Abortion

Gloria · Aug 8th 2013, 6:57pm

I'm pro choice in any case, because it's really none of my business whether a woman aborts or not.

DamnImGood · Aug 9th 2013, 4:16am

Damn it feels good to live in Canada.

Criminal Code of Canada wrote:

When child becomes human being

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

Scaredycrow · Aug 10th 2013, 12:34am

Leonodas wrote:

Not as black and white as it once was, is it?

Leonodas wrote:

Abortion can't be circumstantial if you want to realistically consider having it be legal or illegal. You can't say one of these should be illegal and so should the other -- it doesn't work like that. It's about what you truly believe about abortion.

Leonodas wrote:

For me, abortion is one extreme or the other (aside from if it is determined that the mother is at risk) because if you make an argument for one part, you can't really have it differently another way. You either permit it or you don't. Trying to meet in the middle is seriously impossible, which is unfortunate because efficient lie/rape detectors would probably solve the problem. No, these things do not and probably won't exist for some time.

You're the one making it black and white, so everyone's complaints about this thread are reasonable. There is are many possible ways to "meet in the middle," although which way is correct is still up for debate. Some people believe it's only okay before the fetus is viable, and some countries even have laws permitting it only up to a certain point in gestation or after that, only in certain circumstances.

I want to know where we draw the line with abortion. At birth? Later? In your opinion, it appears to be before birth, but would you support after-birth abortions? At what age would it be wrong to abort?

Some people draw it with viability (although this is more of a grey area); DIG also provided a sound definition without a blurry line.

Leonodas · Aug 10th 2013, 2:28am

Scaredycrow wrote:

You're the one making it black and white, so everyone's complaints about this thread are reasonable. There is are many possible ways to "meet in the middle," although which way is correct is still up for debate. Some people believe it's only okay before the fetus is viable, and some countries even have laws permitting it only up to a certain point in gestation or after that, only in certain circumstances.

Some people draw it with viability (although this is more of a grey area); DIG also provided a sound definition without a blurry line.

Fair.

bill99 · Aug 17th 2013, 3:52am

why would somebody want to kill a baby and yet we say we live in a society

Leonodas · Aug 17th 2013, 1:42pm

Scaredycrow wrote:

You're the one making it black and white, so everyone's complaints about this thread are reasonable. There is are many possible ways to "meet in the middle," although which way is correct is still up for debate. Some people believe it's only okay before the fetus is viable, and some countries even have laws permitting it only up to a certain point in gestation or after that, only in certain circumstances.

Some people draw it with viability (although this is more of a grey area); DIG also provided a sound definition without a blurry line.

Honestly, that's the point of the thread. Most people think of it in terms of black and white. Pro-choice or pro-life. We're all somewhere in the middle, aren't we? The choices are extreme because unless you're totally convicted in your beliefs, you won't pick them. You won't agree.

I wanted us all to find middle ground, to see that even "Pro-life" and "Pro-Choice" people can agree on some things.

Shonna · Aug 17th 2013, 3:01pm

At the end of the day, our opinions on it really don't matter.
Fact of the matter is, at least in Canada(thank fuck for Canada) people have a basic human right to choose what they want to happen to their own bodies. Any law that takes that choice away, in the law's eyes infringes upon that right.

As a fetus is, by law, NOT considered a human being until it is separated(as in the umbilical cord is cut) from the mother, it has NO rights as a human being, so the law essentially is on the pro-choice side and that's really all there is to it.

Pro-lifers can protest it all they want, but all they have is some "morality" argument, when really, everyone HAS morals, they just differ from person to person. Some may call me immoral because I am pro-choice, but unless said pro-lifer intends to fight for that fetus and the mother after birth and make sure it's provided for and properly cared for, they are not pro-life; they are just pro-birth.

Unless a pro-lifer were to be willing to face certain death just to birth their child, they are simply pro-life until they face certain undesirable repercussions of their choice which is exactly one of the arguments they use against pro-choicers.

As for us pro-choicers, many of us have moral arguments for our views. Whether pro-lifers agree whether it is moral or not is irrelevant. As well, we also have the law on our side.
What do you pro-lifers have?

Leonodas · Aug 17th 2013, 3:21pm

Shonna wrote:

At the end of the day, our opinions on it really don't matter.
Fact of the matter is, at least in Canada(thank fuck for Canada) people have a basic human right to choose what they want to happen to their own bodies. Any law that takes that choice away, in the law's eyes infringes upon that right.

