|
|
Post by Kiddo on Oct 6, 2004 13:01:17 GMT -5
So aborting a baby is better on the mother's emotional health than giving it up for adoption?
Let me tell you something. I know a person who messed up when she was in highschool. Her parents told her to get an abortion and she did.
Now, over thirty years later, she is still suffering from the consequences of that.
She cannot have children. The abortion messed something up inside and now she's sterile. All her life she's wanted to have children and now she feels like she destroyed her one chance at it. The one child she could ever have - she killed.
When her piece of trash husband divorced her, that was one of the reasons he cited.
She's suffered from chronic depression, starting after the abortion. It's something that has haunted her for her entire adult life. Besides that, she still has some lingering medical complications from the abortion. It wasn't botched or anything - this stuff just happens to women who get abortions every now and then.
It hasn't just effected her either. Her parents, her mother in particular, still feel guilty about what happened. It is something that is shameful, hurtful, and like this horrible blotch on the family. She suffers because she killed her child, her parents suffer because they told her to.
This is something I'm not supposed to know. My parents told me in secret so that I would understand exactly why this woman cares about me so much - I'm her surrogate kid. I'm the child that was never born.
Abortion does more than just get rid of an unwanted child. A lot more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Oct 6, 2004 14:53:07 GMT -5
Ummm, actually, there's no way to abort an early embryo. The fetus has to be at least three months old before it's big enough to be aborted. I think by then the nerve cells have already developed, so it can actually FEEL what's happening to it. Read that from the papers. It was a girl who wanted an abortion, but was only two months pregnant and was told she had to wait for a month first. Well, there's a pill you can take that removes the foetus and from about five weeks, there's a variety of methods. It's mainly done with chemicals now, I believe. None of this "cutting up foetus with knives then scooping them out" so much anymore. So aborting a baby is better on the mother's emotional health than giving it up for adoption? Let me tell you something. I know a person who messed up when she was in highschool. Her parents told her to get an abortion and she did. Now, over thirty years later, she is still suffering from the consequences of that. She cannot have children. The abortion messed something up inside and now she's sterile. All her life she's wanted to have children and now she feels like she destroyed her one chance at it. The one child she could ever have - she killed. When her piece of trash husband divorced her, that was one of the reasons he cited. She's suffered from chronic depression, starting after the abortion. It's something that has haunted her for her entire adult life. Besides that, she still has some lingering medical complications from the abortion. It wasn't botched or anything - this stuff just happens to women who get abortions every now and then. It hasn't just effected her either. Her parents, her mother in particular, still feel guilty about what happened. It is something that is shameful, hurtful, and like this horrible blotch on the family. She suffers because she killed her child, her parents suffer because they told her to. This is something I'm not supposed to know. My parents told me in secret so that I would understand exactly why this woman cares about me so much - I'm her surrogate kid. I'm the child that was never born. Abortion does more than just get rid of an unwanted child. A lot more. I know a person who messed up in school too. She got an abortion, and moved on. She went to university, and held down a high powered job. She had two children later with a loving husband. She never regretted what she did. It's different for different people. I'm sorry to hear of that woman, and it's horribly, horribly unfortunate :/ According to this site www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm (seems nice and unbiased  ) infertility is really, really rare to get after abortions. Besides, I'd rather abortion was legal than women went back to back street abortionists. Making abortion illegal doesn't stop it happening - look at Ireland, for instance. Illegal clinics spring up, causing immense danger and health problems to the women involved. The question is not if you would abort, but if you would allow others to. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 6, 2004 16:04:46 GMT -5
