Sometimes if the baby is developed enough, they can't get it out in one piece. Some practices include crushing the skull and taking the fetus out piece by piece. Terrible, isn't it?
well you don't understand where i'm coming from i mean i believe in reincarnation so i think if they don't get that body they'll get another one, perhaps one that is healthy
I think it depends on what the mother and perhaps father are ready for. If a child is born with a disease, does that mean that we should just kill them off? But at the same time, if the parent(s) aren't ready for it emotionally, financially, or for any other reason, it's completely up to them.
(Chauncy Pickles): No. I have scoliosis, but I would certainly not consider that a disability. I really just meant that's why a lot of parents don't look at the test results, because they do not want to make such a difficult choice.
Its a true statement. Once the baby is there, why should the fact that its in the womb make any difference as to why we can or cannot kill it? I can't go home and murder a 5 day old baby, but i could bring my pregnant wife to a clinic to get the fetus sucked out of her. Thats wrong. Both are alive.
...is that possible to tell from a fetus, though? Doesn't the child have to be significantly developed so you can see what diseases it might have, particularly if they're serious ones?
Besides, what if a baby seems perfectly healthy and then is born and develops a disability? Would you kill it then? Or would it make the difference simply because the child is in front of you and not inside you?
And regardless, once a child has been formed it's no longer up to you to make that choice. Its now a human life. You can't just kill it off because it might be sick. You cannot predict the possibility of its recovery, nor the possibility of its having a happy life. Humans simply can't guarantee the future. Yes, you might suffer, but the child could also turn out fine. And if its aborted, you will never have the possibility of finding out.
there's genetic testing of the fetus available for parents who have a history of genetic diseases in their lineage. some genetic diseases are so crippling and debilitating that the parents choose to abort rather than having the child suffer.
i think the severity of the possible disease is where i'd draw some sort of line, but then again it should be up to the parents to decide.
Not just pain for the child its entire life, but also pain for the parents. They have to provide and the child will always be dependent on them. In these cases, of course, I'm talking about a kind of condition that will result in the child never being able to live independently, like severe retardation.
You also have to notice that I said in pain...if a baby is born and dies at an early age and is in excruciating pain, how could someone just sit and watch him/her suffer? THAT, to me, is more barbaric than abortion. You say it's not your choice but if you were in that much pain and couldn't live a normal life wouldn't you want to die? And has a little kid ever said they wanted to die because of the pain? And if they did...would you listen or keep then?
I think it's selfish to not abort the fetus. No matter how much you want a child, if they're going to be in so much pain then I would abort. To stop it from suffering. I think that's a merciful act.
I thought you said "...cause it to be a pain" at first, and I was like, "BITCH, GTFO," because that sounds like it is coming from a selfish perspective.
(Chauncy Pickles): I know, but when the parent considers the child a pain, they probably won't be a very good parent and their children would suffer in the process. (And be in pain)
Is that really the best choice? Since the moment of conception, the fetus is alive in the mother. It is not a part of the mother's body, but the mother is a carrier. That life still has a dignity and you are choosing to end its life. God gives life and only God can take away life. The fetus is vulnerable and has no voice. Even though it may not be considered as a person according to the law, it is still a living being. When it is born, it has human dignity and is entitled to basic human rights. Killing the child because you know it will be disabled is taking away its right to life. Essentially, it is murder. Their life does not lose value if they are disabled.
Hey there Hitler, thought we lost you in 1945!
Glad to see you've made a recovery.
Let's continue your old policy - don't forget, you also killed the elderly, the sickly, the Jews, the mentally handicapped.. don't just leave it at the physically handicapped!
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between saying it's better to abort a fetus that's going to have a very short life filled with horrible pain and killing 6 million people because of their religion.
Somebody is a little ignorant of the holocaust. Hitler targeted more than just the jews. Also, let that person decide if they can live with that disability, or let them die naturally. Either of those options is less barbaric than murdering them before they come out of the womb.