As a fetus is, by law, NOT considered a human being until it is separated(as in the umbilical cord is cut) from the mother, it has NO rights as a human being, so the law essentially is on the pro-choice side and that's really all there is to it.

Pro-lifers can protest it all they want, but all they have is some "morality" argument, when really, everyone HAS morals, they just differ from person to person. Some may call me immoral because I am pro-choice, but unless said pro-lifer intends to fight for that fetus and the mother after birth and make sure it's provided for and properly cared for, they are not pro-life; they are just pro-birth.

Unless a pro-lifer were to be willing to face certain death just to birth their child, they are simply pro-life until they face certain undesirable repercussions of their choice which is exactly one of the arguments they use against pro-choicers.

As for us pro-choicers, many of us have moral arguments for our views. Whether pro-lifers agree whether it is moral or not is irrelevant. As well, we also have the law on our side.
What do you pro-lifers have?

I'd say there's more than just moral arguments to made from pro-life. Assuming that that's all they have is a straw-man argument and a weak one at that.

It comes down to what you consider human. Some pro-life people would attest it begins when the heart starts beating.

Some say it starts later. Some, at conception.

We can play with abstract notions of what is life and what is not all we want, but really maybe a woman should be permitted to "abort" her child up to a year after birth. Maybe it's not working out. Maybe it won't be good for the child. After all, the baby is still entirely dependent on her and possibly the father.

There is no "one size fits all" when defining life. I'll let the politicians sort it out. Personally I am against abortion because of the way it impacted myself and my family. But politically, let the woman have her abortion. Let her live with the consequences. I feel no sympathy, because conscience decisions like that deserve none.

If that model works for Canada, great. Different country, different politics. There is no be-all-end-all.

Edit: I've been saying pro-life a lot, as have we all. While it's a convenient way to look at the one side or the other, it's also a vast generalization which defeats the purpose of the poll. Few people are entirely pro-choice or pro-life, so using those terms are intellectually dishonest.

Emily · Aug 17th 2013, 3:53pm

bill99 wrote:

why would somebody want to kill a baby and yet we say we live in a society

all the power to you babycakes

Gloria · Aug 17th 2013, 5:04pm

bill99 wrote:

why would somebody want to kill a baby and yet we say we live in a society

Someone would want to abort an embryo before it's an actual baby because they don't want to carry it around for 9 months in their body and then take care of it for 18 years.
Is that hard to understand? Someone just doesn't want the responsibility and the hard times that come with all of it. Maybe you wouldn't mind carrying something in your stomach for 9 months, but many people would.

Leonodas · Aug 17th 2013, 5:17pm

Gloria wrote:

Someone would want to abort an embryo before it's an actual baby because they don't want to carry it around for 9 months in their body and then take care of it for 18 years.
Is that hard to understand? Someone just doesn't want the responsibility and the hard times that come with all of it. Maybe you wouldn't mind carrying something in your stomach for 9 months, but many people would.

So my question (which no one has answered, of course) is, why can't a mother also abort a baby under the age of 1? Or 2? They're still dependent, aren't they? Shouldn't it be up to the parents' good judgement whether or not they keep this child?

Shonna · Aug 17th 2013, 5:35pm

Leonodas wrote:

I'd say there's more than just moral arguments to made from pro-life. Assuming that that's all they have is a straw-man argument and a weak one at that.

It comes down to what you consider human. Some pro-life people would attest it begins when the heart starts beating.

Some say it starts later. Some, at conception.

We can play with abstract notions of what is life and what is not all we want, but really maybe a woman should be permitted to "abort" her child up to a year after birth. Maybe it's not working out. Maybe it won't be good for the child. After all, the baby is still entirely dependent on her and possibly the father.

There is no "one size fits all" when defining life. I'll let the politicians sort it out. Personally I am against abortion because of the way it impacted myself and my family. But politically, let the woman have her abortion. Let her live with the consequences. I feel no sympathy, because conscience decisions like that deserve none.

If that model works for Canada, great. Different country, different politics. There is no be-all-end-all.

Edit: I've been saying pro-life a lot, as have we all. While it's a convenient way to look at the one side or the other, it's also a vast generalization which defeats the purpose of the poll. Few people are entirely pro-choice or pro-life, so using those terms are intellectually dishonest.

