Ask Your Question today
I am keeping this poll nice and short
It's a very hot topic, even in today's world. So, are you against it, or for it? Choose your stance and post a comment if you'd like.
If the poll gets enough comments, I'll chime in my views as well.
| Against | 94 | |
| For | 209 |
:/ your mother and father would have been clipped long before having the chance to deliver your sorry ass. NO way that a person as illogical as you comes from a competent gene pool (which is what you advocate for right? its called eugenics. much supported by your friendly neighborhood HITLER). your probably that loser that everyone aimed at during dodge ball. I don't even want to waste my life pointing out that obvious flaws in your piffle.
But, then nothing wou'd ever be accomplished. I guess it depends on someone's view of life.
With all due respect, I don't really understand how this issue presents a challenge to anyone. Read this page and tell me how this isn’t the sensible position for any thinking human being:
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/Pheo152/2009/1/26/10-Arguments-in-Favor-of-ProChoice-Policy
All of those make a lot of sense and I agree with,
...except the latter half of #8? The frick did that come from out of left field. It left reason and logic and soared past "iffy" straight into "paranoid conspiracy theory". Weirded me out.
Other than that it was very well written, though.
I'm all for the CHOICE. I respect that some people wouldn't have an abortion, and I respect that some would. Personally, I would have an abortion if I found out I was pregnant, because of my mental and physical health problems. I'm for having the choice to decide what a woman is going to do with her own body.
I'm pro as long as fetus isn't actually "living" yet. You don't like abortion? Don't get ever get one. But don't go screwing over others and forcing your beliefs down others throats by trying to make it completely illegal.
Against unless you were raped, molested or you're not in a position to take proper care of your child. Bottom line if you're having sex (provided you weren't molested or raped) you should be taking precautions not to get pregnant (if you aren't looking to procreate). If a accident happens, then it sucks but that's a consequence of sex so if you aren't ready to accept that possibility don't have sex.
I'm for abortion if people are for financial abortion. If the idea of financial abortion is frowned upon, then I frown upon abortion.
Males get called bad people for not takin part in their childs life, even if they didn't intentionally want to be a father. It always comes down to "If you don't want to be a father, then keep it in your pants", but it's never that case with women. If I was to say "You shouldn't have an abortion, it's wrong. You knew the risks, you should ofkept it in your pants", then I would be verbally attacked left and right.
YOu seem to forget the consequences of that 'brilliant' idea.
First of all. you talk about fairness all the time. How's it 'fair' if people (taxpayers, family members, etc) should have to care for and pay for your kid?
Here's an analogy: Shoplifters. 98 % of people DON'T shoplift (for arguments sake). Yet 100% of shoppers PAY for the items that shoplifters take. So, I pay an extra $.50 cents, or a dollar, because some douche decided he feels it's his right to just take and not pay. Fair? NO, that's NOT fair at all!! The person who shoplifted should pay for the stolen items. Right? What's FAIR is that the shoplifter gets caught and pays restitution. Why should innocent people who had NOTHING to do with it, pay for it?
Am I wrong??
Same with kids. How's it fair that a kid doesn't get support due to him, and force everyone else (who has NOTHING to do with the kid, to pay for it???? Answer THAT. You have NO leg to stand on.
You're not seeing past your own nose.
Let's say you grow up and have NO kids. Guess what? Through taxes and other tings like support groups, charities, the drag on society caused by fatherless kids....etc.
Fatherless kids are far more likely to be a burden to society.
So guess what? Even if YOU have no kids, YOU will be paying for fatherless kids. Through Medical care, food, housing, dropping out of school, getting into legal trouble.....etc.
Got it? You want to pay for everyone's abandoned kids? Doubt it. THINK about it.
Face it, your idea sucks and it would NEVER come to pass. Thankfully our lawmakers have the intelligence to not even entertain this ludicrous.
I told you to talk to a lawyer, I guess you haven't yet. No balls? Come on, grow a set and let a pro tell you where the bear shits in the woods. What a joke.
Ah, you're right. Tell me, where does all the child benefits money come from? You know, the money that females get for having a child? Same thing, we're paying for the female's child simlpy because she didn't take the time to find a man that 100% wanted a child. But I guess it's different when we're paying for a single mother's child, right?
