a developed brain to function. Not even a 3 months old baby can make decisions.. so the statement is pretty irrelevant.

You're making assumptions on this subject based on your current stage of life. But you must understand there are those who are pregnant and cannot afford to support or have a child. There are many reasons why people choose to have an abortion and I think only those who are directly involved have a say, no one else.
Furthermore, It's not that easy for a mother to have a baby and then give it up for adoption. Once you see the baby, you fall inlove with it and make irrational decisions.

astro

SS, i certainly would not be alright with killing a full term fetus. While it may not be a person yet by my definition, it absolutely could be one, given the opportunity.

I think abortion is a life-saving tool when used appropriately, and preferrably within the 1st trimester.

SwervinCL

Why not just cut that off at the pass and not have to worry about finding a body floating down the river.

You dont think its at all selfish to bring a child into the world that you CANT provide for?

Assuming the kids that are in question are young. The father is more than likely NOT gonna stick around.

So thats fair for the mother to be raising the child alone, most likely on welfair.

How is that not being selfish?

RaviNJCLs

iTrader: (4)

I agree with the direction you're heading in. I think that a lot of people will think the responsible thing to do it to have the baby. They got knocked up, so they have the kid. That's what they were taught.

I think if there is NO chance that the mother will be able to care for that child, or that there will be abuse or neglect, then the parent should consider abortion. I think the better choice is adoption for her, but that's just me.

There are a lot of people out there that will gladly care for someone else's "unwanted" child if the mother is willing to care for the child until he or she is born. If the mother cannot give up drinking, drugging etc, then by all means, have an abortion.

SwervinCL

I agree. The better option is adoption, BUT its hard for a woman to go through 9 months of labor, and just give the kid away. I was fortunate that my birth mother was able to make that decision and give me up for adoption.

CUNextTuesday

So true. That's one of the biggest problems with adoption. If a younger mother does not want the child to begin with, how well do you think she'll take care of it while it's inside of her?

Then of course if the mother does do everything right and takes good care of that child for 9 months, she may very well have a big problem giving it up once she holds it in her arms.