Personally, all arguments made to me in regards to pro-life, have been moral ones or "What if" situations, which are just as paper thin.

The thing is though, it doesn't really matter what we think constitutes "life" in regards to a fetus which is my point. Our law says it is not life until separated from the mother, so regardless of our feelings on the matter, it legally is not life until then.(in my country) Obviously these laws differ from place to place, but unless abortion is outlawed entirely, there clearly is a legal point at which a fetus is considered a life, and our personal views don't change that fact so Why pro-lifers feel the need to condemn people for exercising their basic human rights instead of the people who gave us these rights in the first place, Idek, but it's pointless. The only thing it achieves is belittling someone and potentially limits what they think their choices are in that situation. It doesn't help them whatsoever to feel trapped and forced to choose between two things simply to avoid being shunned by society.

As for your hypothetical "year after birth" scenario, at that point it would be considered infanticide, which is in fact illegal in all developed countries that I can think of so it's sort of irrelevant.
I do agree with you about letting people live with the consequences though. People seem to think abortion is some easy way out, but the majority of people who have abortions suffer long term psychological effects that they have to live with.
Personally, I was never one of them. I knew when I made my choice it was the best choice I could have made at the time and because I had absolutely no doubts about my choice going into it and only a strong support network behind me rather than people telling me not to do it, I'm the better for it. Doesn't mean it was "easy" or that I wasn't "facing consequences", I just knew what was best for everyone involved.

I agree with your edit.
Personally, I am 110% pro-choice, regardless of circumstances.
However, IMO if you call yourself pro-life(Ahem PINK) but are not willing to face certain death to bring life(or even the possibility of bringing life to your child) than you are not 100% pro-life.
You are only pro-birth until you face your limit for undesirable consequences.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

Leonodas wrote:

So my question (which no one has answered, of course) is, why can't a mother also abort a baby under the age of 1? Or 2? They're still dependent, aren't they? Shouldn't it be up to the parents' good judgement whether or not they keep this child?

Again, because at that point it is considered infanticide, which is illegal.
At no point is there a "grey area" in which this is NOT illegal in most countries unlike abortion.
As well, what about seniors with Dementia or other ailments? They are indeed also dependent on others to survive, however by definition, killing them is still murder because they are by legal standards, human beings.

Emily · Aug 17th 2013, 5:50pm

Shonna wrote:

Personally, all arguments made to me in regards to pro-life, have been moral ones or "What if" situations, which are just as paper thin.

The thing is though, it doesn't really matter what we think constitutes "life" in regards to a fetus which is my point. Our law says it is not life until separated from the mother, so regardless of our feelings on the matter, it legally is not life until then.(in my country) Obviously these laws differ from place to place, but unless abortion is outlawed entirely, there clearly is a legal point at which a fetus is considered a life, and our personal views don't change that fact so Why pro-lifers feel the need to condemn people for exercising their basic human rights instead of the people who gave us these rights in the first place, Idek, but it's pointless. The only thing it achieves is belittling someone and potentially limits what they think their choices are in that situation. It doesn't help them whatsoever to feel trapped and forced to choose between two things simply to avoid being shunned by society.

As for your hypothetical "year after birth" scenario, at that point it would be considered infanticide, which is in fact illegal in all developed countries that I can think of so it's sort of irrelevant.
I do agree with you about letting people live with the consequences though. People seem to think abortion is some easy way out, but the majority of people who have abortions suffer long term psychological effects that they have to live with.
Personally, I was never one of them. I knew when I made my choice it was the best choice I could have made at the time and because I had absolutely no doubts about my choice going into it and only a strong support network behind me rather than people telling me not to do it, I'm the better for it. Doesn't mean it was "easy" or that I wasn't "facing consequences", I just knew what was best for everyone involved.

I agree with your edit.
Personally, I am 110% pro-choice, regardless of circumstances.
However, IMO if you call yourself pro-life(Ahem PINK) but are not willing to face certain death to bring life(or even the possibility of bringing life to your child) than you are not 100% pro-life.
You are only pro-birth until you face your limit for undesirable consequences.

---------- Post added at 10:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

Again, because at that point it is considered infanticide, which is illegal.
At no point is there a "grey area" in which this is NOT illegal in most countries unlike abortion.
As well, what about seniors with Dementia or other ailments? They are indeed also dependent on others to survive, however by definition, killing them is still murder because they are by legal standards, human beings.

bitch I said only if the doctor knows 1000000% that either myself of my child will die.