Frankly, I would have little qualms over aborting an early embryo. It's easy to say "Just carry the child and then put it up for adoption" but not so easy to do. The stigma of nine months getting more and more pregnant, the pain of the birth, the pain of having your child taken away from you. But an early stage abortion - it's not even anything yet. And imagine carrying a child after you'd been raped. Looking at your child, and seeing the features of your rapist? It makes me shiver. The key thing is not seeing it as anything more than what it is - a bundle of cells, barely functional. It's when it becomes more baby like that I dislike abortion. While I do agree that there are certian cases; rape, a danger to the mother, etc, that warrent abortion as an option... I can not agree with the logic that it isn't a baby until it looks like a baby. It has human DNA, what else could it be? It is a human. Also, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? As early as four weeks, the embryo will develop a heart. Have you ever heard of any creature with a heart beat that wasn't alive? Well hey, if looking like a human is the only thing stopping you from killing it, what's wrong with killing animals? They don't smile, the don't look like a human. Just a bundle of cells, who cares! If the question is 'is it alive?' The answer is yes. If the question is 'is it human'? The answer is yes. It is a living creature with human DNA, it is a human. The arguement that 'Every minute you breathe that you're not making babies, you're technically denying potential children a right to life' thing just doesn't hold up. Women are born with all the eggs they'll ever produce in a lifetime in the ovaries. After we hit puberty, the eggs mature and one by one release themselves into the philopian tubes, where they wait a bit and travel into the uterus, waiting to be fertilized. If they are not fertilized, they die. You're suggesting that not reproducing is the same as killing a baby? If I choose not to get pregnant every time I ovulate, the egg finishes up it's natural life cycle and is flushed out of the body. It's the differance between letting something die naturally or killing something that otherwise probably would have gestated in nine months and gone on to live on average around 76 years. It is not equivilent. As for pregnancy, that is a consequence of having sex. A woman has a choice to have sex. If she didn't have a choice in engaging in sexual acts, then she should get a choice in carrying the resulting child to term. In society, there are consequences to what you do. Is it right to make a woman live her whole life paying for a mistake (As in being forced to raise the child, giving up school, friends...) No. However, nine months worth of consequences to bring to fruition this thing that you caused? Yes. If you kill someone, if you rob a bank, if you run a traffic light, these things have consequences. If a person hits another person with their car and kills them, it is an accident that results from an error in judgement. No matter how much you regret it, you still have to go to court. Should you pay for the mistake your whole life? No, it was an accident. However, you did commit vehicular manslaughter and you will have to serve jail time. That's fair. Yes, I do understand that pregnancy is dangerous, and very painful. However; if you chose to have sex, especially without protection, you take upon yourself certian risks. As for the dangers of pregnancy and the 'pain of having the child taken away from you'... Most women who have an abortion suffer extreme post partum depression, they can also experiance a kind of shock. While women who give up their children to adoption can dull the pain a little by saying 'At least they're with a family that loves them' a woman whose DEAD child was taken away and then placed in a Biohazard bag to be thrown in the trash or the incenerator does not have such comfort. I will go on to say that a woman who has an abortion is in just as much danger, and will have their bodies altered just as much as another pregnant woman who carries to term. (Though I would say the mental alteration is far deeper) Her uterus has already built up the fatty lining, by three months (Common time of abortion) she has formed a placenta, and her hormones levels have changed. Newly produced hormones relating only to the pregnancy have already started production. This is already a pregnant woman, and all the dangers and most of the body alterations (Except for the stretching caused by the excellerated growth of later trimesters) of pregnancy have already manifested themselves. Then you have the extraction. A pregnant woman's cervix dialates and the baby comes out through the birth canal. Or, you have a C-section and the baby is removed directly from the uterus through an opening made by doctors. Painkillers are administered at the mother's request. I don't see how abortion is any less painful, risky or traumatising then giving birth. It's not a case of a woman having to be pregnant and a woman who could avoid that, They both have to go through some amount of being with child, and both are risky medical procedures. I do believe in abortion, but only in very drastic cases and as a last resort. Abortion as birth control is not acceptable to me, because there are plenty of pre-conception methods of contraception. I can see taking an emergancy contraceptive immediatly following sex if you think there is a chance of impregnation. It typically takes a few days for the sperm to meet the egg anyway. There are many alternatives to abortion, but people want the 'quick' and 'easy' one. (For the curious, here's a chart of some of the early stages of development from zygote onward. embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg) (And an image of a developing placenta, because I think it's interesting. embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/images/placenta/plMembraneW600.jpg) Oily, I don't mean to look like I'm ragging on you. In general we agree on this, it's just the rationale of some of your later statements that I'm at odds with. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 7, 2004 2:46:51 GMT -5