So, I like that idea. That we shouldn't force tax payers to pay for peoples children, including the single female's child. Let's take their child benefits away, save those tax payers money. Or is it only unfair for those tax payers when they're paying for a child that a father doesn't work to support?
Women are able to work just as much as males. Infact, more females than males are finnishing university with degrees, so they should be more than able to have a career, and pay for a babysitter.
So yeah, why should those innocent people pay for a more than financially capable woman to have a child.
Are you wrong? Yes and no, for the above reasons.
What's funny, is that you haven't even begun to notice that already society is paying for kids, thanks to women not being able to keep it in their pants, or say no to someone not wearing a condom, etc.
So, I like your sarcasm, but let's see your counter comment. You think you've got a point, but your point is already proven invalid due to the fact that people are already paying for children, mainly single mothers. And like I said, females are far more capable to be financially stable than males are nowadays due to them leaving education with good outcomes.
You're a joke, pure and simple. You go against equality simply because it doesn't comply with what you see equality to be; special treatment.
No balls? I'm not going to phone up a lawyer to ask if I already know tax payers have to pay for mothers not being able to keep it in their pants. Or do child benefits not even exist in your pathetic mind set?
How about these young females, eh? Completely wasting money on going out clubbing, leaving their children with the childs grandparents, then wasting money to get drunk, usually money that was, or should be for the child. A nice example would be one of my classmates twin sister.
You're pathetic. But, I clearly just proved your point wrong, that the tax payers money gets spent on child benefits, that alot of it gets spent on the mother.
Nice try, but bette rluck next time. I have something you can do, too. I won't ask you to phone a lawyer over a debate on a website, but I'll tell you to look the matter up on Google. Can you handle that?
And you call me a joke, when you avoided, or are too stupid to notic that main point.
So tell me, how is it fair and equal that the taxpayers have to pay child benefits, when women are the ones more likely to get fully educated?
I se your point, pal. What you FAIL to see that if men are legaly able to abandon thier kids, then who pays? And why should they?
Let's say you have NO kids your enitre life. YOUR taxes will go up to support those kids. So, not only do you NOT get the benefit of fucking the chick you have NO intentions of being with or supporting, you have to pay for her kid. ALL men would. How's that fair?
Answer THAT.
You're saying that a man shouldn't have to pay for his kid, but you're not realizing that ALL men (regardless of if they have kids or not) will be having to contribute to kids that aren't even theirs. Get it?
YOu're looking at it at the SMALLEST scale, you need to look at the big picture. Look at ALL the ramifications.
Again, talk to a lawyer or a family court judge. You'll see. You'll be a laughing stock. But I suppose that's why you're afraid to.
I's far from logical that anyone besides the mother and father should support theri own kids. To argue otherwise is so completely ignorant, it's not even funny.
Face it, You're wrong. It's about the KID and the burden on society, not the man. The woman has the same responsibility. Male-female have a kid, both are equally responsible. That's how it is, that's how t should be. How else should it be? WHo else should support YOUR kid?
If a man doesn't support his kids, then yeah, it's HIS problem. What's his excuse? No job? Well, shouldn't have had sex. No skills? Shouldn't have had sex. No education in a demanding field, shouldn't have had sex. Same with a female.
Man and woman have sex. Man and woman create child. BOTH are equally responsible to care for that child. What don't you get about that? No one (under the law) has any more or less rights as far as the support of that kid.
Main point, you CANNOT and WILL not blackmail or coerce women into having abortions. Ridiculous.
Women have kids all the time by guys who don't support them. Adn?? I'll tell you what the end result is.....those women end up on food stamps, rent help, help from family members (who owe NOTHING to the kid, they didn't have sex and create it). Please, tell me how that's fair?
Tell me how it's fair that both men AND women will have to pay higher taxes to cover unsupported kids, dubass.
You cry 'fair' all the time but you don't know what fair is if it bit you in the ass. Get a clue.
You have NO argument.
Are you planning on getting a decent paying career sometime? How the fuck would you like it to have to pay an extra few hundred, or a few thousands, in taxes to cover all teh unsupported kids? Idiot. Look at the big picture. It's NOT fair for people to have to pay for kids that aren't theirs.
CALL A LAWYER. Oh, wait, you don't want to be proven a laughing stock. Call a judge. Hahahhahahahahah, I'd LOVE to hear what they say. But you're too afraid. Because you know you're wrong.
The mother pays for the child too, I don't see how you find it unfair that the father should pay. They both EQUALLY pay. They're on equal ground.
