About these "un-wanted" babies...

Melissa - posted on 10/16/2010 ( 103 moms have responded )

160

0

3

So i was in an abortion discussion where people where going on on about all the "un-wanted" babies and how us pro-lifers aren't "stepping up"... So I started thinking about and the ones they should be blaming is the system! Do you know how much it costs to adopt a baby now days? And how difficult it is? Therea are hundreds if not thousands of baron couples that would LOVE to raise that little baby, they just can't afford to "buy" it. If a woman came to me tomorrow and said "I'm killing this baby if you don't take it" I'd say heck ya give it to me. and it is my greatest hope that some day I am rich enough to adopt a baby, because I would really love to. So why don't you quit barking at the government to allow baby killing and tell them to lower the "price" on babies? I think there would be a waiting list for babies if adoption was free.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Kimberly - posted on 10/16/2010

705

59

52

Adopting a child from foster care is generally of little to no charge to the adoptive parents. Older children need homes desperately.

Or is it only the "babies" you want to save?

Why aren't you going to bat for the 14 year old with severe disabilities?

Sharon - posted on 10/16/2010

11,585

12

1315

The reason it costs so much to adopt in America is because of the route you take.

Most people go through an adoption lawyer which is equal to a baby broker. He has his finger on all these places where girls will reach out for help. He also drafts the contract for the adoption, files the paperwork, researches the laws etc. If you're adopting in Texas but the birth mother is in California - there are issues that need to be addressed. He also handles the bio father issue. THOSE types of adoptions are costly.

Adopting through the system is cheaper and you're less likely to get a newborn.

So adoption is NOT as expensive as you make it out to be.

But my question is why is everyone screaming about these babies that haven't been born yet?

Why aren't you up on your hobby horse screaming to save all the 7 yr olds, 14 yr olds and 16 yr olds who have been in the system all their lives?

Why aren't you crying your fucking eyes out for the 17 yr old who is scared to death and is about to age out of the system that has fed, clothed & sheltered him all his damned life? And trust me! His life was DAMNED. No affection, no real family, group homes to foster homes, no stable life. I don't understand people who stand here making a god damned fuss over a thing that has no fucking clue what life is, doesn't know happiness or sadness and yet there are all those children BORN who have nothing & no one.

Seriously - you people are pissing me the fuck off. Drop your pretense of ideals and put your money where your mouth is and go out to your local foster agency RIGHT NOW and do what you all keep saying you'll do ADOPT. Or at least fucking foster.

Sharon - posted on 10/17/2010

11,585

12

1315

Kelly - ok - a whole shit load of words ran through my head and none of them were printable.

For starters, I am not anti life. I brought 3 beautiful lights of love into this world and I cherish them more than my own life and I only continue to sustain myself and indulge myself because I know I have to keep myself healthy & happy to continue to raise healthy & happy children.

I love my life and I would only willingly give it up to save the life of one of my children.

Arguing that "we were all fetuses once, and if we were killed then, we would not be here today." is beyond retarded. Do I need to tell you why? Good fucking god I hope not.

Like Lesley - I've seen the product of children born to women who were less careful and less thoughtful of their children than they were of themselves. A woman whose own body was riddled with various infections and STDs gave birth. Her sightless infection riddled baby survived. It/he is repeatedly stricken by infections that take away more and more his body. Literally. They have to cut it out. They cut out his eyes. They cut off his fingers. They cut off his TONGUE. Frankly - I was so fucking disturbed at the mishapen child sitting on the front steps of his CARETAKERS home, I couldn't bring myself to ask many questions.

I was there to place a cat that was up for adoption and I was touring the home. I saw the bedroom for the rest of the kids. There weren't any toys. They were to retarded to know what the fuck a toy was, much less enjoy it. No bright colors, No childrens books (only medical), no tv or videos, no fun things at all. Instead there were ventilators, heart monitors, ramps to accomodate wheelchairs. This caretaker cared about her charges but not to much. You cannot invest a great deal of yourself in a charge that is DYING. They were all dying or incapable of knowing anyone or hell, knowing themselves.

THAT is what some children born to addicts and whores are doomed to.

But you know what? That isn't even the worst evil, to me. Those children were born and are now drains on our medicare system. But their suffering is physical only. Their brains, such as they are don't recognise anything beyond the basics of pain and no pain. Because most were fed with stomach tubes - there wasn't even hunger to feel.

To me, the greatest evil is how we as a society and government continue to fail the children in the system.

Everyone rails about parental rights. - but that is a different debate. I still advocate abortion for anyone who wants one.

Sharon - posted on 10/17/2010

11,585

12

1315

I still say you anti abortionists aren't seeing the point. You're fighting for a life that isn't real yet for a being that has no concept of what life, happiness or fullfillment is. And yet you weep & wail and scraem for laws and demand adoption over abortion.

At any rate - I hate these abortion debates, same shit different day and I see the proof of needing abortions on the COM forums every day.