While I do agree that there are certian cases; rape, a danger to the mother, etc, that warrent abortion as an option... I can not agree with the logic that it isn't a baby until it looks like a baby. It has human DNA, what else could it be? It is a human. Also, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? As early as four weeks, the embryo will develop a heart. Have you ever heard of any creature with a heart beat that wasn't alive? Well hey, if looking like a human is the only thing stopping you from killing it, what's wrong with killing animals? They don't smile, the don't look like a human. Just a bundle of cells, who cares! If the question is 'is it alive?' The answer is yes. If the question is 'is it human'? The answer is yes. It is a living creature with human DNA, it is a human. The arguement that 'Every minute you breathe that you're not making babies, you're technically denying potential children a right to life' thing just doesn't hold up. Women are born with all the eggs they'll ever produce in a lifetime in the ovaries. After we hit puberty, the eggs mature and one by one release themselves into the philopian tubes, where they wait a bit and travel into the uterus, waiting to be fertilized. If they are not fertilized, they die. You're suggesting that not reproducing is the same as killing a baby? If I choose not to get pregnant every time I ovulate, the egg finishes up it's natural life cycle and is flushed out of the body. It's the differance between letting something die naturally or killing something that otherwise probably would have gestated in nine months and gone on to live on average around 76 years. It is not equivilent. As for pregnancy, that is a consequence of having sex. A woman has a choice to have sex. If she didn't have a choice in engaging in sexual acts, then she should get a choice in carrying the resulting child to term. In society, there are consequences to what you do. Is it right to make a woman live her whole life paying for a mistake (As in being forced to raise the child, giving up school, friends...) No. However, nine months worth of consequences to bring to fruition this thing that you caused? Yes. If you kill someone, if you rob a bank, if you run a traffic light, these things have consequences. If a person hits another person with their car and kills them, it is an accident that results from an error in judgement. No matter how much you regret it, you still have to go to court. Should you pay for the mistake your whole life? No, it was an accident. However, you did commit vehicular manslaughter and you will have to serve jail time. That's fair. Yes, I do understand that pregnancy is dangerous, and very painful. However; if you chose to have sex, especially without protection, you take upon yourself certian risks. As for the dangers of pregnancy and the 'pain of having the child taken away from you'... Most women who have an abortion suffer extreme post partum depression, they can also experiance a kind of shock. While women who give up their children to adoption can dull the pain a little by saying 'At least they're with a family that loves them' a woman whose DEAD child was taken away and then placed in a Biohazard bag to be thrown in the trash or the incenerator does not have such comfort. I will go on to say that a woman who has an abortion is in just as much danger, and will have their bodies altered just as much as another pregnant woman who carries to term. (Though I would say the mental alteration is far deeper) Her uterus has already built up the fatty lining, by three months (Common time of abortion) she has formed a placenta, and her hormones levels have changed. Newly produced hormones relating only to the pregnancy have already started production. This is already a pregnant woman, and all the dangers and most of the body alterations (Except for the stretching caused by the excellerated growth of later trimesters) of pregnancy have already manifested themselves. Then you have the extraction. A pregnant woman's cervix dialates and the baby comes out through the birth canal. Or, you have a C-section and the baby is removed directly from the uterus through an opening made by doctors. Painkillers are administered at the mother's request. I don't see how abortion is any less painful, risky or traumatising then giving birth. It's not a case of a woman having to be pregnant and a