delicate subject - abortion

erichamster

likelyfran wrote: »

Er..no. Perhaps you are not getting my meaning?

Which was simply that (paraphrasing/without trawling back) that those who talk of a life inside them as an inconvenience/tumour/parasite/triviality, give (to me) the impression of being quite selfish 'me first' people in general, who are better off not having kids because they would make awful parents (and therefore should make great efforts not to become pregnant in the first place ).

Presumably they will make those "great efforts" by using contraception and in the event of an accidental, unplanned pregnancy, having a safe, legal abortion. No guilt, repentance or delay required.

poet123

likelyfran wrote: »

Lost me now. Completely. Max was saying, apparently, that I was saying selfish people wouldn't have children because they're selfish (even though they didn't want them -huh?). You appear to be saying it's ironic for me to call anyone else 'mememe'. Or maybe it's just me.

No, Max was saying that those people had already decided they didn't want children and some of them readily acknowledge it is because they are "selfish" (or perhaps actually more self aware? ) and don't want the hard work or loss of freedom that it can sometimes bring. You then said they were selfish, but you didn't see that they would agree with that in many cases.

To recognise that is actually the opposite of being selfish imo.

Welshwoofs

likelyfran wrote: »

The kind of attitude displayed above seriously makes me wonder what kind of parents people with it would/do make.. very 'me me me'.

So now you're suggesting that if you don't believe that abortion is 'killing a baby' you're the sort of person who'd make a bad parent?

Good lord, you've got a mind-set so bloody narrow that you wouldn't be able to post a postcard through it :rotfl:

There's plenty of people dying to adopt. Would it not be better to have the child - who is after all blameless, instead of killing it, and let it go to a loving home elsewhere?

Abortion is not killing a child, it is terminating a pregnancy.

Errata

It also may well be that some women for reasons many and various know without a shadow of a doubt that they would be less than adequate mothers.
For them, deciding not to have children would be quite the opposite of selfishness.

Welshwoofs

likelyfran wrote: »

Which was simply that (paraphrasing/without trawling back) that those who talk of a life inside them as an inconvenience/tumour/parasite/triviality, give (to me) the impression of being quite selfish 'me first' people in general, who are better off not having kids because they would make awful parents (and therefore should make great efforts not to become pregnant in the first place ).

Your impression is that those people would make awful parents? My impression is that you're being ignorant on this matter.

I know people who've had abortions who viewed the issue as a problem to sort out and then went on to have children - my Mother is one of them.

Fire_Fox

likelyfran wrote: »

Because some people fight for the vulnerable? Also, people are free to define feotuses/embryos as 'people' - as you put it, I would say living beings - if they want to, regardless of what legal or medical opinion is!

Fight for the vulnerable to do what? Be born to a woman who has no maternal instincts, who is struggling with the family she already has, who has no support from her parents or the sperm donor, who doesn't have a job or a stable home, who has mental health problems, who is an addict or prostitute, who is in an abusive relationship, who is an immature teenager not even responsible enough to use contraception?

Sure there is adoption, but you have to endure the pregnancy and birth and it's effects on your physical, mental or social wellbeing, effects on your employment or studies. It also means you cannot take many prescribed medications, it cannot be kept a secret yet is far from socially acceptable, you likely have to fight your hormonal instinct once the baby is born ....

IMO what we need is better hormone-free methods of contraception, better sex education in schools, enforced contraception for the under 24s except those who can demonstrate a stable relationship. Even with the updated curriculum contraception will be taught from 11, yet some girls of this age are sexually active, some have started their periods and a few are even accessing abortions. And parents can withdraw their children from sex education right up to age 15.

Fire_Fox

poet123 wrote: »

No, reluctance is not the same as refusal. As the stats for women under 30 clearly testify.

Sorry to be blunt here, but from an outside observers viewpoint reading your experiences it seems to me that they can be broken down into two reasons; the powers that be felt that you were not a suitable candidate on some of the occasions you asked, and on others you did were not persistent enough/convincing enough to achieve your aim.

Which stats for women under 30?

Welshwoofs

likelyfran wrote: »

I wasn't actually but now you mention it, that's probably true in a lot of cases. And I'm judging by people I know in real life..

"The world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion. Within the span of a single lifetime, world population has more than doubled to 5.5 billion and even the most optimistic scenarios of lower birth rates lead to a peak of 7.8 billion people in the middle of the next century. In the last decade, food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth.....To deal with the social, economic and environmental problems, we must achieve zero population grown within the lifetime of our children."
http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13940.aspx


You think that not having children is selfish? Interesting...because the statement above is signed by over 50 of the world's scentific academies who believe that the biggest crises we face is population growth.

Still....you're views are interesting to me LikelyFran...it's like opening a time capsule to the 1950s

likelyfran

*max* wrote: »

The irony is in you stating that people who do not want children would make bad parents and should not have kids. Can you not see how ridiculous that statement is?

As for "the bit in red", I'll let you ponder the meaning.

Nah, you're still not making any sense to me.

janninew

I don't think that people who don't want/have children are making this decision to help with the world population expansion, just as I believe that people who have children aren't having them to help fund our generations pensions etc!

I think for most its an very personal decision and most only think about how it will affect them, not the rest of the world.