Explain why you can't smother your 1 and 2 year old

Forum Index » Political Discussion
[Post New]08/23/2010 22:15
Anonymous
Why are there people on this board promoting adoption? Are we really supposed to believe that they are completely unselfish and unbiased in their opinions?

Anyway, there is a difference between a pregnancy and a baby. A pregnancy is a potential baby, but there is still a long way to go and a lot can go wrong along the way. That is called a miscarriage, or in medical terms an abortion. Open up your dictionary. miscarriage is an abortion
[Post New]08/23/2010 22:28
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Some of us who have had a miscarriage of a fetus at 6 or 8 or 10 weeks gestation really have a gut sense that this "cluster of cells" just isn't a "person" and yet we would very much agree that a fetus at 39 weeks gestation (or 28 weeks -- capable of possibly living on its own once born) is a "person". But there's a huge difference between the cluster of cells at 5 weeks or 8 weeks gestation, and a fully developed fetus at 37 or 38 weeks.


Some of us who have had a miscarriage at 6 or 8 or 10 weeks cried our eyes out, because we recognized that we had lost our baby, not a meaningless "bunch of cells".


I cried my eyes out, too, at the loss of the potential child (actually potential children) I had been carrying. Amd I'm sorry for your loss.

But here's the thing -- women who are told that they are pregnant, but then it turns out that they only had a "blighted ovum" -- i.e. there never was a fertilized egg in there at all -- nevertheless grieve the loss of the potential child they thought they were having.

Women who are told they are pregnant with twins, and then, oops, the re was a chart mix up, actually they are only pregnant with a single baby -- never the less grieve for the loss of that baby they thought they were going to have.

So the fact that you grieve the loss of something, deeply, deeply mourn the loss -- doesn't make the embryo a baby, with human rights the same as a baby who is born.

And there is a BIG BIG difference between losing a pregnancy at 5 weeks post conception, and losing one at 38 weeks postconception. I do not mean t minimize anyone's loss, but losing a pregnancy once the child has starting kicking, and is capable of living outside the uterus, is just a much bigger deal, than losing a pregnancy at 5 weeks post conception.
[Post New]08/23/2010 22:47
Anonymous
aprilmayjune wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I hate to oversimplify but this is America and I don't want someone I've never met to have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. There are plenty of wonderful countries some of the PPs can relocate to if they wish to have such decisions made by others.


No problem. We'll keep it simple. You have a choice...whether or not to have sex. Don't have sex until you are ready to handle the responsibility that comes with it, i.e, the possibility that you could produce a new life.


Unfortunately, no one seems to follow through on that when it comes to their own daughters. I have seen too many pro-life Catholics who, when faced with a pregnant fifteen year old, take them to the clinic because they don't want her to screw up her life. She of course promised to not have sex until marriage, but that just translated into sex without contraception. And the irony is that the parents end up doing penance by devoting themselves even more to the pro-life cause. It's crazy.

So when I see a poster who says what you said, I say to myself that you probably had sex long before you were ready to be a mother. You just got lucky, and now that you are safely past those years, you are telling people to do what you did not.

If you want to write back and say you first had sex at 25 with your future husband, by all means do so. But I bet it's not true.


I am not the OP, and I wasn't 25, but I was 18, and it was with the man I knew that I was going to marry.. We used birth control but had also talked numerous times about what we would do and how we would change our lives should it have happened that way. I'm just saying that there ARE people with similar circumstances to what you mentioned. That being said, I have always been pro life, and we were indeed already married for a couple of years before we actually had our child, but I can confidently say that had it ever come up, I would never have aborted a pregnancy. Adoption is a beautiful solution to an unexpected pregnancy. Why does everyone seem to have forgotten about that?? Yes, you have to put up with pregnancy for 9 months, however, is that really that large a price to pay in order to be a HUGE blessing for another couple who may not be able to to create this gift for themselves.


Maybe it was true for you, but too many 18 year olds say the same thing with the best of intentions. And then they realize how young 18 really is, and how iffy 18 year old relationships are.
[Post New]08/24/2010 07:24
Anonymous
Can someone explain to me why this is a womens issue?
Women do not get pregnant by themselves all on their own.
Why are we not fighting with the men?

What is a disaster pregnancy? One where the man is doing his part? Or one where the man knows the girl will not be able to cope on her own and could not care less?

Either way, there is a difference between a pregnancy and a healthy new born baby. One has been born, the other is still a pregnancy and a lot can go wrong and until it is born, is not a baby
[Post New]08/24/2010 21:33
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Some of us who have had a miscarriage of a fetus at 6 or 8 or 10 weeks gestation really have a gut sense that this "cluster of cells" just isn't a "person" and yet we would very much agree that a fetus at 39 weeks gestation (or 28 weeks -- capable of possibly living on its own once born) is a "person". But there's a huge difference between the cluster of cells at 5 weeks or 8 weeks gestation, and a fully developed fetus at 37 or 38 weeks.


Some of us who have had a miscarriage at 6 or 8 or 10 weeks cried our eyes out, because we recognized that we had lost our baby, not a meaningless "bunch of cells".


I cried my eyes out, too, at the loss of the potential child (actually potential children) I had been carrying. Amd I'm sorry for your loss.

But here's the thing -- women who are told that they are pregnant, but then it turns out that they only had a "blighted ovum" -- i.e. there never was a fertilized egg in there at all -- nevertheless grieve the loss of the potential child they thought they were having.

Women who are told they are pregnant with twins, and then, oops, the re was a chart mix up, actually they are only pregnant with a single baby -- never the less grieve for the loss of that baby they thought they were going to have.