woman who could avoid that, They both have to go through some amount of being with child, and both are risky medical procedures. I do believe in abortion, but only in very drastic cases and as a last resort. Abortion as birth control is not acceptable to me, because there are plenty of pre-conception methods of contraception. I can see taking an emergancy contraceptive immediatly following sex if you think there is a chance of impregnation. It typically takes a few days for the sperm to meet the egg anyway. There are many alternatives to abortion, but people want the 'quick' and 'easy' one. (For the curious, here's a chart of some of the early stages of development from zygote onward. embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg) (And an image of a developing placenta, because I think it's interesting. embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/images/placenta/plMembraneW600.jpg) Oily, I don't mean to look like I'm ragging on you. In general we agree on this, it's just the rationale of some of your later statements that I'm at odds with. Thanks for saying that, TEOW. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Oct 7, 2004 4:24:44 GMT -5
Yea, I'll probably have the most radical views out of anyone. I usually do. I'm for anything that's going to slow population growth. One statement I'll make. And before anyone says it, no, that doesn't mean I'm against organ donaters or cancer treatments and all that junk. I said I'm for anything that's going to slow population growth, not lessen it. I'm Pro-Choice, if no one got that from my previous statement. I believe in a Woman's Right to Choose and (I don't care if anyone thinks that statement is total BS, as I've seen in earlier posts.) Having the right to choose whether something occupies my innards for nine months should be my choice, not everyone else's buisiness. Would they be safe? If an operation is illegally done, it's usually much much riskier. Yes, if abortions were made illegal, they would still happen, it's just that the death toll would not only include fetuses (if you will), but also the mothers. However, I am abstinant. I've never had sex and I doubt I ever will, because I don't want children. I don't think that if you aborted your child you would be 'missing out on the bliss and joy of motherhood' necesarily. (I was practically a mother myself, as I raised my three younger sisters from the time they were in diapers from the time I was in fifth grade, since my mother had a full-time night job as well as my father. So, she slept in the day and I had to do all the housework and make sure they didn't all kill each other. And being saddled with children wasn't my choice. Another psychological reason I feel a right to choose) As soon as I can, I'm getting my reproductive organs removed as a precautionary. (I'm still looking into the dangers of the operation, but from what I've found it's pretty safe.) If I ever want children, highly unlikely, I'm considering adopting (an older child)...as I think anyone should before having their own child. (Over 400,000 children in the world without families, why should you bring another one here?) I have a friend, a pretty close friend actually, who's had two abortions and she's just went into 11th grade. So far, they've had no effect on her. (Although, anyone could say 'that's just what she claims!' She's pretty honest with me and let me know it wasn't a big deal to her.) I don't know if many people here have ever heard any positive abortion stories. I've heard a *lot*...enough to make me think that abortion should be an option. Even if you're a total Pro-life Nazi, you should give this site a gander. Roast it for all I care, just get some grass from the other side. Be sure to read the FAQ, which I thought was pretty diligently, not exactly eloquently, written out: imnotsorry.net/It's not a very 'flashy' site, but it's not the look that counts. Edit: Btw, I've probably plugged this place before, but it pretty much sums up my wacky views: vhemt.org/ If I was going to be born into a situation where I was not wanted, I'd rather have not been. |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 7, 2004 16:12:17 GMT -5
Would they be safe? If an operation is illegally done, it's usually much much riskier. Yes, if abortions were made illegal, they would still happen, it's just that the death toll would not only include fetuses (if you will), but also the mothers. That is a mis-quote and twisting her words - if you had not cut-off midsentence, you would have read '-to choose to have sex or not'. Not to get an illegal abortion, to nip it in the bud. Like mentioned before - adoption. Death or life with a loving - but non-biological - family? |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 7, 2004 17:37:12 GMT -5
I am opposed to abortion. However, I don't think that I could tell another woman what to do with herself just because of what *I* think it right. That's the hard part in all of this. No matter who's veiw is inforced, there's going to be a minority (A large minority) who is greatly impacted by that choice.