Leonodas · Aug 17th 2013, 5:52pm

Shonna wrote:

snip

It's a law in Canada, but it's still debated here in the United States. Since there is no sweeping resolution to the issue, it's still up for discussion and the moral/"personal" arguments are really all we have to go by at this point.

Pro-life wants to force their ideology on everyone.

Pro-choice wants to force their ideology on everyone.

We're all forcing, there's no good or bad. I say, let it be a state issue. Let a state choose whether it wants to permit abortion or not. No federal mandates, no mess.

Shonna · Aug 17th 2013, 6:02pm

Leonodas wrote:

It's a law in Canada, but it's still debated here in the United States. Since there is no sweeping resolution to the issue, it's still up for discussion and the moral/"personal" arguments are really all we have to go by at this point.

Pro-life wants to force their ideology on everyone.

Pro-choice wants to force their ideology on everyone.

We're all forcing, there's no good or bad. I say, let it be a state issue. Let a state choose whether it wants to permit abortion or not. No federal mandates, no mess.

As far as I know, it IS a state issue already, as I believe one state(at least) has already outlawed it, no?

Also, pro-choice (you know, the logical ones anyway) do not try to force their ideology on anyone. We leave that for the pro-lifers.

Do I support Abortion over adoption in many cases? Yes.
Do I support Abortion over some shitty unfit person raising a child? Yes.
However, it isn't my choice to make, or yours. It is also not our place to shun them simply because they make a legal choice we do not agree with.
It's the woman in the situation and IMO, they deserve to make that choice free from persecution.
IMO, whether we identify as pro choice or pro-life, if we're passionate enough about these issues to debate them like this, we should be passionate enough to want to help the women in these situations make the best choice possible for THEM, not just try to force our personal beliefs on them.

However pro-choice is just that. Supporting a woman's right to choice. Whether that be to abort,put up for adoption or raise the child.

Pro choice=/=pro abortion which for some reason is what people seem to think.

Leonodas · Aug 17th 2013, 6:46pm

Shonna wrote:

As far as I know, it IS a state issue already, as I believe one state(at least) has already outlawed it, no?

Also, pro-choice (you know, the logical ones anyway) do not try to force their ideology on anyone. We leave that for the pro-lifers.

Do I support Abortion over adoption in many cases? Yes.
Do I support Abortion over some shitty unfit person raising a child? Yes.
However, it isn't my choice to make, or yours. It is also not our place to shun them simply because they make a legal choice we do not agree with.
It's the woman in the situation and IMO, they deserve to make that choice free from persecution.
IMO, whether we identify as pro choice or pro-life, if we're passionate enough about these issues to debate them like this, we should be passionate enough to want to help the women in these situations make the best choice possible for THEM, not just try to force our personal beliefs on them.

However pro-choice is just that. Supporting a woman's right to choice. Whether that be to abort,put up for adoption or raise the child.

Pro choice=/=pro abortion which for some reason is what people seem to think.

Pro-choice doesn't represent the prospective child. It didn't represent me when I was almost aborted (my father convinced her otherwise). It didn't represent my sibling when they were aborted by my wealthy, privileged ex-stepmother.

Pro-life doesn't take into consideration the feelings of the women, but neither does pro-choice take into consideration the termination of prospective life. Get off your moral high horse (ironically, since you also condemn pro-lifers for such a thing). Face it, you're both the same.

Everyone is forcing. There is no moral black and white here. Both of the arguments have legitimacy. As I said (and you concluded upon), states are in control based on what their population wants to see. If they want abortion, then they'll enable it. If they don't, they'll outlaw it. It should never become a federal issue.

Since there's no chance of it becoming morally trivial, allowing the population to vote/state legislatures to decide is the only course of action we can realistically take. I would say make it even more local, but then it's just not realistic that way either. It's a larger issue.

Shonna · Aug 17th 2013, 7:22pm

Leonodas wrote:

Pro-choice doesn't represent the prospective child. It didn't represent me when I was almost aborted (my father convinced her otherwise). It didn't represent my sibling when they were aborted by my wealthy, privileged ex-stepmother.

Pro-life doesn't take into consideration the feelings of the women, but neither does pro-choice take into consideration the termination of prospective life. Get off your moral high horse (ironically, since you also condemn pro-lifers for such a thing). Face it, you're both the same.