I am aware that he targeted more than just Jews. However, I don't think abortion is barbaric. Think about it: You are a woman who has just enough money for a baby. Now, suddenly, you find out your child is going to have a horrible disability that's going to cause it incredible pain, and probably going to kill it at an early age, along with costing enormous amounts of money that you don't have. Of course you want the baby, but say it's going to have xeroderma pigmentosum? I think I'd rather abort a child that I knew was going to have that, rather than watch it die painfully before the age of 10 and not be able to do anything about it.
First off, as far as the "not enough money" argument goes - don't get fucked in the first place if you really just cannot deal with a pregnancy. Use a condom with birth control if you really need to have sex and can't risk a child. Choosing money over another person's life, particularly your own child, is sick in the head.
Secondly, abortion is barbaric. Think about it: You're killing perhaps the most innocent person you'll ever meet. They've done nothing. They're a result of your actions. You're about to murder your own son or daughter because its "for the better." If your kid was in a car accident at the age of 8, and lost both of his legs and suffered brain damage, are you telling me you'd kill him? Funny thing is, that's illegal now, even though you might consider it "for the better." I find it disturbing that you see abortion as an act of compassion. Look at it for what it is - you're killing your own child.
First of all, I don't believe that a fetus is really alive yet. Second, if that happened to your child, and they were on life support, you're saying you wouldn't pull the plug? I'd had family members die of cancer a few times now, and they've all been in so much pain, that when they were only on life support (so not even breathing on their own), their children pulled the plug, because it's horrible seeing someone you love in that much pain, as it would be to be in that amount of pain and seeing your loves ones not want to leave you. If you don't have to put a child in that situation why would you?
And if we're talking about money, there's a huge cost difference between a healthy child and one who has a horrible, life threatening condition and is constantly in the hospital for their short life.
"its not really alive yet"? So its conceived dead, then it is magically alive once it exits the mother? Huh. Ok then. Pulling the plug has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If a person can't even breathe on their own then let nature take its course. That doesn't mean you can just kill a person before they are born because you see it as some sick favor to them. If they will die in a few months, or 10 years, or 20, because of some incurable disease, let them have what little time they were given. It isn't your life to take.
Not dead, just not fully living. Having seen people who were in terrible pain that were close to me, but weren't physically about to die, you actually wish they would because they're so ready to be done with life. Seeing someone you love go through the pain before they get to the stage where they're not even breathing on their own is also terrible. You don't want anyone you love to go through it, especially your own kid. If I had a kid who I knew was going to be severely disabled and wouldn't be able to do anything but sit in a hospital bed, I would probably abort them to save them and everyone the unfortunate pain (unless there was a chance that they wouldn't go through the pain). You may feel differently, but that's why abortion is legal, so you can make that decision.
You don't have the right to make that decision, it isn't your life to end. That's how I feel about it. Which is also why I think abortion should be illegal. That, and you're killing your own child. I think it's pathetic that it is even an issue to debate about.
Except that it's the woman's body that's being debated over here. That child is still part of the woman. It's her choice, not yours, a third party who really shouldn't have any say in the matter.
The point is it's in her uterus. They're called "private parts" for a reason. What goes on in a woman's womb is no business but her own. As long as it's in her body, it's in her domain.
I don't give a damn where the child is, it has as much a right to live as you or I do. By your own logic, good thing I can't lure any of you sick fucking child killers onto my "private property" or else I'd do my own justice. That is another person's life. She can give birth to it the natural way, or hell, I don't care, get it taken out early and put in an icu so it can survive. No matter where that baby is, she doesn't have the right to outright murder it.
A woman's body is not the property of the government and I definitely give a damn if the government tries to regulate a woman's flesh and blood like it regulates property taxes.
I never said anybody's body was the property of the government, so I'm not sure where that came from. What I'm saying is, if that person doesn't have a right to life, then neither do you. Who better to be your equal than one of your own blood?
Since the woman's body is her own flesh and blood and not the government's jurisdiction, rights and privileges granted by the government to residents and citizens do not apply within her uterine walls. A woman's body is her domain, so only she can decide what goes on in there.* That's what I was trying to say when I said a woman's body was not the property of the government. Does that makes more sense to you?
*I'm not talking about drugs here. A woman does not have the right to put drugs in her body as she wishes. There is s big difference between controlling heroine and controlling the flesh and blood of citizens.