Talk to a lawyer, once again. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a taxpayer, and I don't want to pay for YOUR kid while you sit back and enjoy a carefree life. The state (taxpayers) doesn't want to pay for YOUR kid.
Why do you think there's LAWS on the books that FORCE deadbeat MOMS AND DADS to pay support? If a kid isn't supported, guess who pays? The state. Do you think THEY want to pay? NO. Of course not. That's why they go after the people responsible, the PARENTS. It's not just dads, it's moms too. The people who are responsible are the ones who should pay. Simple logic.
When a woman (or man) applies for state funded medical care, food stamps, housing.....the state wants their money back from the responsible parties. (Mom/Dad) That's the LAW, made by lawyers, and SUPPORTED by taxpayers.
The state didn't even get the pleasure of fucking the guy/gal, why should they then have to pay for the consequences?? Answer that one, genius.
When a woman or man applies for assistance to help pay for thier kid from the state they are required to name the mother/father to get the rightfully due support.
Who the else should pay?? Someone other than the mom or dad?? Come on.
Do a survey in the real world. Ask taxpayers how they feel about paying for unsupporte d kids with their tax money. Dare you. Also dare you to talk to a lawyer, or lawmaker. YOU lose.
YOu obviously know NOTHING about the law. Or where tax money goes. Wait till you pay taxes. Then you'll change your tune.
"My" kid? Don't you mean "single mothers'" kids?
You don't want tax payers to pay for a "man's" biological kid, but you don't mind the tax payers paying for a single mother's kid. That's what you're saying.
Yes, like I said, I agree that both parents should be parents to the children they want. If a man says he doesn't want to be a father to a woman that has the chance to have an abortion, put the child for adoption, orcould of said "no" to unprotected sex. So it is more the woman's fault for having such a child in such living ways as not being able to be properly supported by astrong family structure. The woman knows he partners capabilities, and like I said, ifbystanders can tell when someone isn't father material, then so can the person romanticly involved. So ultimatly, it is the woman's fault for having a child. It is 20-30% the fault of males for empregnating her, but 0% their fault for the child actually being born or raised in such a family structure, due to there being means tostop pregnancy such as abortion, and after birth ways to get the child in to a proper family by adoption. Both choices only a mother can make. So ultimatly, it's the woman's fault for bringing a child in to the world that knows won't be fully supported, then expects the tax payers money to be spent on them.
Heard in quite a few cases that women actually fall pregnant just so they can get free money.
So you don't think equal treatment such as financial abortion would be supported? Believe me, if there was such a vote, most men would support it, a lot of women would support it, too. Because unlike you, those women and men would see the equality in it.
Why should they have to pay for the consequences?...Once again. Child benefits. The already do pay for the child that had no "pleasure" from it. You say genius in a sarcastic way, yet all I have to do is repeat the points you try to avoid hearing. So I may not be a genius, but that doesn't say a whole lot for you if I'm winning this debate.
Ah, ok. Should I also ask them if they'd like to not have to pay as much to support single mothers that decided to fall pregnant and keep the child of a man everyone, including herself knew couldn't/wouldn't support her? Damn sure they'd say they wouldn't want to pay for that aswell. So like I said, how about we switch giving money to women that made the wrong choices "willingly" and give the tax payers money that goes to such people to people to envoke financial abortion, giving them a choice, instead of funding a females wrong choice, eh?
Like I said, get in contact with a lawyer or judge and tell them of the debate. Tell them it has taken two hours plus, and will they be willing to take time out of their career and personal life to talk to me, and if they say yes, I'll talk to themabout it.
So, I will talk to them, you just keep ignoring the part where you're expected to make it happen due to it being your idea. "What's wrong, too scared that you know you'll be laughed at for suggesting anyone, let alone a lawyer and judge would spend more than two hours on this subject without payment of gain?"
Nope. Once again, saying I lose and proving I lose are two seperate things. All you can do is say I lose, yet have no point to prove I lose, which is sad, in a funny way considering how confident you were at the beginning. How before you thought the tax payers money part couldn't be countered, then I easily do. You lost this debate long ago, simply due to you repeating points over and over that I have already countered, yet you have said nothing to counter my counter of your point to suggest my counter is wrong.