[deleted account]

How come no one's walked an inch in the pregnant woman's shoes? What were the circumstances that facilitated her falling pregnant? What are her reasons for wanting a termination? Does her life and well being count, or just the parasite within?



There are problems within the adoption system and a high demand for babies, but shuffling a heap of women and girls wanting terminations into an adoption agency doesn't really solve either problem. There would be more babies available, but there will always be a waiting list for more while the older kids languish within the system. Doomed really. And what of the one who is now having to go through an entire pregnancy she didn't want to experience? She should have to go through what may seem to her like 9 months of hell?



I am pro-choice and do believe it is a woman's right to abort if she wants. However, there should be limits on the time frame for abortion. If a woman has gone through most of a pregnancy, a late term abortion might as well be turned into an adoption... at least she should be told about that option. People who are desperate to adopt a baby should start fostering kids while they wait for their number to come up. They may find their "perfect" child in one of the foster kids, but at the very least they could be providing a good home to a child in need.



What about someone in my position? I have 2 kids and we don't want any more. Of course I use birth control, but what happens if it fails? I would terminate as soon as I found out I was pregnant. There is no way in hell I could go through an entire pregnancy and then give it up. Forget it. I know if I went through the pregnancy, we'd end up having a third child. It is not economically or emotionally feasible for us, and we couldn't provide the life for all our children that we want to provide. Our limit was 2 and that's it.



Another thing I think is missing is education. Instead of picketing abortion clinics, why don't anti-choice people instead use their energy into educating young girls about sex and protection? Many people who don't want abortion also are against sex ed in schools. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. Don't teach them about how to prevent pregnancy and when they do get pregnant tell them they are murderers for wanting to terminate. Does that even sound the least bit logical? And don't just say "abstinence" because we all know many will do it anyway. Making sex taboo only causes undue curiosity... and even more unwanted pregnancies.



Education and a more charitable nature are the keys.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

103 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

Thank you, Toni--That is exactly what I am trying to say--whether it is free or costs thousands, we still have tons of homes available for these unwanted babies, most of which would be healthy, "perfect" babies.

The bio mom has to make the decision to give the child up before 26 weeks into the pregnancy if she wishes to abort, and she has to stick with that decision forever. The same could be said for adoption. If she makes the decision to give the child to a loving family at the same time she would have had to make the decision to abort, the child would have a great chance at getting into a loving adoptive family.

[deleted account]

Laura, sorry I only just saw this, but in response to your comments pointed at me I would thank you for telling me what the rules are in the US. I honestly didn't know, because I haven't lived there in over a decade. I would call it a fetus, but that's just me and it's mostly a case of semantics. Fetus, baby... whichever. I'm not sure by your comment whether you were just answering a question I had or jumping up and down on me... so I'll assume the former. I'm not sure if you noticed that I do not agree with late term terminations (of course there are always extreme exceptions, but that's not what I was referring to). Someone willing to go through half of their pregnancy may as well take it the rest of the way in my opinion.

On the other thing, pregnancy IS a medical condition! Most of us consult a what when we find out we are pregnant? An obstetrician. At least here in Australia, they are medical doctors. Here is the definition of a medical condition (or disease): Any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown. Also, many health insurance companies define pregnancy as a "planned illness".

So it is not sad that I view pregnancy as a medical condition, but rather logical and factual. I'm not certain whether your comment was meant to sound sarcastic and maybe even a bit condescending, but that's how I took it... even though I don't believe I've ever personally attacked anyone.

[deleted account]

Kelly, in the countries where all of those things are free we still have waiting lists to adopt a baby! So it's not about the money but people wanting a perfect baby.

[deleted account]

Why does it matter whether it costs money to adopt? Even though it can be costly, we still have thousands of parents on waiting lists to adopt, so really it is a non issue here.

It costs money to birth a baby too, and it costs money for abortion. It all costs money.

[deleted account]

How in the hell was I attacking you? Your posts weren't addressed to anyone and I wasn't sure who you were talking to. I asked a question. Get over yourself.

[deleted account]

Lena, people who can afford the costs involved in adoption are NOT just given a baby! They have to satisfy certain criteria before they are allowed to go on the waiting list, so IF they cannot afford to buy nappies they will not be accepted onto the waiting list.

[deleted account]

oh and congratulations to you dana for proving my point that someone would attack me!! good job!! applaud all around

[deleted account]

donna was referring to pregnancy as a medical condition.. and my other post was referring to donna also about the latest time which i told her was 26 weeks here in the US depending on the state and the first was my opinion on the actual post.. any other questions..

[deleted account]

and someone was wondering this i think... at least here in the US you can have an abortion at 26 weeks.. take a look at a sonagram at this age and tell me its not a baby..