Everyone is forcing. There is no moral black and white here. Both of the arguments have legitimacy. As I said (and you concluded upon), states are in control based on what their population wants to see. If they want abortion, then they'll enable it. If they don't, they'll outlaw it. It should never become a federal issue.

Since there's no chance of it becoming morally trivial, allowing the population to vote/state legislatures to decide is the only course of action we can realistically take. I would say make it even more local, but then it's just not realistic that way either. It's a larger issue.

It depends on which way you look at it.
Personally, my birth mother SHOULD have aborted me due to the health issues her drug addiction left me with. You are looking at abortion as only benefiting the woman when in reality, there are many cases where it would be kinder for the prospective child as well.

Should a woman bring a child into the world if she's completely unfit,too selfish to put it up for adoption and give it a chance to find a proper home, but cannot adequately provide for it either emotionally or financially?

Should a child be brought into the world if they are going to have life debilitating illnesses or disabilities to the point where they can't even enjoy the fact that they HAVE life at all?

Should it be brought into the world if mother and doctors are fully aware that the child will only live for a couple of years and be a complete vegetable,hooked up to life support for the entire time?

Personally, having been in the foster/adoption system myself, it is not as wonderful as people make it out to be, and it would quite honestly be my absolute LAST choice for a child in the vast majority of cases. When I had my abortion, I was living in a 4 floor walk up with 3 other people, a bunch of pets and going into debt faster than I could even make money just to pay my bills despite having a university degree. I would NOT have been a fit parent at the time not because I wanted to party and shit(as I'm not a partier) but because I simply would have been unable to provide and unwilling to put a child in the foster care system. To me, I was doing what was best for everyone involved, including my embryo, as that is not the sort of life I would wish on anyone, especially a child who has no choice but to live the life the parent gives them.

Pro-life on the other hand does not only NOT take into consideration the feelings and well being of the mother(other than to scare her with "You'll feel like shit for murdering your child blah blah blah), but as I said already, once the child is born, they don't give a shit as their job is done.
They are pro-birth, not pro-life.
If they are going to shun someone into NOT aborting their child, they should also be responsible for ensuring that child is well cared and provided for and not living some shitty, fucked up life because of that person's choice of forcing their personal beliefs on them.
However, I don't see them doing that. Do you?

Leonodas · Aug 18th 2013, 3:53am

Shonna wrote:

It depends on which way you look at it.
Personally, my birth mother SHOULD have aborted me due to the health issues her drug addiction left me with. You are looking at abortion as only benefiting the woman when in reality, there are many cases where it would be kinder for the prospective child as well.

Should a woman bring a child into the world if she's completely unfit,too selfish to put it up for adoption and give it a chance to find a proper home, but cannot adequately provide for it either emotionally or financially?

Should a child be brought into the world if they are going to have life debilitating illnesses or disabilities to the point where they can't even enjoy the fact that they HAVE life at all?

Should it be brought into the world if mother and doctors are fully aware that the child will only live for a couple of years and be a complete vegetable,hooked up to life support for the entire time?

Personally, having been in the foster/adoption system myself, it is not as wonderful as people make it out to be, and it would quite honestly be my absolute LAST choice for a child in the vast majority of cases. When I had my abortion, I was living in a 4 floor walk up with 3 other people, a bunch of pets and going into debt faster than I could even make money just to pay my bills despite having a university degree. I would NOT have been a fit parent at the time not because I wanted to party and shit(as I'm not a partier) but because I simply would have been unable to provide and unwilling to put a child in the foster care system. To me, I was doing what was best for everyone involved, including my embryo, as that is not the sort of life I would wish on anyone, especially a child who has no choice but to live the life the parent gives them.

Pro-life on the other hand does not only NOT take into consideration the feelings and well being of the mother(other than to scare her with "You'll feel like shit for murdering your child blah blah blah), but as I said already, once the child is born, they don't give a shit as their job is done.
They are pro-birth, not pro-life.
If they are going to shun someone into NOT aborting their child, they should also be responsible for ensuring that child is well cared and provided for and not living some shitty, fucked up life because of that person's choice of forcing their personal beliefs on them.
However, I don't see them doing that. Do you?

Again, it's not good to generalize one side of the argument regardless. That's typical pro-choice bullshit slander with no basis in empirical fact. I could just as well say that most pro-lifers DO care about people after they are born and would gladly adopt. There's actually a pretty long waiting list of people wanting to adopt a child and they aren't picky either -- mentally disabled, rape, unwanted; it doesn't matter.

