The Problem With Anti-Abortion People

[Crazy Eddie]

When me and the ex wife were thinking of having kids we interviewed friends who were parents. Three of them said something like this "I love my kids more than anything else, but if I could make it undone I would".

The instinct is your have babies. Not to enjoy parenthood

I love my son. I wouldn't undo it at all if I had the choice. Despite the fact that he's a headcase and tends to make my life (as well as his own) far more difficult than it ever needs to be, I still love him unconditionally.

But I realized a long time ago that love is as much a choice as it is an emotion. It takes a lot of genuine commitment to do it, and not everyone is capable of that level of commitment. You can pass laws that require people to do all kinds of things in all kinds of ways, but one thing you CANNOT order someone to do is to love their children.

 

[PyramidHead]

When me and the ex wife were thinking of having kids we interviewed friends who were parents. Three of them said something like this "I love my kids more than anything else, but if I could make it undone I would".

The instinct is your have babies. Not to enjoy parenthood

People who wish to have children never do so for the children's sake, and those who regret it most often do not regret it for the children's sake. The desire to have children and the remorse of an unprepared parent are both focused primarily on the parent; if I have kids, I will have a more fulfilled life, my relationship with my spouse will improve, or: if I didn't have kids, I would've been able to do so much more with my life and pursue my goals. The fact that their actions resulted in the existence of new people who have to make their way in the world, which isn't easy by any stretch, seems like it never enters the equation on either end.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When me and the ex wife were thinking of having kids we interviewed friends who were parents. Three of them said something like this "I love my kids more than anything else, but if I could make it undone I would".

The instinct is your have babies. Not to enjoy parenthood

People who wish to have children never do so for the children's sake, and those who regret it most often do not regret it for the children's sake. The desire to have children and the remorse of an unprepared parent are both focused primarily on the parent; if I have kids, I will have a more fulfilled life, my relationship with my spouse will improve, or: if I didn't have kids, I would've been able to do so much more with my life and pursue my goals. The fact that their actions resulted in the existence of new people who have to make their way in the world, which isn't easy by any stretch, seems like it never enters the equation on either end.

Procreation is an inherently selfish act. Child rearing, not so much.

 

[PyramidHead]

People who wish to have children never do so for the children's sake, and those who regret it most often do not regret it for the children's sake. The desire to have children and the remorse of an unprepared parent are both focused primarily on the parent; if I have kids, I will have a more fulfilled life, my relationship with my spouse will improve, or: if I didn't have kids, I would've been able to do so much more with my life and pursue my goals. The fact that their actions resulted in the existence of new people who have to make their way in the world, which isn't easy by any stretch, seems like it never enters the equation on either end.

Procreation is an inherently selfish act. Child rearing, not so much.

Spot on.

 

[Tigers!]

What do you mean? I did not edit the links nor content in any way.

Yes, but you only included links that supported your point of view. That's somewhat biased.

Perhaps you haven't noticed Tom but pretty well anyonewho has given links in this thread who has given links has only given those that support their point of view. Yes it is somewhat biased.

 

[Tigers!]

While technically correct in regards to the statement you're responding to, leaves out the important qualifier. "If they're disabled."

I wouldn't normally pick nits over leaving out this kind of context, but in a forum post that is largely about the morality of aborting fetuses/unborn children/whatever, it's sort of important that we know Mr. Singer is referring to disabled children and not every child.

So as long as we have an excuse it's ok to kill the child then? I wonder who chooses the excuses?

It's also worth pointing out that the euthanizing of disabled babies is a separate discussion to this one.

I just do not understand the logic. Its seems to be ok to kill disabled babies but not non-disabled ones (ignoring the definition of 'disabled') yet if the in womb a few minutes/hours/days earlier it is ok to kill them all, disabled or not.

 

[PyramidHead]

So as long as we have an excuse it's ok to kill the child then? I wonder who chooses the excuses?

It's also worth pointing out that the euthanizing of disabled babies is a separate discussion to this one.

I just do not understand the logic. Its seems to be ok to kill disabled babies but not non-disabled ones (ignoring the definition of 'disabled') yet if the in womb a few minutes/hours/days earlier it is ok to kill them all, disabled or not.

I sort of agree, but the fact that the baby is in another person's body means it's okay to remove it if she doesn't want it in there anymore, whatever the reason. That adds a further dimension than just the personhood of the baby. Beyond that, I agree that there shouldn't be any reason to preserve the life of an unwanted newborn if there is no reason to preserve the life of an unwanted unborn baby.

 

[Rhea]

So as long as we have an excuse it's ok to kill the child then? I wonder who chooses the excuses?

It's also worth pointing out that the euthanizing of disabled babies is a separate discussion to this one.

I just do not understand the logic. Its seems to be ok to kill disabled babies but not non-disabled ones (ignoring the definition of 'disabled') yet if the in womb a few minutes/hours/days earlier it is ok to kill them all, disabled or not.

Oh, good grief. Another person thinking women seek abortions minutes before birth.


Do we have to discuss the ridiculous?
Let's start by this: For every case you are saying, show evidence that it has ever happened.
Until then, we can talk about the very real issue of those trying to ban early term abortions by people about whom they know absolutely NOTHING of the circumstances.

 

[LordKiran]

So as long as we have an excuse it's ok to kill the child then? I wonder who chooses the excuses?

It's also worth pointing out that the euthanizing of disabled babies is a separate discussion to this one.

I just do not understand the logic. Its seems to be ok to kill disabled babies but not non-disabled ones (ignoring the definition of 'disabled') yet if the in womb a few minutes/hours/days earlier it is ok to kill them all, disabled or not.

While I can't say I agree with the good doctor yes; having a rational behind the decision that others can understand and empathize with in place of "Lets just kill babies" does in fact make a difference.

Secondly, there's already allowances for it under certain circumstances.
When a baby is malformed in the womb we already let the mother abort. The rationale is the same. "The parents shouldn't have to suffer the burden of a malformed cripple baby. The baby itself would have a shit life not worth living." So why should it make any difference to YOU specifically if it's done then or after birth? It is a child in either case, right?

The interesting thing is that back in the ye olden days when a mother only knew the status of a child after birth, if it came out a cripple they usually left it to die. So you can't exactly claim that your faith prohibits the act.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, but you only included links that supported your point of view. That's somewhat biased.

Perhaps you haven't noticed Tom but pretty well anyonewho has given links in this thread who has given links has only given those that support their point of view. Yes it is somewhat biased.

Yes, the post was meant to mock the person who replied to you. It wasn't directed towards you at all.

 

[LordKiran]

Perhaps you haven't noticed Tom but pretty well anyonewho has given links in this thread who has given links has only given those that support their point of view. Yes it is somewhat biased.

Yes, the post was meant to mock the person who replied to you. It wasn't directed towards you at all.

Which makes no sense since my criticism has nothing to do with the links themselves.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, the post was meant to mock the person who replied to you. It wasn't directed towards you at all.

Which makes no sense since my criticism has nothing to do with the links themselves.

Yes, but that was not clear by your post, which is why everybody who responded to it thought that you were talking about something else.

 

[LordKiran]

Which makes no sense since my criticism has nothing to do with the links themselves.

Yes, but that was not clear by your post, which is why everybody who responded to it thought that you were talking about something else.

Hmm. Fair enough I guess. I will try to be more clear in the future then.

 

[RavenSky]

Procreation is an inherently selfish act. Child rearing, not so much.

^^^ that