[deleted account]

as much as i agree with you melissa.. i think a lot of the abortions are occurring due to lack of education about it.. im talking the emotional, physical, mental side, and yes the spiritual affects from it.. i may get crap for this, dont care though.. im 100% prolife, including death penalty.. yes.. with that said.. i volunteer at a pregnancy help center that not only supports any woman of any agee, circumstances during pregnancy and after.. and also abortion victims, again why i said b4 that im willing to bet that a lot of women dont know all about abortion.. now i dont do counseling yet, i hope to in the future, i also believe in the lack of education about this issue is making it hard for these pregnant women/girls to realize adoption is better bc they look at it as being harder to give up their child for adoption after going through with the pregnancy.. meaning that again, not knowing that abortion choice will probably be way worse on their physical, mental, emotional, spiritual selves, and i will add that abortion could make problems for their future pregnancies something else they may not know

Lena - posted on 10/20/2010

171

1

26

It is true about the price on babies. My husband and I were looking into adopting a baby but it is just a bit expense. But if you think about it, if you lower the price then anyone can get the baby. The government wants to make sure that you are seriously committed to raising that child. If they see how much you are willing to give for that baby there is a chance that you will be a better parent for that child. I personally wouldn't want some trailer park trash deciding that they want a baby and not be able to afford diapers or proper education.

Sharon - posted on 10/20/2010

11,585

12

1315

Babies are worth something. Being pregnant and/or incapacitated for umpteen months has a financial value.

MOST adoptions - you aren't paying for the baby per se, you're paying other various legal services.

[deleted account]

...

I am a little speechless. I am more offended that they think that there is a "price" for a life. Babies shouldn't be something you pay money for... It's shocking....

Petra - posted on 10/20/2010

533

16

22

@Donna - the parasite argument has been around for a long, long time. As accurate as the comparisons may be, it is reductivist rhetoric and not logical. Basic similarities aside, a zygote or embryo is not a parasite. I could go on and on and on, but this whole thing is beyond off topic.

@Jodi - the moment of conception being the union of sperm and egg (fertilization) when the two create one living cell. The controversy about when pregnancy commences is usually most apparent in abortion debates, and I do not take issue with the notion that pregnancy beings when the blastocyte implants ("established" pregnancy). Conception and implantation are merely two stages of human procreation - however, once implantation occurs (within a few weeks of conception), genetic specialization begins, albeit on a very, very small scale.

My apologies to the OP for taking this topic way offside!

Becky - posted on 10/20/2010

2,892

44

93

My OB called my first son a parasite, and that was when I was about 33 weeks pregnant with him! I was a little put off by that, to be honest! I was worried about him getting enough nutrition because I was so sick I couldn't eat or keep anything down, and she said they were quite good little parasites and would manage to get what they needed from us. Anyways, beside the point.
The difference between and embryo and a parasite is that a parasite does not have your DNA. Nor does it have a heartbeat, which, by the time most pregnancies are discovered, the embryo already does. By that point, it's not just a cluster of cells, it's a cluster of cells that are differentiating into the various organs and systems that we need for life.
Anyways, I think I've already explained my point of view pretty thoroughly, and I really should go to bed. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in on the whole parasite comparison.

[deleted account]

LOL That's okay. It's nice to be able to debate someone without it resorting to bickering and sniping. And we did that about abortion... surely that's noteworthy too!

You know, I think the parasite thing came from my own experiences. I remember being pregnant with my firstborn and after my first scan seeing my "baby", I told the receptionist "It just looked like a "snot prawn" and I was waiting for it to jump out of my stomach like the alien in the movie!" And you know what, I even did the sound effects and arm motions simulating just that. Also, I've always seen pregnancy as a medical condition and it's not permanent until you choose it to be.

Oh, and the 'snot prawn' thing comes from a hilarious pregnancy book by Kaz Cooke called "Up the Duff". She is an Australian writer for women's mags.

[deleted account]

Thank you, Donna. We do agree on a lot of points, in fact, I'd say we agree on all of the important ones (but I still think the parasite logic is flawed ;-)



Also, you are right, it was not you who said the "we were all fetuses once" argument was "retarded", I'm not sure how I got that confused, but I've been stuck here in bed the past few days with a head cold, so we'll blame it on that. Sorry about that!

[deleted account]

Kelly, it is not necessarily a fetus by the time it is aborted. A fetus is only a fetus from approximately 12 weeks, prior to that it is an embryo and before that it is a zygote.

Zygote is a basic biological term. A zygote is the fertilised egg through the first several cell divisions, until shortly after implantation.

The majority of abortions take place before the end of the embryonic stage (at 12 weeks), so they are not fetuses.

Yes, of course it could turn into a person. That is agreed. It may not, but if it were carried to full term (or until which point it can survive independently), then yes it would be a person. I suppose it would have been much easier for me to say that I agree with early terminations and not ones in the last trimester. But, to be honest, I'm not sure that you could even get one in the last trimester. Well, not here anyway. Maybe you can, but I am not aware of it.

Oh, I wasn't trying to liken a termination to be like a miscarriage or illness in any other way than to say that we have all survived all the various methods and means of babies dying. Humans are the most immature mammalian baby born, simply because we could not physically birth a mature one (2 years old), so the first couple years of life after birth are full of hazards for an infant. We have made it past those years to grow and thrive.

