delicate subject - abortion

lazer

Person_one wrote: »

I find it baffling that you refer to an unwanted embryo as a precious gift but a living, troubled child is an 'it'.

I would refer to an Embryo as an "it" as well, I cannot refer to "it" as a he or she, so therefore that leaves "it".

PolkaDotsAndLace

The father/grandparents aren't the ones pregnant for 9 months, so the woman's opinion has more weight for me. Shame, but women aren't just here to be incubators.

I take your point that the babies might well get adopted, but I'd prefer more encouragement to adopt the older children rather than just adding more kids to the system.

Person_one

lazer wrote: »

I will not change your thoughts, you will not change mine, that is the nature of any abortion debate.

The big difference between you and me is that I don't wish to impose my views on you and your body.

If you believe abortion is wrong, no pro-choice person will ever try to prevent or dissuade you from carrying a pregnancy to term.

The same courtesy in return is all we ask.

lazer

Person_one wrote: »

The big difference between you and me is that I don't wish to impose my views on you and your body.

If you believe abortion is wrong, no pro-choice person will ever try to prevent or dissuade you from carrying a pregnancy to term.

The same courtesy in return is all we ask.

Actually, many people pregnant with children with disabilities etc have been dissuaded from carrying a pregnancy to term, as have many young girls who believe that the fact their parents won't support them etc is more important than the child.

The fact that abortion is freely available, means that those who are pro-choice won the debate a long time ago and their views were forced upon society.

For people who believe that a child is a valued life from the moment of conception we believe that the embryo has a right to life. So to say that we should not try and dissuade people from abortion is for us the same as saying we should not step in if someone is neglecting a a young baby etc, as both are human life need the actions of someone else to keep them alive.

The debate will be forever ongoing for this reason.

heartbreak_star

Person_one wrote: »

Not really, its just like abortion if you think about it. If that woman doesn't feel able to become a mother to an older child then she doesn't, its not an easy road and not everybody is suitable.

She shouldn't be expected to feel guilty or be called selfish for that anymore than women who don't want to be pregnant and make babies should.

That is actually a really good point and thank you for making it, I think it was more the knee-jerk reaction flared in me, same as it did when a girl I worked with who was having trouble conceiving threatened to slap me if I mentioned adoption to her, apparently it wouldn't be her baby.

Food for thought

Incidentally, I'm not really maternal, but if I was to ever want a child I would go along the lines of voluntary adoption. I never wish to be pregnant, or hold a baby ever again, but I think I could help an older child if it came down to it.

HBS x

Saturnalia

PolkaDotsAndLace wrote: »

I'm also not sure WHY people want unwanted children born into this world - the parents not wanting them doesn't make for a happy childhood.

Adoption isn't the wonderful solution it's made out to be in these debates - there are plenty of children in care after all.

That's one of the most sensible posts I've read on here!

The views of the pro-life and the "you are woman - you must reproduce" brigade seem to cross over on this point. Why would you want an as-yet-nonexistent child to grow up with at least one parent who doesn't want it? Or maybe does want it, but isn't in any fit state to raise it? (I seem to type this every week on here!)

And no, adoption isn't the wonderful answer to it all. Often children who need families are taken away from their family of birth after the damage has been done, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who adopts as the children can be very hurt, confused, disturbed. It is very hard work! How many of the anti-abortion, pro-adoption people would take on a child who has been in the care system for years?

heretolearn_2

'many people pregnant with children with disabilities etc have been dissuaded from carrying a pregnancy to term'

this I don't think is true really, who is 'dissuading them'? It's no skin off the doctor's noses if a family wishes to raise a disabled child. If it's family pressure etc, well people need to stick up for themselves really. It's their baby, their decision.

I think that in the past where the future for so many types of disabled people was pretty grim, then yes, parents were advised to have an abortion. But now attitudes have changed, and medical advances can help a lot, there's less 'stigma' or 'problems' associated with many disabilities. And from the numbers of disabled children around, plenty of parents go on to have them.

but sometimes it simply isn't the best course of action for anyone, the parents or the baby. A relative last year, on medical advice, had an abortion after a scan which showed the baby had very severe deformities and problems with brain development, to the extent that the baby would not have survived for long. It was a hard and painful decision for her and she very much put a huge value on that baby's life. The abortion was awful enough for her and her partner. It would have been even worse to have continued carrying a baby knowing it was going to quickly die, and also the baby would have suffered. Does anyone really think they should have the right as a stranger to 'step in' and try to persuade them to have 'kept the baby' as all life is valuable? That life was valuable to her too...

Mrs_Arcanum

lazer wrote: »

Actually, many people pregnant with children with disabilities etc have been dissuaded from carrying a pregnancy to term, as have many young girls who believe that the fact their parents won't support them etc is more important than the child.

The fact that abortion is freely available, means that those who are pro-choice won the debate a long time ago and their views were forced upon society.

For people who believe that a child is a valued life from the moment of conception we believe that the embryo has a right to life. So to say that we should not try and dissuade people from abortion is for us the same as saying we should not step in if someone is neglecting a a young baby etc, as both are human life need the actions of someone else to keep them alive.

The debate will be forever ongoing for this reason.

Not forced upon anyone! :mad: Just a medically safe procedure available to those who do not want to carry a child to term for whatever reason. Rather than barbaric knitting needles, life threatening infections and the potential of sterility.

Bringing another human being into the world is not something to be undertaken for purely sentimental reasons.

Fire_Fox

lazer wrote: »

Actually, many people pregnant with children with disabilities etc have been dissuaded from carrying a pregnancy to term, as have many young girls who believe that the fact their parents won't support them etc is more important than the child.

The fact that abortion is freely available, means that those who are pro-choice won the debate a long time ago and their views were forced upon society.

Persuaded by whom and for what reason?

lazer wrote: »

There is a waiting list for babies for a adoption in most areas actually, that only leaves of the question of if there was more babies being given up for adoption, would this impact the number of older children being adopted, persoanlly I don't believe so, as the people on the waiting lists have already decided they want a baby not an older child.

Are there 200,000 people a year wanting to adopt a baby and jumped through all the hoops with Social Services? That is a genuine question.

I don't understand insisting on a baby any more than I understand insisting on a kitten/ puppy - they aren't that age for long. I can understand being reluctant/ fearful to take on an older child with behavioural problems.

Errata

lazer wrote: »

Actually, many people pregnant with children with disabilities etc have been dissuaded from carrying a pregnancy to term, as have many young girls who believe that the fact their parents won't support them etc is more important than the child.

The fact that abortion is freely available, means that those who are pro-choice won the debate a long time ago and their views were forced upon society.

For people who believe that a child is a valued life from the moment of conception we believe that the embryo has a right to life. So to say that we should not try and dissuade people from abortion is for us the same as saying we should not step in if someone is neglecting a a young baby etc, as both are human life need the actions of someone else to keep them alive.

The debate will be forever ongoing for this reason.

It was debated in Parliament and a law was passed. That's how civilised societies work - or would you rather have a dictatorship?
It's difficult to discuss any point with someone who constantly refers to 'we' but doesn't seem able to explain who this 'we' might be.