Liberals Against Abortion?
Options
Replies
-
I absolutely would but how many people would consider a child having down syndrome a reason for abortion? countless. It is not a bogus argument because you never know what is going to happen. People are saying that adoption is a bad idea because those children aren't going to have good lives blah, blah, blah. The point of sharing that, apparently flawed, list is that being put of for adoption does not = terrible life. If it is bogus to give a list of people who have succeeded after adoption then is is equally as bogus to say that killing a baby is a better option that putting them up for adoption because then they will be caught in the system and subject to a crappy life.
You're right, adopted kids often lead happy, normal, healthy lives, and I am a pretty big supporter of adopting kids who are already up for adoption. But with a world population of 7 billion, it's irresponsible to bring yet another child into the world when you know beforehand that you won't be able to keep/support it.
Besides, for many of us, abortion isn't "killing a baby".0 -
I think it is a bogus argument to show people who were adopted to go on to do great things as an argument against abortion. What statistics on how many become a Bill Clinton vs. how many become criminals. Besides, if you are using this as a pro-life argument, a persons success in life shouldn't be the deciding factor of their "worth" as a human. If the child was autistic or a mentally handicapped, you would still be pro-life, right?
I absolutely would but how many people would consider a child having down syndrome a reason for abortion? countless. It is not a bogus argument because you never know what is going to happen. People are saying that adoption is a bad idea because those children aren't going to have good lives blah, blah, blah. The point of sharing that, apparently flawed, list is that being put of for adoption does not = terrible life. If it is bogus to give a list of people who have succeeded after adoption then is is equally as bogus to say that killing a baby is a better option that putting them up for adoption because then they will be caught in the system and subject to a crappy life.
I'm not making an anti-adoption argument. I think adoption is wonderful. I making the argument that the outcome of the childs life should have no bearing on the argument. Whether it was a good life or a bad life should make no difference in the debate because both sides can equally point out both good and bad scenarios. The point I'm trying to make is if you are pro-life, would it matter to you if the child became a Doctor or a drug dealer? Would knowing that a child might have a terrible life make you pro-choice. No. Therefore knowing that the child might have a great life won't sway the pro-choice to be pro-life.0 -
I think it is a bogus argument to show people who were adopted to go on to do great things as an argument against abortion. What statistics on how many become a Bill Clinton vs. how many become criminals. Besides, if you are using this as a pro-life argument, a persons success in life shouldn't be the deciding factor of their "worth" as a human. If the child was autistic or a mentally handicapped, you would still be pro-life, right?
I absolutely would but how many people would consider a child having down syndrome a reason for abortion? countless. It is not a bogus argument because you never know what is going to happen. People are saying that adoption is a bad idea because those children aren't going to have good lives blah, blah, blah. The point of sharing that, apparently flawed, list is that being put of for adoption does not = terrible life. If it is bogus to give a list of people who have succeeded after adoption then is is equally as bogus to say that killing a baby is a better option that putting them up for adoption because then they will be caught in the system and subject to a crappy life.
I'm not making an anti-adoption argument. I think adoption is wonderful. I making the argument that the outcome of the childs life should have no bearing on the argument. Whether it was a good life or a bad life should make no difference in the debate because both sides can equally point out both good and bad scenarios. The point I'm trying to make is if you are pro-life, would it matter to you if the child became a Doctor or a drug dealer? Would knowing that a child might have a terrible life make you pro-choice. No. Therefore knowing that the child might have a great life won't sway the pro-choice to be pro-life.
haha we're basically saying the same thing here. My reason for saying that many adoptees do come out OK was in response to those that say that putting a kid up for adoption is less responsible than having an abortion because of the quality of life. Otherwise i would not have brought that into the debate.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!0 -
So how is the right of the "woman's choice" superior to the baby's "right" to life?
I am pro-life, not for any religious reason, just for moral reasons. I also believe the government, on the state level, has the grounds to get involved here because it's not just a personal choice of the mother when she IS affecting the life of another, whether it be the child or the fatehr of the child.
I also believe that abortion is used too openly as a form of birth control for women who are careless. I've known multiple people who have claimed to have 2, 3, 4 abortions just out of carelessness on their part. I know making abortion illegal would bring along other issues but I somewhat hope that people would be a bit more "safe" knowing that abortion was not an option if they were to get knocked up...That part is just a fantasy though
0 -
I realize as a man I shouldn't talk, but honestly, if at some point a fetus is a person, it seems like "my body, my choice" just isn't enough of a reason to kill something. I guess it comes down to what's worse, killing somebody or forcing somebody to give birth.
Pretty much my stance as well. If it has a heartbeat-it's a living person. That's all it takes for me.0 -
The government doesn't consider it a person. Not really. Even the staunchest of pro life candidates don't. They don't want to change birth certificates to conception certificates. They don't want to issue death certificates for miscarriages. They don't want people to claim an embryo as a dependant on their taxes. They don't want to give social security/medicare to people 40 weeks sooner than they do now. Whether or not your kid can start kindergarten is based on their birthday, not their conception day.0
-
They don't want to issue death certificates for miscarriages.
Except in whichever state it was that wanted to criminalise women who had miscarriages if it is deemed that their actions may have contributed in any way to the miscarriage...
Actually, having just googled, it seems that miscarriage has been criminalised in several states, including Utah, Alabama and Mississippi. Jaw currently hitting the floor - I love the USA, but sometimes the politicisation of personal choices and circumstances there leaves me reeling!0