Hell, I just think that everyone should appreciate the life they have. That's all.

You know, Kelly, you and I actually agree on many points. We're just expressing them in different ways. :-) Although, you hit the nail on the head a while back when you said that abortion has to remain legal because some people are just too stupid... I'm paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact words, but I remember the sentiment... and me totally agreeing.

[deleted account]

Donna, it is a fetus by the time it is aborted. Besides that, I've heard that argument a thousand times, sometimes they say fetus, sometimes they say embryo, you are the first I've heard to call it a zygote, though, so congrats on that, but I don't care about the specifics of what you call it. It is the thing growing in the woman that will turn into a person--can we all agree on that?

I do agree with you on the fact that terminating the pregnancy is easier than living with the consequences of birthing an unwanted child, and that in itself justifies the abortion.

I do not agree that terminating a pregnancy can be likened to a pregnancy being terminated by some accident or illness. In the case of accident or illness, it is not one person deliberately ending the life of another. In the case of abortion, the mother is deliberately ending the life of the child/fetus/zygote/whatever you wish to call it. It is not the same.



Dana ;) I have never met a pro-life person who doesn't believe in legal abortions for rape and cases where the mother may not survive (I've read a few on here but I believe they stand for a very small minority), so I consider that respect for her life. That said, many, many pro-life people are stepping up to the plate and offering counseling and legal help to women who choose not to abort, they are just not as vocal as the picketers (I hate the picketers, honestly, what good does marching around with a stupid sign do??). As for the homeless, they have nothing to do with abortion. Many pro-life people do care about the homeless, the sick, and the older kids, but it makes no sense to bring them up when they are discussing abortion. They are several unrelated, but equally important topics. It would be like trying to address abortion at a soup kitchen, or domestic violence at a home for fostered kids. Just because they are not vocalizing their concern for homelessness in abortion discussions, does not mean that they don't care, it just means that they are focused on abortion at the time. You can't be focused on everything at once--even issues have to take turns.

[deleted account]

I think this has already been said but here in the UK adopting a chils is free and still they're aren't enough people adopting, and the majority who do only want babies. So IMO making it free may not make much difference.

[deleted account]

@Julie - I just wanted to say Congratulations for surviving the horrors you had to endure with your pregnancy and to your baby for being a tough nut! Also, I'm sorry you two had such a terrible experience. Hopefully he's grown into a healthy little boy with no ill effects from his early experience. And, just think, when he's a teenager pissing you off, you'll have the "do you know what I WENT through for you?!" card. ;-) (you gotta find the silver lining, don't you?)

Oh yeah... yes, vets are doctors too! In fact, they are far more educated than people doctors.

[deleted account]

@Julie - Thanks for the laugh! I feel the same way about dieting through tapeworm. Keep it 'til I've lost the weight.



@Kelly & Petra - Where exactly in my post did you read the word "fetus"? Hmm??? Cite it and I'll stop rolling my eyes. I was very clear in my stance. ZYGOTE. EMBRYO. Fetus? Uhhh, nope, didn't say that. My argument stands up quite well, because you cannot attribute those characteristics to all stages of gestation. "Cluster of cells" - yes well, technically we are all clusters of cells, but surely one is not going to split hairs between billions and billions and a dozen.... and okay, "parasite" could be attributed to all babies and children (some family members and people on welfare) since they are dependent on us to provide for them, but they are able to live as an independent body and we aren't talking about dependency per se.



It is simplistic, and accurate. And for those wishing an abortion, that "life" IS an unwanted pest requiring eradication just as a tapeworm would be. The only reason why a person can't accept this view is because people tend to humanise that cluster of cells and saying it will grow to be a human. It MAY do, but at the stage I'm speaking about, it is not anything more than a parasitic cluster of cells.



BTW, Kelly, I did not laugh at the "we were all fetuses" argument. I actually agree with part of it. We WERE all fetuses in the beginning and we are the lucky survivors. Therefore we need to appreciate the life we have. However, abortion is not the only thing that could have killed us. In my case, I am lucky to be alive because my mother had miscarriages and stillbirths before I was born. I was the "accident" that stuck. Probably because I'm a stubborn old mule. :-) Then there are disease, failure to thrive, SIDS and a whole host of other things that cause babies to die. I do not find it a good reason to hinder terminations though, because that argument could be extended to all those dead sperm. They could have become fetuses too. We did start off as half sperm too.



Abortion needs to remain a choice for a whole host of reasons. (no pun intended) However, I do believe limits should also be maintained on when a termination can be performed. If a girl has gone to 7 months... hell, even 5 months, then she may as well go the rest of the way before "aborting" it... adopt it out. I'm not sure what the cut off limits are in different countries, but I know here it is 12 weeks. At least that's what I've been told. So, we go back around to that cluster of cells thing.