I think that sums up human law and interaction in general. Where do the lines end? In the end we have to comprimise between what we believe in and what they believe in, because there is always going to be an 'us' and a 'them' and we have to figure out how to co-exist. Until we blow ourselves off the face of the Earth, anyway. -___-
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 7, 2004 18:15:45 GMT -5
I am opposed to abortion. However, I don't think that I could tell another woman what to do with herself just because of what *I* think it right. That's the hard part in all of this. No matter who's veiw is inforced, there's going to be a minority (A large minority) who is greatly impacted by that choice. I think that sums up human law and interaction in general. Where do the lines end? In the end we have to comprimise between what we believe in and what they believe in, because there is always going to be an 'us' and a 'them' and we have to figure out how to co-exist. Until we blow ourselves off the face of the Earth, anyway. -___- Nah, with smart level-heads like us, we'll be here for a looong time.  |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Oct 7, 2004 18:18:13 GMT -5
That is a mis-quote and twisting her words - if you had not cut-off midsentence, you would have read '-to choose to have sex or not'. Not to get an illegal abortion, to nip it in the bud. I didn't mean to make it sound like that. I was trying to say that even if abortions were illegal they'd still be practised, but they just wouldn't be safe. Who says you'll actually be adopted? You could waste away in an orphanage. There are thousands of children who don't get adopted simply because they're not babies anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Luna on Oct 7, 2004 18:18:18 GMT -5
Actually Eath is overdue for another giant meteor to wipe out 90% of all life. It happened with the dinosaurs, and to the dinosaurs predecessors and it'll happen again. Quoth my brother: "You're just a bright ball of sunshine aren't you?"
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 7, 2004 18:21:13 GMT -5
I didn't mean to make it sound like that. I was trying to say that even if abortions were illegal they'd still be practised, but they just wouldn't be safe. Who says you'll actually be adopted? You could waste away in an orphanage. There are thousands of children who don't get adopted simply because they're not babies anymore. Sorry if I came off harsh - my blood pressure rose after reading 3 debates And that's a good point about orphanages. Very good indeed. To Luna: Oh yes you certainly are ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Oct 7, 2004 18:36:21 GMT -5
No worries, I see where you're coming from. Hell, I'm running on 0.000 hours sleep.
I probably didn't come across like this first post, but I don't necesarily agree with abortion. Hell, no one gets together with their friends and goes, "Hey! Lets all go out and get abortions!!!" It's not fun, but it's something I think women should have the option of.
She could always adopt...Personally, I think one of the most selfless acts anyone in the world could perform would be giving a child whose committed the sin of no longer being a cute little baby a chance at a family. The adoption clinics in China and just about every other country are overflowing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Oct 9, 2004 17:51:45 GMT -5
While I do agree that there are certian cases; rape, a danger to the mother, etc, that warrent abortion as an option... I can not agree with the logic that it isn't a baby until it looks like a baby. It has human DNA, what else could it be? It is a human. Also, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? As early as four weeks, the embryo will develop a heart. Have you ever heard of any creature with a heart beat that wasn't alive? Well hey, if looking like a human is the only thing stopping you from killing it, what's wrong with killing animals? They don't smile, the don't look like a human. Just a bundle of cells, who cares! If the question is 'is it alive?' The answer is yes. If the question is 'is it human'? The answer is yes. It is a living creature with human DNA, it is a human. My puppy smiles ^^ Sorry, I didn't phrase myself particularly well there. We last did baby development two years ago and I'm a little rusty. I guess I consider a young foetus not sufficently human like. The question is where biological functions end and human emotions begin. A heart beating means little. After all, I eat animals every day. To say I'd never kill something with a heart beat is hypocritical. Even fleas have hearts. There is a point where something significant happens (can't remember what it is, but something develops or something) beyond which I think there should be no abortions. Probably around 24 weeks, or maybe younger. Although I think there should be no limit for severe disabilities, because some of them aren't detectable young, are they? But that egg could have gestated in nine months and lived 76 years, if you'd chosen to fertilise it. My argument is it is equivalent to killing a potential child. An abortion is the killing of a potential child too. The potential child is just a little more