I obviously know nothing of the law? Yet here I am dominating you in this debate. If you insult my intelligence on the matter, it's implied you're far worse, since this person (me) that has no knowledge on the debate, yet is winning the debate.
You're also making a HUGE assumption that all women are willing to get an abortion, when that's NOT true at all. Not in the least. MOST won't. So, what's your point anyway?
You're talking about coercing women into abortion. How on Earth do you figure ANYONE would go for making that law? NO ONE, that's who. Why don't you do a survey (an official one, asking lawyers, lawmakers, judges, mature women, etc...) Guarantee you, you will be proven an idiot.
"My" kid? Don't you mean "single mothers'" kids?
You don't want tax payers to pay for a "man's" biological kid, but you don't mind the tax payers paying for a single mother's kid. That's what you're saying."
No, that's not what I'm saying AT all. Shows your ignorance.
When a single mom goes to apply for assistance, she is REQUIRED to go through family court to get support from the biological father. It's the law. I support that 100%.
If she refuses, she herself gets NO support, but the child does. THEN, if/when the bio father is found, he has to pay back ALL the money the state paid to support his kid. Got it?
The State (county,country, whatever...) is NOT going to allow men to NOT support their kids. Why on Earth would a state pay for some deadbeat's kid? Come on. Yeah, the state is just gonna roll over and take it. Yeah right. The day that happens is the day pigs fly. You obviously have zero understanding of the legal system or family court system, get a grip.
Do you REALLY tink states and taxpayers are going to vote this in?? 'Oh yeah, we'd love to pay for deadbeat dads!!" What a GREAT idea!!
The laws regarding this shit were made for a reason. For CHILDREN, NOT MEN-and so that taxpayers. Men and women should pay for their own kids. Period.
Really? Then why did it change from "paying for other peoples children by tax is wrong" to "Paying "more" money to kids that aren't theirs by tax is wrong" right after I proved to you that females get the tax payers money spent on them?
And what if the man never wanted the child to begin with, and told her that? Unless you haven't noticed, the law has gaps in it. Kind of like how a woman can laugh and mock a man mutilated by a woman on national TV, but men can't do the same.
Yes, if "she" choses. How is that fair, that "she" gets to choose who to leech off of due to "her" keeping the child? The child does? Oh, you mean child benefits? Sorry, like I said, alot of that money the mothers spend on themselves.
So he has to pay for the kid he obviously never wanted, yet the female willingly had knowing he didn't want it...Great sense of equality there.
Your whole idea of equality is that both deserve equal responsibility, but not equal choice. And if you say "Don't have sex" in attempts to counter that, then don't bother. Like I said, sex is for pleasure, and those men most likely were doing it for pleasure. If she was to say "If I fall pregnant due to this, thenI'm keeping the kid,and if you leave I'm making you pay for it, regardless of if you want it or not". You think men will engage in sex then after being told that?
What, you mean like how a woman can get a job, and financially support herself and the child, yet forces the man to pay for the kid he doesn't want? Nice.
Did I say it will ever happen? No. I said it should happen. Do I need to bring out a dictionary to understand the difference between the words used?
Like I said, do you think tax payers will get the choice to not have to pay for single mothers that decided to have a kid with someone that can barely financially support themselves? Because I'm certain if given the choice, they'd not want to pay for a child that a woman couldn't bother having to a real father figure.
Like I said, you're right, they should. Child benefits. Oh, does child benefits not count as not paying for their own kids? SIlly me, here I was thinking getting the tax payers money was the same as using your own money.
No, I said they should get an abortion or put the child up for adoption.
To not do either is "her" choice, so she bares the consequences of "he" choices.
What's my point? That women can get rid of parenthood by these ways...Do you really need that explained?
The fact is, even if they don't want to have an abortion, "they have the choice to", where as a male doesn't.
Making it a law to coerce a female in to having an abortion. Once again, read a point before "trying" to counter it. I never said females should be expected to abort their children, I'm saying that they get the choice to, and should find proper father material to have children with.
Going to respond to what you always say at the end by repeaing the same sentence until you understand, because I have already explained that part.
"If you want it to happen, you make it happen".
Sometimes it's sensible to accept that, in a situation where both parties are just endless repeating their points, albeit in slightly different words, nobody is going to alter their views. When both parties stubbornly believe in their own point of view, a 2 hour debate is totally futile.
So my annoying advice as a third-party is both of you agree to disagree!