Julie - posted on 10/19/2010

619

35

72

"Julie, I was right there with you until you started bashing the pro-life people for not taking up every cause under the sun. It is not that pro-life people don't care about the homeless or the older kids in the system, it is just that they care about the unborn children just as much as they care about these other people. It doesn't make sense to pro-choice people because most pro-choice people value the life of someone who has already been born more than someone who hasn't been born yet, whereas, to most pro-life people, the fetus is just as important a life as the already born child or adult."

I did not bash pro-lifers for not saving everybody, I said they piss me off by not caring for any other group of people.

Short version: cherry-picking the EASY life to save pisses me off. Seeing someone say they are pro-life but then treating another life like a piece of crap is unacceptable. You don't have to help them all, but PLEASE do not denigrate or, worse, ignore them.

Jodi - posted on 10/19/2010

2,694

52

175

Petra, "Life begins at the moment of conception" here in lies the base of the issue, define conception. Hard core Roman catholics consider male masturbation leading to ejaculation outside of a vagina is a form of abortion as the sperm never has a chance to fertilize a possible egg. Some say conception begins when sperm meets egg, regardless of whether or not it implants into the uterine lining before menstruation begins. Some say conception is when sperm meets egg and the egg has the approrpriate 7-9 days minimum to implant into the uterine lining and prevent menstruation. Some go further still and argue conception has not begun until the fertilized egg is viable to live outside the womb. For the record, I'm a little pro-chocie, a little pro-life, I think it's a necessary evil for some people, but it's taken too far in some cases as well. So I easily swing back from side to side depending on just how pro-life or pro-choice the conversation is getting. Coming from a family of catholics, usually leads to hardcore pro-lifers becoming beet red in the face.

[deleted account]

If they were being put on their own island, far away from kids I wouldn't want them on death row. But since they're not and probably won't ever be, I honestly cannot bring myself to feel enough compassion for them to want them alive. Probably one of my biggest character flaws, next to being stubborn as a mule! lol

[deleted account]

I'm all for them being put on their own island far away and I do agree that they shouldn't be allowed out of prison but I just don't agree that they should be put to death. That's all!

[deleted account]

@Dana - Repeat child molesters, to me, should be on death row if they're not going to be put onto their own separate island far far away from any children. That's just me though, and I know not all pro-choicers, like you Dana, would agree with me.

Petra - posted on 10/19/2010

533

16

22

@ Dana - ...and that's the very problem with the hard-core pro-lifers: once the life has been saved, their work is done. What happens to that child later on in life appears to be irrelevant as they care only about what happens to the fetus. In a lot of cases, sparing a child a life of neglect, abuse, poverty, starvation, etc. is, quite possibly, the lesser of two evils. Let the mother decide which route she wants to take.

[deleted account]

"It doesn't make sense to pro-choice people because most pro-choice people value the life of someone who has already been born more than someone who hasn't been born yet, whereas, to most pro-life people, the fetus is just as important a life as the already born child or adult." ~ Kelly

You claim that pro-lifers feel that the life of the unborn is equallly as important as a living human but I disagree. They would rather deny a woman the choice to decide for herself. They're complete disregard for HER life is disturbing PLUS, they don't value both lives the same because very few of them are actually stepping up to the plate. They picket to protest abortions but that's where they stop. They're not out providing support for mother's who choose NOT to have an abortion, very few of them are adopting children and the ones that ARE adopting, there are even fewer numbers who adopt older children. I disagree that they value all life equally. They value the unborn FAR MORE than they value a life that is already in existence.

[deleted account]

"They are all living bundles of cells, the only difference is that the fetus and tapeworm both need a host organism and the baby and rat do not."



"Besides that, it defeats the argument that the fetus is not "alive" because it cannot survive without the mother"



After 20 weeks the baby might survive out of the uterus, after 28 weeks, more than likely it will. Less than 20 weeks, it is essentially a parasite because without it's host organism (the mother) it cannot survive, just as a tapeworm cannot survive without it's host organism. I know where I'm from, they don't allow abortions after 12 weeks, so it's still a "parasite."



It is a solution to a problem, no it's not absolutely right or perfect, but it's needed. The truth is that some people have been put into a situation that they could not live with the repercussions of anothers actions ie rape. Others, teenagers for example, haven't been properly taught about contraception, are they expected to deal with the consequences when we, as a society, have failed them by not giving them the proper tools and education? I don't agree with the women who repeatedly get abortions because they can't be bothered to take their birth control or remind the guy to wear a condom. Luckily, where I'm from, you're only allowed 3 abortions, and then from their they either have to keep the baby or give it up for adoption.



Kelly, I think why she veered that way is because not all pro-lifers are indeed pro-life, they are just pro-fetus. On another thread, one woman went so far as to say she didn't care about the mother living or dying if it was on the abortion clinic table and also that she didn't care if the "saved" fetus lived on the streets in a life of poverty. That's just an example from one woman, but I've heard these types of things from many people who claim to be pro-life.



Also, not even all pro-choicers agree with the death penalty. I personally would only want repeat child molesters on death row. The rest of them can rot in a jail cell.