By your logic, using chemotherapy is barbaric. A fetus is a mass of cells, and so is a tumor.
Also, there's something I don't understand. If your dog lost two/four legs and suffered brain damage, you'd almost certainly euthanize it. Why are we allowed to "mercy kill" animals, but not people? Is it for the better, or not?
A fetus is a person. A tumor is not. A paralyzed, retarded child is a person. A dog with no legs and brain damage is not. I'm beginning to suspect that you're a troll since you just suggested we should "mercy kill" other people.
Regardless. This poster is referringto the fact that Hitler killed the handicapped and disabled, which is essentially what this person is saying. Since the baby will be disabled, we should kill it.
Okay so I used to be pro-choice and I still am, but my perspective has changed.
Personally, I wouldn't abort unless I was raped. And even then; small chance.
But I don't judge.
If you are ready to get pregnant; you should be ready to love and raise a child regardless of it's condition.
Where do we draw the line?
"It's nose is pretty big... High School would be horrible for her"
On the belly, so we know where to make the incision.
(Chauncy Pickles): Sea-section? As in during delivery of child, not abortion?
Sea section? You mean a C section, right? C standing for Cesarean.
Yes.
Then on the... labia? I am not familiarized with the abortive process. I assume there is some cutting done somewhere, though.
...That's where I come in...
(Chauncy Pickles): They actually just stick a vaccuum up their vagina. No cutting.
Sometimes if the baby is developed enough, they can't get it out in one piece. Some practices include crushing the skull and taking the fetus out piece by piece. Terrible, isn't it?
But don't you "cut" the power when you're done vacuuming, as to not waste electricity or to avoid sucking of the entire vulva or something?
The human body does not lose its value if it is crippled, disfigured or in pain.
But the human mind might.
(Chauncy Pickles): I think they would be much happier getting a chance to live and see the world, no matter how they have to see it.
I think they would be much happier being treated differently for being born crippled or disfigured, no matter how they have to see it.
Wait, did I say "happier"? I meant "more miserable".
(Chauncy Pickles): Life is full of good and bad things for everyone. That doesn't mean you should deprive them of it.
i think they would be much happier to receive a better body
Except that's clearly not an option, so they would much rather live with it than just die.
well you don't understand where i'm coming from i mean i believe in reincarnation so i think if they don't get that body they'll get another one, perhaps one that is healthy
I think it depends on what the mother and perhaps father are ready for. If a child is born with a disease, does that mean that we should just kill them off? But at the same time, if the parent(s) aren't ready for it emotionally, financially, or for any other reason, it's completely up to them.
I think that's why my parents chose not to see the results of whether or not I had disabilities.
Do you?
(Chauncy Pickles): No. I have scoliosis, but I would certainly not consider that a disability. I really just meant that's why a lot of parents don't look at the test results, because they do not want to make such a difficult choice.
It shouldn't be a choice anyway... Abortion is always wrong.
That's a very bold statement to make.
Its a true statement. Once the baby is there, why should the fact that its in the womb make any difference as to why we can or cannot kill it? I can't go home and murder a 5 day old baby, but i could bring my pregnant wife to a clinic to get the fetus sucked out of her. Thats wrong. Both are alive.
true, but both don't have the same development. a fetus isn't conscious in the womb, it's not aware of its surroundings the same way a baby is.
So you woulda up and stabbed helen keller? Thats all i took from your rebuttal.
...is that possible to tell from a fetus, though? Doesn't the child have to be significantly developed so you can see what diseases it might have, particularly if they're serious ones?
Besides, what if a baby seems perfectly healthy and then is born and develops a disability? Would you kill it then? Or would it make the difference simply because the child is in front of you and not inside you?
And regardless, once a child has been formed it's no longer up to you to make that choice. Its now a human life. You can't just kill it off because it might be sick. You cannot predict the possibility of its recovery, nor the possibility of its having a happy life. Humans simply can't guarantee the future. Yes, you might suffer, but the child could also turn out fine. And if its aborted, you will never have the possibility of finding out.
there's genetic testing of the fetus available for parents who have a history of genetic diseases in their lineage. some genetic diseases are so crippling and debilitating that the parents choose to abort rather than having the child suffer.
i think the severity of the possible disease is where i'd draw some sort of line, but then again it should be up to the parents to decide.
