Thread: Random Thought About Abortion

Some women are pro choice, others are not. The most important thing is that women do actually have a choice, so far as their decision presides over the fathers because it is HER body. I actually agree with this, although I accept how difficult it must be for both parties in those circumstances.

What infuriates me is when people discuss the abortion the debate - is the failure of many (especially those gods precious children A-holes) - to consider matters beyond the pregnancy. Like actually raising the ********ing child.

It's all very well telling woman abortion is wrong etc, but what's the alternative? A possibly vulnerable woman, or one unprepared and ill equipped for parenthood introducing ANOTHER child into a desperately over populated world?

One of the reasons in life so many people have to make seemingly bad decisions is that often, the only alternative to them is less desirable than the choice they made.

I personally think it's a shame that the parents of these A-holes who stand outside abortion clinics handing out rubber fetuses to vulnerable and distressed pregnant women (who've had to make quite possibly the most difficult decision of their life) didn't know more about contraception.

I actually think having a child and neglecting and/or abusing it is a million times more morally repugnant than having an abortion.

I believe women don't want to have abortions, what they want is to avoid introducing a child into the world they are not (for a multitude of individual reasons) in a position to raise.

People have been killing other people, including children of all ages, for thousands of years. No knowledge alone will ever stop that. The baby could speak from the womb and some people would still kill it, because preserving another life is not their concern.

Also, the planet is not overpopulated. There's room for billions more.

There's room for billions more? Hypothetically there is, yes. Having 'room' for billions more people is one thing, having sufficient resources to provide for them is another.

Are there sufficient resources available to them to live a quality standard of life? There are plenty of people alive on earth today who are deprived of many of the basic necessities they require to enjoy a decent, or even basic standard of living (take parts of the African continent for example), even in developed western countries resources (as in school places, housing, particularly social housing etc) are finite and are at, or are fast approaching capacity. I wouldn't like to be around when the earth's resources are being stretched to try and sustain billions more people.

The earth produces plenty for everyone on it. The issue is mismanagement of resources. And I seriously doubt people who kill their babies are considering the earth and whether or not it's overpopulated anyway. Aside from the exceptions where the mother's health is at risk, their primary concern is generally their own convenience. That's why I think the "pro-life" movement is hopeless. You can't force people to care. It doesn't matter how much of a person we know an unborn child is now. People are focused on their rights in this society.

Quite honestly, if most of the pro-choice people somehow knew that the fetuses they were carrying would experience some form of pain or discomfort, they wouldn't really be pro-choice. If it were going to harm the mother in some way, I really think they'd opt to not get it done, either. All of the pro-life people would actually have fact to back them up as they throw things and scream at the mother walking into the abortion clinic.

I'm a pro-choice person and if I wanted to have an abortion under those circumstances, I'd still get one. Not because I want my hypothetical child to experience pain but because I know that at my current age with my current goals, I wouldn't be able to successfully raise a child the way I want to if I had it now. But, that is just me.

Stillness, I agree that the earth does produce plenty. I can't proffer any statistics or information to disprove your statement that there are enough resources to sustain billions more people, but I am highly skeptical - no offense. I am willing to be proved wrong, a discussion like this should be an objective pursuit of the facts.

A huge problem - and one I can't see changing - is that resources are not equally distributed. I view overpopulation as population relative to resources available to sustain the population. I believe the overpopulation debate is a highly contentious one and I'm not knowledgeable enough about to to construct any more of an argument/debate about it, what I've proffered so far is mainly opinion based on what (little) knowledge I have on the subject. If trying to force people to care is the priority of the pro choice I think they should try forcing more people to care about the children they have already brought into the world.

People are focused on their rights, many more so than their responsibilities, but anyone who has a child has the responsibility to raise it properly. I think it's more responsible to abort a fetus than it is to raise it poorly. I'd be more ashamed of being a poor father than having my potential child aborted.

I'm not sure how much exposure you've had to inner city environments (I use this as an example because it's where I have personally witnessed this) where teenage single parents are rife, based on the amount of neglect in dysfunctional families I've seen I just help but believe abortion is a better alternative than bringing yet ANOTHER child - which cannot and will not be given a good upbringing by any reasonable persons' standards - into the world.

In short I believe aborting a fetus is a more responsible choice than introducing a child into the world when you aren't in a position to raise it responsibly. As I said this is MY opinion, the abortion debate is one of the most contentious and ongoing debates going.