I agree but disagree. If this person came to me and respectivly dissagreed, I would of been in a respectful mannered way, but her first reply to me was plain rude, strong headed, that if I didn't make a counter point, she would just let herself feel so proud.
Not annoying advice at all as a third party. I am stubborn on certain things, but I have given point after point, repeating only when I'm repeating a point that counters a recent point aswell, and the majority of her comments are of her "attempting" to insult me.
I understand it's difficult to simply 'let go' sometimes, I occasionally find myself being too proud to let the other person have the last word.
But in situations like this, where neither of you are progressing, and if indeed you feel her responses to you are only attempted insults, you are doing yourself a disservice by continuing. If you've stated your opinion and are satisfied with it, there isn't much else to be done.
Have I not? I can make that list if you want? I will list all the main points you have not answered, would that satisfy you?
It's sad. All you can do is say I have no point, yet can't prove any my point wrong.
Pathetic, really.
"You're wrong because I said so", does that remind you of something, here, I'll send a link of what it reminds me of.
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&biw=1579&bih=941&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=FcKDWC7TebLA-M:&imgrefurl=http://www.noblepta.com/html/school_yard_2.html&docid=UiXxuzDPizAZYM&imgurl=http://www.noblepta.com/assets/images/autogen/a_SchoolYard2.jpg&w=596&h=427&ei=Be5lT84fk-rxA_HBgJYI&zoom=1
OK, what are your points? Since I seemed to miss them (not), but go ahead anyway and I will answer them one by one. Gladly.
Erm, excuse me. You asked for the points you missed out, I send them the same time I sent the other replies you recently reply to and I have gotten a reply from all the other parts of the discussion between us two on this page except this one. Answer them. You asked, I delivered.
Trying to avoid these, eh? I find it funny how you have replied to all the other replies, but not the one with the points "you" asked for. As I recall, you were "gladly" able to read them and reply.
Wigsplitz: I'll reply to all the other parts of the discussion, without actually acknowledging the main parts, but will completely ignore the part I asked for.
Answer them, or I will see your ignoring of the part you asked for to be a result of you accepting you've lost the debate.
If the "bye" you said was "bye" to the whole debate we're having in total, then all I can do is laugh. Laugh at how confident you were pretending to be, saying to list the points in which you have ignored or not countered (which was all of them) and you would respond, and now you try to ignore it.
Why am I suprised? You done it through out this whole discussion. You ignored all the main details. I give you all the main details you are yet to answer or counter, and you choose to ignore. Is that how you "counter" main points, by ignoring them? You sad being.
-Facepalm-
You lose.
1. Financial abortion. You claim it shouldn't be allowed due to the tax payers having to pay, I tell you tax payers are already paying for other peoples kids. Your first case was against paying for someone elses child at all, then switched to paying money for a child on behalf of the male is wrong.
2. I say give the child benefit tax money towards financial abortion due to females being able to financially support themselves and a child because they come out of education with more degrees etc.
3. You have yet to acknowledge that single mothers are taking money from the tax payers when they have a more higher rate of leaving education with higher degrees, and getting jobs just like males can. Better way of putting it; You are yet to acknowledge that people paying for a single mother's child is wrong.
4. You are yet to adress my point that females are more responsibility for their bodies than males in pregnancy due to them having more birth control ways, able to say "no condom, no sex", and have the choice to get rid of their parenthood responsibility, despite if the male wishes to be a father. You're idea of a counter point for this is "You shouldn't have sex" when that itself is just pathetic due to countless women having abortions because they had unprotected sex and won't take responsibility, while men don't get the same option.
5. You reffer to males avoiding taking care of the kids their ex partner is forcing them to pay for due to her decision alone to have the child as "deadbeat dads" yet you fail to make any remarks against women that adopt or abort their child.
6. You don't make any counter points on how the tax payers money going to child benefits are usually being spent on the mothers aswell. Young female mothers for example, they go out clubbing even though they have no job, using the tax payers money that's supposed to go to the mother's child, and instead half of the tax money the people pay for are going for these women to entertain themselves.
7. You avoid answering the question. Is it fair that tax payers are paying for child benefits for children that aren't theirs on behalf of the single mother?