Not just pain for the child its entire life, but also pain for the parents. They have to provide and the child will always be dependent on them. In these cases, of course, I'm talking about a kind of condition that will result in the child never being able to live independently, like severe retardation.
Not one that will put you in pain
You also have to notice that I said in pain...if a baby is born and dies at an early age and is in excruciating pain, how could someone just sit and watch him/her suffer? THAT, to me, is more barbaric than abortion. You say it's not your choice but if you were in that much pain and couldn't live a normal life wouldn't you want to die? And has a little kid ever said they wanted to die because of the pain? And if they did...would you listen or keep then?
I think it's selfish to not abort the fetus. No matter how much you want a child, if they're going to be in so much pain then I would abort. To stop it from suffering. I think that's a merciful act.
I thought you said "...cause it to be a pain" at first, and I was like, "BITCH, GTFO," because that sounds like it is coming from a selfish perspective.
(Chauncy Pickles): me too, and i was also wondering who all the heartless people were who voted this up
(Chauncy Pickles): One could argue the baby would suffer pain if the mother was not June Cleaver.
I meant being a pain to the parent, like being annoying.
(Chauncy Pickles): I know, but when the parent considers the child a pain, they probably won't be a very good parent and their children would suffer in the process. (And be in pain)
That is some pretty deep analysis, McChicken.
cue the pro-lifers...
Is that really the best choice? Since the moment of conception, the fetus is alive in the mother. It is not a part of the mother's body, but the mother is a carrier. That life still has a dignity and you are choosing to end its life. God gives life and only God can take away life. The fetus is vulnerable and has no voice. Even though it may not be considered as a person according to the law, it is still a living being. When it is born, it has human dignity and is entitled to basic human rights. Killing the child because you know it will be disabled is taking away its right to life. Essentially, it is murder. Their life does not lose value if they are disabled.
Hey there Hitler, thought we lost you in 1945!
Glad to see you've made a recovery.
Let's continue your old policy - don't forget, you also killed the elderly, the sickly, the Jews, the mentally handicapped.. don't just leave it at the physically handicapped!
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between saying it's better to abort a fetus that's going to have a very short life filled with horrible pain and killing 6 million people because of their religion.
Somebody is a little ignorant of the holocaust. Hitler targeted more than just the jews. Also, let that person decide if they can live with that disability, or let them die naturally. Either of those options is less barbaric than murdering them before they come out of the womb.
I am aware that he targeted more than just Jews. However, I don't think abortion is barbaric. Think about it: You are a woman who has just enough money for a baby. Now, suddenly, you find out your child is going to have a horrible disability that's going to cause it incredible pain, and probably going to kill it at an early age, along with costing enormous amounts of money that you don't have. Of course you want the baby, but say it's going to have xeroderma pigmentosum? I think I'd rather abort a child that I knew was going to have that, rather than watch it die painfully before the age of 10 and not be able to do anything about it.
First off, as far as the "not enough money" argument goes - don't get fucked in the first place if you really just cannot deal with a pregnancy. Use a condom with birth control if you really need to have sex and can't risk a child. Choosing money over another person's life, particularly your own child, is sick in the head.
Secondly, abortion is barbaric. Think about it: You're killing perhaps the most innocent person you'll ever meet. They've done nothing. They're a result of your actions. You're about to murder your own son or daughter because its "for the better." If your kid was in a car accident at the age of 8, and lost both of his legs and suffered brain damage, are you telling me you'd kill him? Funny thing is, that's illegal now, even though you might consider it "for the better." I find it disturbing that you see abortion as an act of compassion. Look at it for what it is - you're killing your own child.
First of all, I don't believe that a fetus is really alive yet. Second, if that happened to your child, and they were on life support, you're saying you wouldn't pull the plug? I'd had family members die of cancer a few times now, and they've all been in so much pain, that when they were only on life support (so not even breathing on their own), their children pulled the plug, because it's horrible seeing someone you love in that much pain, as it would be to be in that amount of pain and seeing your loves ones not want to leave you. If you don't have to put a child in that situation why would you?
