h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How about pro-choicers being forced to pay for the (currently public funded) abortions? Why should my tax money go to pay for something I hold to be morally repugnant? The real motiuve of pro-lifers is not to punish the mother, but to spare the death of a child. While we're on the subject of pro-choicers, how come they find it morally ok to murder an unborn innocent child who has caused no harm to anyone, but typically scream bloody murder if someone mentions the death sentence for criminals? What's that about?

I think part of the disagreement is the pro-lifers feel that life of any sort is better than no life whatsoever. Pro-choice people believe it is possible to have a quality of life so low that never being born is preferable.

I don't know anyone who believes the child must be born to 'punish' the mother. It would seem patently unfair even to most pro-lifers, I think, to force a child to stay in a home where they aren't wanted. In other words, the child is punished at least as much as the mother in that case -- if not more. Most pro-lifers rather consider adoption a fair alternative.

I have known three adopted people extremely well. Two of them have told me right out that they often wish they had never been born. The third is greatful that he was given a chance at life.

The difference is that the happy third child was raised in a supportive family and was allowed to meet his birth mother as an adult. One of the first two was shifted from one foster family to another, some of which sexually abused her, hit her, or were neglectful. This is common in the US. The third was put into a seemingly positive home environment, but experienced a lifetime of subtle discrimination by his parents. Once they had a biological child a year after adopting him, they no longer felt a 'need' for the adopted son. His biological mother refuses to meet him.

I personally feel that adoption only works to the point where society is able to absorb the additional children. Once you reach a point where enough good homes can't be located, abortion stops being a fair option. In the US, we are talking about one additional child in our society for every four women if abortions suddenly stopped happening. Personally, I have serious doubts about whether one in four families is ready and able to adopt.

On another note, I am perfectly okay being taxed to provide abortions to low-income women. They are often the ones who will be the most overburdened by a child coming into their lives, and they are the least able to pay. I would be willing to pay, say, $200 more in taxes a year -- easily -- to help them. I would have to counter with a similar question for pro-lifers. How many of them would be willing to adopt one or more children to help control the overpopulation?

My main disagreement with what has been said I believe goes back to a question of rhetoric. It has been said that a woman should choose whether she wants a child or not. I agree. The problem is, once the child is concieved, she has a child. How can I know what is best for the child? I can't. I believe that the child should be able to choose for themselves.

My main disagreement with what has been said I believe goes back to a question of rhetoric. It has been said that a woman should choose whether she wants a child or not. I agree. The problem is, once the child is concieved, she has a child. How can I know what is best for the child? I can't. I believe that the child should be able to choose for themselves.

But how can they? They certainly can't "choose" from inside the womb. And by the time they are old enough to understand death, it's a bit late, wouldn't you think? I mean, we can't go back and retroactively grant their wish to have never been born if that's what they decide.

We allow parents and the court system to make all sorts of medical and lifestyle choices for young children *because the children are considered unable to make the choices for themselves.* In my mind, telling me you want a foetus/baby to decide whether it will live or not is patently ridiculous. It can't even speak, and has no idea what is going on around it.

I was referring to the often-stated opinion that it is not fair to bring up a child in a bad environment. This is choosing for the child. If you tout the name pro-choice, then you must respect the choices of everyone. An un-born child does not wish death or pain. During a late-term abortion procedure, the child recoils away from the implement of its destruction just like an animal would from something dangerous. This shows to me that the child does not want to die. Beyond this though, everyone has a right to life. Some have said that life is a gift. I agree. It is a gift that should not be taken away by convience or hardship.

An unborn child has the survival instinct, in the same way that unintelligent animals do. If it "recoils from the implement of its destruction," it is a reflex action and nothing more. Worms recoil when you touch them too, and indeed I have a plant outside my yard that does the same.

An unborn baby has no way of comprehending the outside world. It certainly can't guess what life will be like for it. Therefore, its action carries none of the thought and consideration that an adult's mind could lend.