Petra - posted on 10/19/2010

533

16

22

@Donna & Jodi – like Kelly said, parasite analogies used to justify abortion don't hold up to scrutiny. It is simplistic rhetoric used to reduce what will become a human being to an unwanted pest requiring eradication. Yes, you can argue that a zygote has parasitic qualities: simple cellular composition; a lack of self-awareness; a dependency on its host to survive; no rights to life in and of itself. Where that argument falls apart is that you can attribute any or all of these characteristics to a human fetus at any stage during gestation. At later stages of development, a zygote becomes a biologically complex, sentient creature; but, it is not yet truly self-aware and it is dependent on its host (until the moment it actually exits the body) for survival. A parasite can exist without its host until exposure and starvation cause its demise, as will an unaided fetus outside the womb. The similarities do not suddenly cease to exist at any one point during development, or even at birth.

If you allow a tapeworm to grow into an “adult” tapeworm within your body, taking medications to pass said tapeworm and flush it down the toilet is not a morally debatable issue. Likening an zygote to a tapeworm in this respect would be to condone aborting a viable fetus, as it is still “parasitic”. A parasite is not borne of the human body, but is an independently created, outside entity which enters the human body and then sets up camp to leech off of its host for survival - it will never develop into something more complex than a large, well-fed parasite. If, by likening a zygote to a parasite, you are more comfortable with the idea of aborting a zygote, then the rhetoric served its purpose. If, however, we are honest, abortion is merely the destruction of the product of human procreation. Calling it, in earliest stages of development, a parasite, does not make it any less what it is: the beginnings of a human being.

The only way I can be even remotely comfortable with my pro-choice stance is to agree that abortion is less morally objectionable when performed within the first trimester (excepting instances where the life of the mother is threatened or there are severe complications with the fetus). Personally, I can't find any point during gestation where the developing zygote is far removed enough from an infant to justify its intentional destruction. Life begins at the moment of conception – not at birth, not at some arbitrary stage of development, not at some magical moment when an infant discovers that they actually exist. Any way you look at it, whether as a parasite or as a simple cluster of cells, that thing is alive and it is a developing human being.

[deleted account]

Donna, The "Parasite" logic is no less flawed for this argument than the "We were all fetuses before" logic you find so laughable. I'm not saying I disagree with your stance, I agree we need abortion to be legal, but your logic is flawed. Let me explain:
Comparing a fetus to a tapeworm is no different than comparing a baby to a rat. They are all living bundles of cells, the only difference is that the fetus and tapeworm both need a host organism and the baby and rat do not. So by your logic, if the fact that it is okay to kill a tapeworm makes it okay to kill a fetus, then the fact that it is okay to kill a rat should make it okay to kill a baby. Maybe it is okay to kill a baby, but few people would agree. Besides that, it defeats the argument that the fetus is not "alive" because it cannot survive without the mother--the tape worm is alive, so the fetus is alive.

Basically, you cannot argue whether abortion is right or wrong--everyone will never agree on that. The point is, we need it. In many situations it is often better to do something morally debatable in order to avoid living with the consequences. Like I said before, Abortion is similar to a white lie. Most people will agree lying is wrong, but often it is better than living with the consequences of the truth.

You could kind of compare it to the death penalty, we all agree that it is wrong to kill a person, but we kill inmates no one wants alive anymore, so it makes equal since to kill a potential baby that no one wants alive. The reasons no one wants them alive are different, but the bottom line fact is that no one wants them alive, so killing them is justified.

Julie, I was right there with you until you started bashing the pro-life people for not taking up every cause under the sun. It is not that pro-life people don't care about the homeless or the older kids in the system, it is just that they care about the unborn children just as much as they care about these other people. It doesn't make sense to pro-choice people because most pro-choice people value the life of someone who has already been born more than someone who hasn't been born yet, whereas, to most pro-life people, the fetus is just as important a life as the already born child or adult.

Julie - posted on 10/19/2010

619

35

72

Donna--"Okay, let's say you get a tapeworm. That is 1) a cluster of cells and 2) a parasite. Do you keep it because it is alive? It doesn't have a life in the sense that we do, but nor does that other cluster of cells called a zygote."

That's a tough one ... Could I keep it long enough to lose a desired amount of weight, take my praziquantel(or whatever people take for tapes) and then see if I expel a record-breaking tapeworm? Ok, the medicine dissolves the tapeworm, but that ruins my story.

In all seriousness to address the topic, one needs to take a step back. A woman's choice is BEFORE the baby and it's called a pregnancy. See, abortion is about terminating an unwanted PREGNANCY not baby.