And if we're talking about money, there's a huge cost difference between a healthy child and one who has a horrible, life threatening condition and is constantly in the hospital for their short life.
"its not really alive yet"? So its conceived dead, then it is magically alive once it exits the mother? Huh. Ok then. Pulling the plug has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If a person can't even breathe on their own then let nature take its course. That doesn't mean you can just kill a person before they are born because you see it as some sick favor to them. If they will die in a few months, or 10 years, or 20, because of some incurable disease, let them have what little time they were given. It isn't your life to take.
Not dead, just not fully living. Having seen people who were in terrible pain that were close to me, but weren't physically about to die, you actually wish they would because they're so ready to be done with life. Seeing someone you love go through the pain before they get to the stage where they're not even breathing on their own is also terrible. You don't want anyone you love to go through it, especially your own kid. If I had a kid who I knew was going to be severely disabled and wouldn't be able to do anything but sit in a hospital bed, I would probably abort them to save them and everyone the unfortunate pain (unless there was a chance that they wouldn't go through the pain). You may feel differently, but that's why abortion is legal, so you can make that decision.
You don't have the right to make that decision, it isn't your life to end. That's how I feel about it. Which is also why I think abortion should be illegal. That, and you're killing your own child. I think it's pathetic that it is even an issue to debate about.
Except that it's the woman's body that's being debated over here. That child is still part of the woman. It's her choice, not yours, a third party who really shouldn't have any say in the matter.
This argument is going nowhere. That fetus while inside her body is just like any other child - a dependent. It is alive, killing it is murder.
The point is it's in her uterus. They're called "private parts" for a reason. What goes on in a woman's womb is no business but her own. As long as it's in her body, it's in her domain.
I don't give a damn where the child is, it has as much a right to live as you or I do. By your own logic, good thing I can't lure any of you sick fucking child killers onto my "private property" or else I'd do my own justice. That is another person's life. She can give birth to it the natural way, or hell, I don't care, get it taken out early and put in an icu so it can survive. No matter where that baby is, she doesn't have the right to outright murder it.
A woman's body is not the property of the government and I definitely give a damn if the government tries to regulate a woman's flesh and blood like it regulates property taxes.
I never said anybody's body was the property of the government, so I'm not sure where that came from. What I'm saying is, if that person doesn't have a right to life, then neither do you. Who better to be your equal than one of your own blood?
Since the woman's body is her own flesh and blood and not the government's jurisdiction, rights and privileges granted by the government to residents and citizens do not apply within her uterine walls. A woman's body is her domain, so only she can decide what goes on in there.* That's what I was trying to say when I said a woman's body was not the property of the government. Does that makes more sense to you?
*I'm not talking about drugs here. A woman does not have the right to put drugs in her body as she wishes. There is s big difference between controlling heroine and controlling the flesh and blood of citizens.
I completely understand what you're saying. I just think you're a fucking idiot.
Okay. That's fine with me.
By your logic, using chemotherapy is barbaric. A fetus is a mass of cells, and so is a tumor.
Also, there's something I don't understand. If your dog lost two/four legs and suffered brain damage, you'd almost certainly euthanize it. Why are we allowed to "mercy kill" animals, but not people? Is it for the better, or not?
A fetus is a person. A tumor is not. A paralyzed, retarded child is a person. A dog with no legs and brain damage is not. I'm beginning to suspect that you're a troll since you just suggested we should "mercy kill" other people.
Regardless. This poster is referringto the fact that Hitler killed the handicapped and disabled, which is essentially what this person is saying. Since the baby will be disabled, we should kill it.
Okay so I used to be pro-choice and I still am, but my perspective has changed.
Personally, I wouldn't abort unless I was raped. And even then; small chance.
But I don't judge.
If you are ready to get pregnant; you should be ready to love and raise a child regardless of it's condition.
Sure, it might be in pain, but ultimately I think it's better to let it experience life anyway. Then at least it will have a chance.