If an unborn baby has no way of comprehending the outside world and can't guess what life will be like for it and this gives us the right to determine its future, what of a born child. How can a born child comprehend the outside world any better than a born one? How can it guess what life will be like for itself? Its actions carry none of the thought and consideration that an adult's mind could lend. I assume that you believe it would be wrong to kill the child then. Why is it all of a sudden not the mother's choice when the child is born? If it will live in hardship, why not be "compassionate" and kill it? Because it is a human being, and killing a human being is wrong. Being outside the womb does not make you human. If that were the only consideration, apes would be human. What makes the child human is its genetic code. This remains unchanged throughout the course of its life. From conception (physical birth) to physical death.

In fact, adults do still make decisions for children that have been born. The baby is given over for adoption after it has left the womb, for instance, and it does not get a say in the matter. Nobody asks the baby whether it wants to stay with its biological mother after all. What the baby may or may not want is considered irrelevant.

When divorce occurs, the custody of a baby is decided by adults who do not consult the child. Until the child can at least speak, its wishes are considered outside the concerns of parents and the court. How is it that a baby is considered incapable of deciding which of two well-known parents it prefers, but you believe it has the ability to decide whether a life it has never experienced will be worthwhile?

Under the veil of this common mantra is the assumption that life is always the preferable choice. The baby will *always* decide to live, of course. And if the baby can not make its wishes known, we are to assume that the baby has *always* opted for life. What other option could there possibly be?

I find it interesting, since many teenagers and full-grown adults do decide not to live. They commit suicide. Or they take drugs they know will eventually kill them. Or they put themselves in constant danger. This tells me that some people do indeed feel that life is not worth it. It is just that a baby can't tell yet, because it knows nothing whatsoever of life. Its limited ability to 'decide' anything is governed by an animal instinct that knows nothing of the modern world.

What is the difference between a baby in the womb and one that has been born? The former is a parasitical being. It literally lives inside another human, from whom it steals resources like food, water, and oxygen without which it couldn't survive for even a short period of time. The latter is an independent entity capable of at least limited survival. I am willing to call the latter a human being, but not necessarily the former.

I think that the idea that a miserable life is better than no life is an attitude and belief held by people who have known no real misery and suffering. Can anyone possibly think that a child would choose to live in an abusive or neglected environment? I think not. Children have the inborn ability to laugh, and play - miserable abused children do not do this.
I think we need, also, to make a distinction here between an early and a late term abortion. It is, to me, morally reprehensible to opt (eventually) for a late termination. It is a completely different story to talk about aborting a very early foetus which has no spinal chord and so on.
And I have to ask, why whenever I see a pro-lifer interviewed on tv, it is always some bearded hippy-type man. This is, primarily, a woman's issue. I often get the impression that this is yet another matter when men are telling women what to do. Plus ca change

If humans evolved from Monkeys and Apes... why are there still Monkeys and Apes?
(No that's not original...I saw it on another page but it seemed apropos here, yes)

sorry it took me awhile to get back to this one...

>>I was referring to the often-stated opinion that it is not fair to bring up a child in a bad environment.<<

it ISN'T fair to bring up a child in a bad environment. it is even more 'not fair' to bring up a child in a bad environment with a mother that doesn't want it and won't properly care for it. this is not only cruel, it is dangerous.

>>This is choosing for the child.<<

being a child is an excercise in lack of choice. yes, children get to make choices, but they are limited choices. and they are (especially at a younger age) choices that are given to them at their parents disgression. a child does not choose to get vaccinations. when you're less than a year old, they hurt and are scary. the parent chooses to get vaccinations for the child. a child does not get to choose what to wear (until they are older). even if a one year old wanted to wear the blue dress instead of the green one, she couldn't tell her mom that, and she couldn't put it on by herself. a child does not get to choose whether or not he wants to go to school. attending school is a requirement that is enforced by the parents. if the parents choose not to send their child to school, he doesn't go. if the parents choose to send their child to school, he goes whether he wants to or not. (trust me on this, i go through this on a daily basis). if a parent chooses to give a child a choice of what he wants for dinner, then a child can choose between limited options. if a parent doesn't give the child a choice, he has to eat whatever his parent cooks. period.

bottom line: children are at the mercy of whatever choices their parents make for them. this goes beyond the parent's choice for or against abortion. in many cases, parents are still making some choices for their children into the child's teenage years.