Anyway, who decides whether a child will "enjoy" their life or not? Who decides whether a parent is fit? Who makes that distinction? You? Me? A bureaucrat sitting in some office somewhere? I guess it comes down to the mother, right? I've met plenty of mentally retarded/disabled/handicapped people. I have a couple in JROTC with me, actually. The one, whose name is Bailey McDowell, is a nice girl, would say hello, be polite, and would be respectful. She also asks lots of obvious/specific questions. Last year, when I was the Unit Chaplin (in ours, that's basically counselor/personal helper), I administered to her special needs often -- she's autistic. Freaks out at the smallest noise. Had problems with learning, looking up when she walked, actually marching correctly -- that stuff. Now, considering that she's clearly "retarded" (strongly autistic), do you think she should have been aborted?

Some children ARE born vegetables. Consider the children who were born without brains, after all. Still, you look at them and (I assume) you think: Now they definitely should have been aborted! And why? Like I said, adoptive parents have no qualms with that and would straight up adopt that baby, even if it was only given a few years to live. I guarantee you that illness, retardation, etc. is NOT a bar to success and happiness in life; if you honestly believe that, then maybe you need to re-evaluate where your own life is at. You're alive now; do you appreciate the fact that you are alive? You say it would have been best that you had been aborted, but then you would not be here, discussing this with me. You would never know your first breath. You would never know the happy times you had. You had pain, but pain is expected in life from us all, some more than others.

A lot of children that would appear to grow up in "terrible" homes also grow up to be happy, one way or another. They don't just go their whole lives without happiness. It just doesn't happen that way. And then the flip side: children that grow up in the "perfect" home can have their lives be quite tragic and depressing. No one can predict fate itself. Things just...happen.

I haven't found information yet on just why the adoption process is so expensive and long, but I'm guessing that it has a lot to do with federal bureaucracy, red tape, all that nonsense. That's government for you.

Your story of how you were in the adoption system -- it's not one I would wish for a child to repeat. You say you should have been aborted. But I don't. I don't because then how would be able to talk to you now? How would I, and those on this forum, be able to appreciate your presence and conversation if you were not here? If your aborted? You may argue that since we never knew you, it's irrelevant -- but it's not. It's totally relevant, because you add something to this forum and to the lives of others in your own reality, your personal life, something good and bad and all in between (that is -- human). You add to the symphony of life, in all it's forms, with your own story and voice.

Now tell me: Knowing that you add something to all of our lives in a special way, your own way, would you also want to silence the songs of the lives of others?

Shonna · Aug 18th 2013, 12:21pm

Leonodas wrote:

Again, it's not good to generalize one side of the argument regardless. That's typical pro-choice bullshit slander with no basis in empirical fact. I could just as well say that most pro-lifers DO care about people after they are born and would gladly adopt. There's actually a pretty long waiting list of people wanting to adopt a child and they aren't picky either -- mentally disabled, rape, unwanted; it doesn't matter.

Anyway, who decides whether a child will "enjoy" their life or not? Who decides whether a parent is fit? Who makes that distinction? You? Me? A bureaucrat sitting in some office somewhere? I guess it comes down to the mother, right? I've met plenty of mentally retarded/disabled/handicapped people. I have a couple in JROTC with me, actually. The one, whose name is Bailey McDowell, is a nice girl, would say hello, be polite, and would be respectful. She also asks lots of obvious/specific questions. Last year, when I was the Unit Chaplin (in ours, that's basically counselor/personal helper), I administered to her special needs often -- she's autistic. Freaks out at the smallest noise. Had problems with learning, looking up when she walked, actually marching correctly -- that stuff. Now, considering that she's clearly "retarded" (strongly autistic), do you think she should have been aborted?

Some children ARE born vegetables. Consider the children who were born without brains, after all. Still, you look at them and (I assume) you think: Now they definitely should have been aborted! And why? Like I said, adoptive parents have no qualms with that and would straight up adopt that baby, even if it was only given a few years to live. I guarantee you that illness, retardation, etc. is NOT a bar to success and happiness in life; if you honestly believe that, then maybe you need to re-evaluate where your own life is at. You're alive now; do you appreciate the fact that you are alive? You say it would have been best that you had been aborted, but then you would not be here, discussing this with me. You would never know your first breath. You would never know the happy times you had. You had pain, but pain is expected in life from us all, some more than others.