8. I say is it fair that the single mother is expected to recieve money by outside financial ways, tax payers and fathers that never wanted the child in the first place, while the mother gets all this money flung at her, that goes half towards her survival even though she is more than capable to be financially stable? Your reply again (and I love how you kept saying I repeat things) "Bothhave sex, both are responsible". And as explained before, that's wrong (for the reasons in which I have explained on this and other comments).
I believe I proved ALL your points wrong. You just refuse to listen or do any REAL research or read the law, or talk to lawyers and judges and mature women with children.
Talk to a lawyer. Talk to your state/social services. Go for it. You'll be proven wrong.
Personally I would prefer to try at the root of the problem by educating people on the importance of protection before we even get to the idea of abortion.
However I do support abortion should a person was raped, the baby is medically unfit or it would cause harm to the mother.
Just don't FUCK in the first place.Then you would'nt have a problem to begin with.Otherwise,I'm AGAINST.
I'm 100% against, but then again, if i get pregnant , i'd do the murder. Sorry... i'm stll a 21 year old child.
I left a comment here 1 year and 8 months ago and I can't believe I wrote it.
My opinions have changed since then, because my experiences have also changed.
The people commenting on this site- with all their reasoning- have most likely not even stood out the front of an abortion clinic.
I've never faced the choice to abort a child myself and hope never to face that choice.
Abortion is not a black and white thing, the only ones who should be concerned with the matter are those that face that crossroad themselves.
I don't believe I can answer this, if it came to the situation, it would depnd whether it was planned or not, if not was it a happy surprise, did it come at the wrong time, can I financially support it (or could I find a way of financially supporting it) it is up to the couple as a whole but is also I feel dependent on the situation! If your going to abort why concieve in the first place be safe and stop being stupid, if your not going to abort then great stuff hopefully you live a happy life and so too does the child! I feel the situation should not come to fruition because it should never need to be considered as people shouldn't be so daft and have unprotected sex if they do not want a little or should I say 'big' surprise! Hopefully I have enlightened a few of you and you will be able to see the logic behind my reasoning!
I'm not for abortion per se, but I am for freedom of choice. Regardless of whether I like abortion, I think that women should have the choice of what to do with their bodies. So, for.
Apologies but you are not for the abortions you are for the choice that women have for abortions, I know you may think I'm being sinical but for you to be for abortions you would have to believe yourself they are right, as you said yourself you aren't for abortions but for the freedom of choice. I don't want to argue with anyone about this, I just wished to clarify with you that that is what you are for. I respect your reasoning as my reasoning is the same!
Incest and rape are the most valid reasons for abortion.
Disability is only valid if the child is only capable of acting like a six year old for the rest of their lives.
When men and women join the army they go in knowing there's a possibility of death, and they accept that.
When men and women have sex they should know there's the possibility of pregnancy and accept that.
I don't agree with the first 2 statements, whereas the 3rd one I do agree with! Only change I would make is to say that they should be safe while having sex unless they are ready to concieve a baby! In the immortal words of Jeremy Kyle 'there are people in the world that can't have children and would kill to be able to get their own biological child, and people have one night stands creating lives and don't care properly for the child, are basically turning around and sticking 2 fingers up at the people who can't have children!' No reason is valid for abortion however a persons choice is their choice! If they believe that they shouldn't have the child if the concieve during the act of incest or when raped then who am I to say that they cannot! However there are 2 sides to each argument, and as every human rights representative would state 'it isn't the babies fault that he/she is concieved, it is the parties that are involved no matter the circumstance (unless rape where it is not the victims fault but the perpetrator's fault)!'
Well it depends. In cases of rape/incest, medical problems or before week 7, pro-choice but after week 7 I feel it is wrong to abort. But at the same time it isn't my right to tell another women what to do with her body. On a vote I would choose pro-choice even though in my heart I am pro-life.
Tough topic. I can't decide, really.
Most of the time I think people need to just act more responsibly. However, I think there are instances where I think abortion is ok, like if someone were raped. But then I also think, you can always put that baby up for adoption... I'm undecided.
I'll be honest. If I ever get raped and become pregnent, I would want an abortion. Besides, I once heard that Hitler's mother was planning an abortion, but her doctor talked her out of it. Don't know if that's true. The point is, you never know what could have been. The aborted baby could have become the next child genius or another psychotic killer. The question is, would you be willing to take the chance?
For first trimester abortion.
Most women aren't going to abort a baby that they financially can handle, want and are ready to have. Sure, adoption is an option but you'll be suffering through pregnancy and possible loss of job for what? A child that will come back decades later wondering why you "abandoned" them?