But the choice of killing the child ends at birth. You compaired the choice of abortion to dinner? What a child eats will not kill him/her, abortion will. As far as a child being a parasite, the child recieves nourishment from the mother and grows in her womb before birth. After birth, the child recieves nourishment from its caretakers and grows in their house. Is it still a parasite then? Does that give the child's caretakers the right to kill him/her?

no, i was not comparing abortion to dinner. i was setting various examples of choices that children do not get to make, and what dictates those choices.

and yes, it is possible that what a child eats will kill him or her. there are very poisonous things in a childs world.

i don't know how relevant you will find this to this conversation, i may in fact post it to the other as well, as that one has more participants. my mother works in the elementary school that i attended as a child. tonight, as we were taking my son to his school (not the same one) for his first christmas program, my mother mentioned to me that one of the students at her school attempted suicide yesterday. fortunately he was unsuccessful, but do you think maybe he wishes he hadn't been born? he is in fourth grade. some people just shouldn't bring children into this world. if he had succeeded, it would have been a much greater tragedy than any abortion ever will be.

I tried to interject some humor. I guess it didn't work very well

oh, yes.... levity. i believe i tried that too. didn't work for me either. maybe our emotions run so high on this issue that no one can really appreciate the occasional break that we must need.

so here, without further ado, is a humor break...

.....

......uuummmmmm

.....

gee, i don't think i know any jokes that wouldn't offend anyone. well, in this atmosphere anyway. well, if you need a laugh there is a thread somewhere titled "anyone heard any good jokes lately?". some of them are pretty good. if you have any trouble finding it, go to my site, it's one of the conversations i've posted to. you can follow a link from my page.

I know this thread is dead, and this remark fairly off topic, but to Abu Shenob's flippant comment on the gov't returning kids to abusive homes, that's actually sadly laughable, in the US, it is Federal law that congress pays a bonus for every successful removal of a child from their natural home, regardless of the situation. The situaution is more or less children of low income families are paid for by congress and given to higher income families. Makes you think twice about bringing life into the world at all.

But onto abortion, my PERSONAL belief is that abortion should be used only as a last resort, where contraception has failed, and carrying to term poses a HEALTH RISK (not loss of social status, respect, or girlish figure) to the mother. Adoption is a possibility, and I advocate it over abortoin anyday, despite my opinions of DYFS. Before I find a bunch of pro-choice picketers outside my stoop, it is also my opinion that my opinion on this subject is irrelevant, since as a man, it will be very, very dificult for me to get pregnant anytime in the forseeable future. Despite the valid point that men need to take part in the entire post-coital process, ranging from pregnancy to STD's, it goes against my nature to say that my views could be imposed on someone when its there health, their body, and overall their life in question. I'd throw my two cents in, but unless its my kid, I would leave it at that.

One last thing, just to pre-empt any qestions on what I would do if it were my kid, and the mother were considering abortion, I'd raise the kid. But that's just me.

The views presented here are the sole responsibility of That Oozing Green Stain, and do not necessarily represent those of the BBC, h2g2, or any sentient being, not even your mother-in-law.

well, maybe not my current mother in law, but you may know my ex mother in law
your position is admirable, as most men in these conversations have not let their gender slow them down a bit in insisting that abortion should be banned across the board.

i'm curious, where do you get your information about the u.s. government and the figures about removing children from low income homes?