A lot of children that would appear to grow up in "terrible" homes also grow up to be happy, one way or another. They don't just go their whole lives without happiness. It just doesn't happen that way. And then the flip side: children that grow up in the "perfect" home can have their lives be quite tragic and depressing. No one can predict fate itself. Things just...happen.

I haven't found information yet on just why the adoption process is so expensive and long, but I'm guessing that it has a lot to do with federal bureaucracy, red tape, all that nonsense. That's government for you.

Your story of how you were in the adoption system -- it's not one I would wish for a child to repeat. You say you should have been aborted. But I don't. I don't because then how would be able to talk to you now? How would I, and those on this forum, be able to appreciate your presence and conversation if you were not here? If your aborted? You may argue that since we never knew you, it's irrelevant -- but it's not. It's totally relevant, because you add something to this forum and to the lives of others in your own reality, your personal life, something good and bad and all in between (that is -- human). You add to the symphony of life, in all it's forms, with your own story and voice.

Now tell me: Knowing that you add something to all of our lives in a special way, your own way, would you also want to silence the songs of the lives of others?

Actually, one of the main reasons the waiting list is so long is because people shop for kids like they shop for cars.
Blond haired blue eyed girls are the most requested traits in adoptable children and people are willing to wait years. My parents themselves waited 10 years for my brother to become "available" for the traits they wanted, and another 6 years for their second child who was ultimately, taken back by the birth mother. At that point, they didn't care about "traits" or issues and a few weeks later, they were able to meet me and a few months later, start the adoption process. Children with medical or mental issues account for approximately 1% of all adopted children; that's less than black children who account for about double that percentage and its nearly unheard of for black children to get out of the foster care system once they're in it.

As well, in places like the states where many have to pay for their health care, most people couldn't afford to adopt a child with medical/mental issues anyway. If my family had to pay for healthcare, my parents would have been about $2,000,000 in debt just for my medical bills by the time I turned 11.

IMO, as doctors are trained extensively in their specific fields, I'd be perfectly comfortable leaving it up to them to determine whether my child would have the mental ability to actually enjoy their life and make my decision to abort or not based on their assessment.
Also, legally speaking, Child services,physiologists etc have the right to declare a mother "unfit".
As well, socially speaking, we would not consider a woman who leaves her young child home alone day after day to go out and party, abuse drugs etc to be fit to raise that child.
Unless you would?

As for the Autistic girl you speak of, Autism, even in it's severest form still allows the sufferer enough normal brain function to live a somewhat normal life and do things they enjoy. Living as a vegetable without even enough brain function to keep organs working without the help of machines? Not so much.

As for whether she should have been aborted? That's a personal opinion; again, one that I would base upon a doctor's evaluation, however Autism is not one of the mental issues that can be detected before birth, so the discussion of abortion in that case is irrelevant.
Something like Down Syndrome on the other hand, which can be detected before birth; Yes, I would abort.
For someone who works in healthcare and knows the illnesses and complications that go along with down syndrome, it is one of the disabilities I would never wish on another human being. Not only does it severely affect the sufferer mentally, but it comes with a long list of miserable physical ailments as well, and a severely shortened lifespan.

As for my adoption story, While I appreciate your kind words, I just dont see it that way. I look at things in a realistic and rational way, I always have.
Am I glad NOW that I wasn't aborted?
Of course. But I also am completely aware that my particular set of circumstances are WILDLY different than 95% of other foster kids in similar situations. I was one of the very few who got adopted in the first place. That adoption got me the surgeries I needed in order to live when before I was adopted, I wasn't very high on the priority list because I was just a foster kid and would likely never get adopted due to the health issues anyway.

You're making it into a "what if" scenario if I was aborted, you wouldn't know me so there is no way for you to feel like you're "missing" something about me because I would have never existed.
I deal in facts, not "what ifs" and possibilities.
If it wasn't me adding something special to someone's life, it would be someone else adding something special to someone's life. That's just how I see it because I can look at it rationally instead of emotionally.

Tvman147 · Aug 18th 2013, 4:42pm

Shonna wrote:

If it wasn't me adding something special to someone's life, it would be someone else adding something special to someone's life. That's just how I see it because I can look at it rationally instead of emotionally.

THANK YOU! Most people seem to look at scenarios emotionally and don't apply logical thought to it. I agree with everything you have said so far.

Share