I don't believe in it, but then again some people should not be bringing other humans into this world and society shouldn't pressure them to keep a child that statistically will probably become a criminal, have behavioral problems or be otherwise disadvantaged anyway. Sure, there's a chance they might become productive members of society but taking your chances is a great way to end up with an unplanned pregnancy to begin with.
I don't judge. Just make sure you're making the right choice for all involved.
I just have to butt in here for a moment, and I really mean no offense to you whatsoever. However, I am kind of turned-off by the "abandoned" comment. I was adopted after my teenage birth mom couldn't care for me. I NEVER wondered why she "abandoned" me. I don't think she did abandon me. Again, I'm sorry, I just have a a bit of a problem when people assume adoption means "abandonment", as I'm adopted myself, and am a huuuuuuuuuge supporter of adoption.
A lot of serial killers are adopted....and a lot are fucked up.
Anyway, it's still abandoning, by giving your kid to someone else, you're still shirking your responsibility.
Your argument is kind of invalid, and pretty damn stupid.. Yes, some serial killers are adopted. Guess what? Some birth kids are serial killers as well! But a lot of really great people who have done really great things are adopted. Want me to name a few?
Babe Ruth
Steve Jobs
Deborah Harry
Edgar Allan Poe
John Lennon
Aristotle
George Washington Carver
Don't you dare make some blanket statement about how awful adoption is. My birth mom did NOT abandon me, for fuck's sake. She couldn't take care of me. You know what? Her bf wanted me aborted. She refused, but she knew she couldn't take care of me financially. So she worked her ass off to find a suitable home for me. And I have been given the most amazing family because of her selflessness.
So don't even fucking go there dude unless you have experienced adoption yourself.
Any idiot can breed. It takes a real loving heart to give your child to someone who can love and care for it in a way you can't. My mother did not "shirk" her responsibilities.
I can't stand methodical and closed minded comments. Anyone can fall (become pregnant young) your birth mother sounds like a very courageous lady and I bet there wont be a day that passes where she doesn't wonder about. xx
Thank you. Finally someone other than myselfto put Wigsplitz in their place. I do suggest not replying to her/him if they reply back to you, they'll just make a big debate over it, even when they have no point.
And I completely agree with what you said. Your biological mother sounds like a good woman. She decided to not abort you, but give you to another family that would love you.
Welldone for your reply to Wigspliz. I enjoyed reading it.
Thank you :) I'm definitely not going to talk to this person anymore should he/she reply. It just really bugs the living crap out of me when people make such harsh judgements about something like adoption. I love my birthmom for giving me to my real mom (my adoptive mom is as much a real mom to me as a birthmom is to anyone else). I had amazing, wonderful childhood experiences thanks to both of them.
:-)
Thanks so much for the kind reply *hug*
You put me into my place? When did this happen? I must have missed it. Put me to sleep maybe, with your endless repetition. But put me in my place? No, in your dreams, pal. You live in a fantasy world.
You're not wrong here.
My Mom was adopted and if she had not been adopted, she'd have been raised by a prostitute the same way her sister was raised, sitting in a car for eight hours a day while her Mom was at "work".
I'm not offended by anything you said, but hell, while adoption is an option, not everybody sees it is "selfless", many DO see it as "abandonment".
What if there was a high risk that the mother may not survive giving birth due to pre-existing health issues or because she's like 10 and told by doctors that she probably won't get through the pregnancy without some serious problems, in the case she was raped and fell pregnant...
That's the only case where I think abortion should be an option.
Sorry if I have came across as closed minded and methodical, of course there are all different circumstances what I meant and perhaps it didn't come across that way was that I believe all babies are precious and a gift reguardless of its conception and heaven forbid if I were raped I would keep and love a treasure my baby, but tbhen I don't suppose I could really say for certain unless I was ever put in that situation (never say never)x
But the baby isn't actually a baby until a certain time in the pregnancy. Abortion isn't ending a life, it's preventing a life. If you still see preventing a life to be as bad as ending one, then I have no right to say you shouldn't believe what you want. We all have our opinions.
Thankyou for being so non-judgmentel to what I believe in. However I believe a baby is a baby and there is a life there from the moment of conception. After all if a developing baby could talk and it was asked do you want to live or die he or she would say "I'll live" xx