So the fact that you grieve the loss of something, deeply, deeply mourn the loss -- doesn't make the embryo a baby, with human rights the same as a baby who is born.

And there is a BIG BIG difference between losing a pregnancy at 5 weeks post conception, and losing one at 38 weeks postconception. I do not mean t minimize anyone's loss, but losing a pregnancy once the child has starting kicking, and is capable of living outside the uterus, is just a much bigger deal, than losing a pregnancy at 5 weeks post conception.


Sorry for your loss, as well, but I must vehemently disagree. I didn't have a blighted ovum. I had a baby that stopped developing at a certain point. Saw it on the sono. A baby is a baby is a baby. That's how I feel. Do I disagree that my loss in the first trimester was probably not as hard on me in the long run as my two friends who lost babies at 7 mos? No, but I don't think that is a reason to say my baby wasn't a baby or was less of a baby. Human beings go through developmental stages inside and outside of the uterus, and I don't agree that what makes a human life depends on a cell count.
[Post New]08/24/2010 22:31
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why this is a womens issue?
Women do not get pregnant by themselves all on their own.
Why are we not fighting with the men?

What is a disaster pregnancy? One where the man is doing his part? Or one where the man knows the girl will not be able to cope on her own and could not care less?

Either way, there is a difference between a pregnancy and a healthy new born baby. One has been born, the other is still a pregnancy and a lot can go wrong and until it is born, is not a baby


You erroneously assumed that all of the posters are female.
[Post New]08/24/2010 22:38
Anonymous
Until men die while pregnant, I really don't think they have a say.
[Post New]08/25/2010 19:20
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Until men die while pregnant, I really don't think they have a say.


They really can't have a say until they can get pregnant and have babies.
[Post New]08/25/2010 19:35
aprilmayjune
Member Offline
So why should a man have to pay child support for a child that he may not have ever agreed to having, but not have the ability to offer to step up and be a single parent to a child who's mother doesn't want a child?
[Post New]08/25/2010 21:13
Anonymous
aprilmayjune wrote:So why should a man have to pay child support for a child that he may not have ever agreed to having, but not have the ability to offer to step up and be a single parent to a child who's mother doesn't want a child?


That's a whole different issue. Child support is something that is required for the best interest of the child. The parents' interests are irrelevant.
[Post New]08/25/2010 21:35
aprilmayjune
Member Offline
That is an example I'm using though, because Men have to take responsibility for a child that they had no interest in, and yet, if a woman is pregnant by a man who may want a child, can choose that she doesn't want the responsibility of pregnancy and just give it up without consulting him, that hardly seems fair.
[Post New]08/25/2010 21:36
Anonymous
aprilmayjune wrote:So why should a man have to pay child support for a child that he may not have ever agreed to having, but not have the ability to offer to step up and be a single parent to a child who's mother doesn't want a child?
While child support laws are very complicated and there may be some few instances where a man should not be forced to pay for child he never OK'd ( and when I say few, I mean VERY few), until a male person has the responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term within his own body, he really has no right to impose his opinion on a female person who does.
[Post New]08/25/2010 21:40
aprilmayjune
Member Offline
I disagree with this. If a man is willing to be a responsible father to that child (even if it means being a single father from the start) than he should have the ability to do so. I am very pro life, but my biggest problem with the whole thing is that there are a lot of women who look at pregnancy the same way they'd look at an object she can throw away or a job she can quit, when there are so many other options out there.
[Post New]08/25/2010 21:58
Anonymous
aprilmayjune wrote:That is an example I'm using though, because Men have to take responsibility for a child that they had no interest in, and yet, if a woman is pregnant by a man who may want a child, can choose that she doesn't want the responsibility of pregnancy and just give it up without consulting him, that hardly seems fair.


The man had an inherent interest in the child because he had sex to begin with. Nobody (men or women) should be having sex without understanding that there's a high likelihood that pregnancy will result. Almost half of all pregnancies are unplanned.

The difference between the "say" a man or woman has over terminating a pregnancy is that the woman is the one who is in danger. The man never is. A pregnant woman is at risk of stroke, embolism, kidney dysfunction, or other disability -- or even death. In my circle of friends/aquaintances, whom I consider to be relatively average people, three women almost died from pregnancy (including me) and one did die from the health impacts of pregnancy. In addition, the leading cause of maternal death is murder. I know it's normal to think that everyone who gets pregnant is in a position to safely carry the baby to term, but that's not the case. Pregnancy often escalates an abusive relationship. It increases the risk of suicide as well. Whether we like it or not, pregnancy is inherently risky to the woman. As such, a woman should have 100% control over her health and welfare. Not the man. And IMO, not the law, either.
[Post New]08/25/2010 22:53
aprilmayjune
Member Offline
You're talking like the majority of pregnancies result in these kinds of health problems, and your wrong. A 2005 survey found that 18 percent of abortions performed in the US were to teenagers, and you're right, nearly half of US pregnancies are unplanned, and 4 in 10 are aborted. 22% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriage) ended in abortion. 75% of women interviewed said their reasons for having an abortion were either financial reasons, how it would affect their career, don't want to be a single parent, or are having problems with their current partner. Half of the women interviewed during this study had at least one abortion previous.


So it's one thing to say that a woman is in danger health wise, but this study (and others like it) show me that the majority of abortions are performed for very selfish reasons, and there are ways around all of the reasons that the study listed above, and that's what I have a problems with. You're talking about a baby.. not a something you bought at the store that you want a refund on, or a piece of trash that you want to throw away.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics