delicate subject - abortion

likelyfran

poet123 wrote: »

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.

Where did I say that they wouldn't agree with that in many cases?
I was just saying, basically, 'thank God you're not going to be parents then'.
What's so hard to understand about that?

Welshwoofs

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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 ....

There's also the little matter of the child's right to find out about its birth Mother at 18 and the heart-ache that would follow when they found out that their Mother simply didn't want them.

Even if you did go on to have a baby and have it adopted, you're also forgetting all those people who'd then call you a selfish person to heartlessly give an innocent baby up for adoption and opine that you probably did it because you'd make an awful parent anyway.

No Fire Fox, I'm afraid that in the world of people like LikelyFran, if you're a woman then you must want to have children because otherwise ...well otherwise you're just not 'quite right' are you.

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.

See post 352 for your needed further clarification.

likelyfran

Errata wrote: »

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.

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Did I ever disagree with that? Nope!

likelyfran

Welshwoofs wrote: »

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:


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

No, I didn't say that. Reread my post for what I actually said.

likelyfran

Welshwoofs wrote: »

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.

So you're saying that your mother 'viewed her unwanted foetus as an inconvenience/tumour/parasite/triviality' then? Because that's what I said. People, please read the posts properly before replying!

likelyfran

Fire_Fox wrote: »

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.

Diddums! I got pregnant cos I didn't use no connies nor nuthin but I don't fancy all that pregnant lark, gonna kill it!

Welshwoofs

janninew wrote: »

I don't think that people who don't want/have children are making this decision to help with the world population expansion,

I didn't say it was - what I was intimating that having children in the current circumstances could be deemed selfish. Certainly nobody has children for selfless reasons...they have them because they want to be parents.

likelyfran

Welshwoofs wrote: »

"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

Please tell me where I said that? I never said that! I said, as someone wrongly judged that I did say that, that seeing they'd mentioned it, it was prob true in a lot of cases, judging by the couple of people I know who are vehemently anti-having children and are also notably very selfish people. I didn't say ALL people.

Yes, I will admit, I am somewhat of a Victorian type of flower. In some way. And not at all in others.

Welshwoofs

likelyfran wrote: »

So you're saying that your mother 'viewed her unwanted foetus as an inconvenience/tumour/parasite/triviality' then? Because that's what I said. People, please read the posts properly before replying!

My Mother viewed her first pregnancy as an inconvenience...a problem. That is why she had it terminated. Had she viewed it as a wonderful thing she wouldn't have had an abortion, would she. And I can read your posts just fine thank you, you're just not terribly good at elucidating.

Diddums! I got pregnant cos I didn't use no connies nor nuthin but I don't fancy all that pregnant lark, gonna kill it!

Wow - with an attitude like that I bet you'd make an awful parent