Personally, I cannot imagine a scenario in which I would not carry a pregnancy to term. HOWEVER, I maintain that it is a woman's right to choose. HOWEVER, since my son and I didn't not enjoy a third trimester together, I would have to be anti-third trimester abortions in an otherwise healthy pregnancy. Finally, my pregnancy was HELL. 124 days of NICU was HELL (not to mention my own issues). Bringing a baby home on 11 different medications, oxygen and and apnea monitor (we were lucky) was TOUGH. Had I no support system and had I not been a doctor (yes, veterinarians are doctors) I have no idea how things would have gone. Between me and my boy, things could have gotten really bad. Not just bad, but make the evening news kind of bad. Thankfully, they didn't. Details of our issues are not pertinent to this discussion.

Therefor, I would NEVER deny a woman the choice to NOT go through that hell knowing that we got the best possible outcome (for my son and me) almost against all odds.

The "when does life begin?" question will never be answered. It may well get defined by alternate subsets of people, but it will never be known. That is where the CHOICE comes in. It is like the CHOICE to seek medical treatment in the face of illness, though many would argue that when death is imminent, it is no longer YOUR choice.

I stand by my fellow pro-choice mommies.

I am not going to sugar coat how pissed off it makes me that pro-lifers are SO concerned about a fetus yet could give two shits about the half-dead homeless man they walked by on their way to work. How they don't do squat for older kids, younger moms, struggling families, etc ... Oh, do NOT give me the BS "adults put themselves in that situation" because it is often not entirely a person's fault their life situation sucks. Yes, we can choose to make the best of any situation, but we also all have our own set of available resources and personal ability. So PLEASE, do not tell me you are pro-life if you are only pro-fetus. I know many pro-lifers do care and do what they can, but this doesn't apply to you so don't be offended.

Oh, and DO NOT play the "abstinence only" card as a means to a happy ends in regards to this issue, we all know that is Bullsh!t and a half. Young women and men need to learn about their bodies and what they are capable of. They need to learn, specifically, how they can get pregnant, how they know if they are and what to do about it. They need to have access to FREE birth control. They need to have access to "oops I'm pregnant now what" counciling so they can make the best choice for themselves and their life situation. They need SUPPORT in whatever decision they've chosen.

This is not a simple argument and I could keep going, but it's time for breakfast and I don't the the poster intended for much more than a fairly simple answer (and there is none).

Oh, I didn't address the "price" of babies, but I could go encyclopedic on that one.

[deleted account]

Sure, Jodi. Go for it! It was really just a thought that came into my head. I'm very much a science minded sort of person, so I'm surprised I've never thought of this before... given I've had the abortion debate plenty of times before now.

Jodi - posted on 10/18/2010

2,694

52

175

Donna, I absolutely *love* that comparison and will probably steal it for future debates with friends and family! I agree 100%!

[deleted account]

Good side note, Jennifer. Here's another view of that debate in a way: I can believe a cluster of cells are "alive" because I've seen single celled organisms which are "alive", such as amoeba, paramecium, etc. They are alive, so a zygote, which is no more than a cluster of cells, could very well be alive. However, this cluster of cells is just like every other parasite and cannot live without a host organism.



Okay, let's say you get a tapeworm. That is 1) a cluster of cells and 2) a parasite. Do you keep it because it is alive? It doesn't have a life in the sense that we do, but nor does that other cluster of cells called a zygote.



Just food for thought.



P.S. Yes, I am pro-choice, but I can understand the "alive" argument of anti-choicers... even though I find it a bit ridiculous, as you can see.

Jenni - posted on 10/18/2010

5,928

34

393

Sorry, I just wanted to add a side note on the pro-choice/pro-life debates:

These debates on Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice are really pointless. It's like arguing religion. No side is going to win because the basis of being PC or PL is on 'when' life begins. PL believes it's immediately after conception and PC believes it's later in pregnancy when the brain developes a conscienceness. No one can really know when life begins because it's intangeable. So it becomes a debate about personal opinion.

I know this doesn't have anything really to do with the OT... just a side note.

Jenni - posted on 10/18/2010

5,928

34

393

Even if it was an open adoption I would not be able to give my baby up once it was born. Once I had bonded for 9 months. Regardless of how my family, myself and the baby would suffer. As devastating as an abortion would be it would not be as near as devastating as giving away a baby after 9 months, giving birth and seeing my baby. I'm sorry but it's just not the same.

Kelly, I'm not sure if you were referring to my post or Sharon's or both. My post wasn't in response to anything you had said it was a general post to the OT after I had given it more thought. I definitely agree that it should be just as easier to give a baby away for adoption than to have an abortion. But I don't think it's an issue of 'red tape' why women decided to have an abortion over adoption. They would still have to be pregnant for 9 months, take care of themselves accordingly and develop an emotional bond with their baby just to have to give it up. There are women who are strong enough to do that and should be applauded but I'm not one of them, nor are a lot of other women.

An abortion is much different because you haven't developed a bond yet. I know with my son I felt such a strong bond the moment I discovered I was pregnant. I became unnecessarily cautious of everything I did; cradled my belly so as not to shake him too much, stepped in and out of the shower more carefully. I was actually afraid to move too much in the beginning of my pregnancy because I didn't want to jostle him too much. Obviously in that situation an abortion would have been horribly painful. But I don't know if the reason I felt that bonded so early was because I knew without a doubt I was keeping him. With my daughter it was different I didn't experience a bond until I felt her first kicks. So every women is different and every pregnancy is different when talking about 'when' that bond is developed.