solid. That's how I see it, because I don't believe life begins at conception. I know it's not the best logic, but the potential for life all around us is wasted all the time. Yes, there should be thoughts given to sex. But some people honestly don't know much on sex ed or make just one mistake. Nine months is still a long time. It's a time that a woman may be ill able to afford. Many people do not wish to bring a child into the world, only to give it up and hope it has a nice life. Most women don't even consider adoption – perhaps that option should be made more clear in abortion clinics. And in some places, the stigma of carrying a child would mean the mother's and child's life ruined. I wouldn't know, and I've only done a little research. However, if a mother whose life would be in danger if she gives birth is advised to have an abortion, then I presume abortions have some advantages over births like that. After all, the foetus is smaller and less developed and you don't have to be conscious through it, I believe. No, I agree more with you than I realise. I'm still undecided on the limits of social abortions, as there are plenty of effective contraceptive methods and I think it's far preferable. But I believe in the right of others to choose for themselves. She could always adopt...Personally, I think one of the most selfless acts anyone in the world could perform would be giving a child whose committed the sin of no longer being a cute little baby a chance at a family. The adoption clinics in China and just about every other country are overflowing. I would love to adopt and have my own children, but I'd have to see how it all turns out. Adoption is usually very strict and time consuming - I know it can take six months for paperwork alone, and extra for vetting etc and it can be heartwrenching. |
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Oct 9, 2004 18:19:12 GMT -5
Who says you'll actually be adopted? You could waste away in an orphanage. There are thousands of children who don't get adopted simply because they're not babies anymore. Many people meet the mother of their adopted child before the child is even born, so you can be absolutely positive that the child will have a home. "Waste away"... It's not like they'll never feed you or that you'll never get an education. There are plenty of people who have grown up in orphanages and are very successful now. Do you really think that killing a child is a better alternative to letting it grow up without a set family? Yes, there will probably be hardships for the child, but they'll get used to it, they'll overcome the pain. My parents have been divorced for ten years and it's just a way of life now. It's tough, but we manage, and I still strive to excel in my academics so that I can have a good future. Every child, whether with their biological or non-biological families, whether they're in an orphanage or not, has the opportunity to pursue whatever life they choose. However, this comes to a screeching halt when a person has sex and gets pregnant. You either have to keep the child or give it up for adoption - it should deserve the life and opportunities you have. You shouldn't kill the baby's opportunities simply because you killed your own. I also plan to adopt when I am older. |
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Oct 9, 2004 18:51:06 GMT -5
Many people meet the mother of their adopted child before the child is even born, so you can be absolutely positive that the child will have a home. "Waste away"... It's not like they'll never feed you or that you'll never get an education. There are plenty of people who have grown up in orphanages and are very successful now. Do you really think that killing a child is a better alternative to letting it grow up without a set family? Yes, there will probably be hardships for the child, but they'll get used to it, they'll overcome the pain. My parents have been divorced for ten years and it's just a way of life now. It's tough, but we manage, and I still strive to excel in my academics so that I can have a good future. Every child, whether with their biological or non-biological families, whether they're in an orphanage or not, has the opportunity to pursue whatever life they choose. However, this comes to a screeching halt when a person has sex and gets pregnant. You either have to keep the child or give it up for adoption - it should deserve the life and opportunities you have. You shouldn't kill the baby's opportunities simply because you killed your own. I also plan to adopt when I am older. This could all be fair and true for some orphanages, but those of third-world countries are a completely different story. Most children are severly neglected. There's so many that they can't afford to keep them all well-kept. And since people would rather have their own child or adopt from America, these children still go ignored. I say let's take better care of the children that are already here before bringing more into the world. Yea, I guess I'm a cold-hearted scoundrel for saying so, but that's how I feel and I don't care if anyone thinks of me badly for having those opinions. I mentioned I was radical. |
|
) infertility is really, really rare to get after abortions.
