Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
You see a life wasted, .... but what you dont see, ... what you possibly could not know, ... is the possiblity's of this childs life if it had been
born, a life unloved, underprivledged, neglected, ..... perhaps wishing not to be born at all, .... perhaps the beginning is the end.
Why carry a soul through a lifetime of misery ?? because of personal responsibility ??? well thats what abortion is, ... and perhaps none of you
will never know the courage it takes to make such a choice.
Why is the argument always that they would have a lifetime of misery if born? Have we become soothsayers that we know what's in the cards for
people? What about Bill Clinton? His mother was a poor white trash party girl that he had to pick up from bars as a child. Should she have aborted
I grew up in the ghetto with drug and gang violence all around me and I have a very happy life as an adult. If I could change one thing about the
Pro-Choice argument it is that. It is pompous, condescending, and hateful. If you can't grow up in the suburbs why live at all?
That is the
implication of the statement, that somehow adversity is the worst thing that could ever happen to a living being.
What about what does not destroy us, nourishes us? Adversity can make you strong, you know.
In the animal kingdom it is common for mothers to eat their sickly young. In the ancient world there was pater familias, wherein fathers could
abandon or kill their unwell children. There has always been a selection as far back as we go in history, so I see this issue no differently. People
have always killed their children. Abortion is nothing "new". Calling it a "fetus" instead of a child is the only thing "new" about it.
What I want to know is where is this "quality of life" line for children? Do we only care about their quality of life when they are in the womb?
What about 36 month abortions?
What if someone said the same of children in Niger during the drought? That we put them out of their misery now rather than allow them the slow,
painful death of hunger and thirst--how would you feel about that? I went on a fast for a week and it was almost unbearable. I cannot imagine the
pain that refugees feel, that the mothers with no milk in their breast feel when they have nothing to offer their child. Should we club them all to
save them that kind of anguish?
None of us are wise enough to be solidly in either camp. It is far too complex an issue to be so self-righteous about it. I would not make that
choice because from personal experience I know I'd rather have the shot at life than have it taken away. Also, I would not want to deal with the
consequences of such a permanent decision, but those that do...it is their souls, their conscience that will have to life with it, not mine.
I don't think, however, in a diverse society that it is fair to have people pay for something that they are morally opposed to. I don't want to pay
for the death penalty, for war, for abortions, etc. There should be some way to have check boxes on our tax forms. I'd still pay what everyone else
is paying, but not to the same "causes". That way we'd have a real balanced budget of only spending what money we have, and the results would be