Anyways, like i've already said; I wouldn't be able to do it, myself. I'm sure there are plenty of women that could and do. I don't think the majority of women who abort take it lightly and I'm sure most of them do consider every possible alternative before deciding to abort. I don't think it's out of ignorance, I'd like to think most of them have thought it through and have decided to terminate their preganancy because no other alternative would work for them.

[deleted account]

If I had an oops at this point I would consider adoption only because my best friend can't have a baby and will probably never be able to afford adoption. Babies are bought through adoption and thats exactly why I'm pro choice, there are so many kids in foster care because people want babies.

[deleted account]

well, there are always open adoptions where you can keep contact with your biological child, that would take care of those "what if's". I didnt' really get that argument anyway, you can wonder "what if" whether you let the baby live or not. Again, and this is probably my last time saying this because I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, I am not saying to legally restrict abortion, I am just saying to make giving the baby up for adoption just as easy or easier than getting an abortion. Right now, it is very easy to get an abortion, it is very difficult to put place a child with an adoptive parent, even though we have plenty available.

Jenni - posted on 10/18/2010

5,928

34

393

I think the problem is that there are many women that feel the same way I do out there:
If I had an unwanted pregnancy let's say because I'm at my financial limit. I used BC but it failed. I would not take the route of adoption because I could not see myself carrying a baby and seeing my ultrasound, feeling those first kicks, hearing the heart beat and experiencing the life inside me. Go through the birthing process; the pain, the excitement, the pure joy of my baby finally coming into the world. Seeing my baby for the first time; his or her tiny hands and feet, little face and hearing her first cries. They would have to pry her from my dead, rigor mortis frozen arms to take her away after all that. To me it would nearly be like experiencing the death of my newborn. Wondering where she is, who she is, if she's happy, what she will become, missing her birthdays and all her firsts. It would be absolutely heart-wrenching to me. An abortion in itself is heart-breaking but to have all those experiences, to have grown to love my unborn child over 9 months would be 100x worse on my emotional and mental state.
I would not beable to do it at that point. I would live in a cardboard box to keep my baby.
Call it selfish but I can't help how I feel and how much harder the adoption route would be for me.

Sharon - posted on 10/18/2010

11,585

12

1315

HEAR!!! HEAR!!! I hear ya my sisters!

The problem with restricting abortion to only pregnancies that will result in a child that has no quality of life is --- who gets to decide quality of life ---?

And LIke two other post'ers - I'm at my financial limit. We have 3 kids, all three have college funds, I'm back at work, back in a career, and we're still struggling. We use birth control because I really don't want surgery and the possibility of if our situation should turn around we MIGHT consider having a 4th child. But today? This week? This month? This year? We can't afford it. My period was never regular, after the third pregnancy it has somewhat settled down to a rhythm but its not unusual for me to miss a period and its not unusual for me to not notice that its been two months without a period. Should I be denied an abortion because you say I should be pregnant for 9/10 months, completely and 100% incapacitated with puking and pain, give up my job, go on welfare to bring another mouth into this world that we will no longer be able to afford to feed?

Unlike most of the american population, I do not believe it is my right and entitlement to welfare to support a child I chose to bring into this world, knowing full well I couldn't afford to raise it.

No, adoption is out of the question. I have a brain that runs on "what-ifs" and I would never be able to function normally for the rest of my life with the "what ifs" running through my head. I read to much news and watch to many terrible drama movies to be comfortable adopting out to strangers.

Geezus - no no no no no no - No one gets to dictate to me what I do with MY BODY.

[deleted account]

I think most people on here know my stance on this already, especially Kimberly. Everything I would say, has already been said.

We were given free will to make our own choices, you're not a god and you can't take that away from me.

Jenny - posted on 10/17/2010

4,426

16

129

"What about someone in my position? I have 2 kids and we don't want any more. Of course I use birth control, but what happens if it fails? I would terminate as soon as I found out I was pregnant. There is no way in hell I could go through an entire pregnancy and then give it up. Forget it. I know if I went through the pregnancy, we'd end up having a third child. It is not economically or emotionally feasible for us, and we couldn't provide the life for all our children that we want to provide. Our limit was 2 and that's it. "



I feel the same way. Just because I can conceive doesn't make me an incubator. I'm very thankful I have the privilage of family planning in my country. I have been talking to many people on this topic lately and I'm finding mothers with families are the most common receiver of abortions, at least in my area. All the woman I know who had abortions were on birth control, in long term relationships and already had kids. Just because we can have a baby doesn't mean we should. I realise some couple have fertility issue but getting pregnant is not a miracle.



Oh and high five on bringing up the lack of support for older kids. That pisses me off too. It very strongly comes across as pro-cutelittlenewbornbaby and not pro-LIFE.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms