Originally posted by Witness2008
Women who are faced with the gut wrenching, life altering decision as to whether they should, or could take on the mind boggling responsibility that
is birthed with that child should in my opinion be left in the trusted hands of family and doctors, leaving total strangers that attempt to butt in
out in the cold where they belong.
Again I ask....How many of the moral crusaders on this thread have ever looked into the eyes of an unwanted or abandoned child and offered any
assistance to that child?
Abortion is a complex issue and these old tunes do not help.
You do not know that if the woman decided to have the baby that it would in fact be unwanted or even abandoned by the time it is born. Women have
hormonal surges through pregnancy that may or may not affect their decision-making process. It is unclear if their fears would still be translated
when she finally has the child.
Conversely, a planned pregnancy does not necessarily equate to a wanted child when all is said and done. I've seen a lot of people "plan" to have
a child that then goes into daycare weeks after it is born. Some of my best friends told me later that they were completely unprepared for how much
time children required. Romantic trips to Italy became a family vacation at Disney World. The kids, though the parents have $$, were seen as a
lifestyle burden.
You just never know the decision-making that goes into the process. I always hear about how it is this big decision and well-thought out, but I think
that's a myth we tell ourselves to feel better.. Yes, sometimes humans take a long time and put a lot of thought into decisions, but a lot of time
we go on emotion.
I know of at least two people that went to have abortions and changed their mind at the very last minute. They were so sure that they wanted to have
one that they got naked, got in the dressing gown, and got on the table. One of them told me that she was iffy and got a lot of pressure from her
friends not to have it because her relationship was terrible and her boyfriend was a -BEEP-.
How do you know that everyone who has an abortion thought it all the way through? How do you know that they would have been miserable had they gone
on to have the child? Nine months is a long time and it is quite possible that it would be enough time to be happier about the decision.
Like I have said on other threads. It is a complex enough subject without bringing in logical fallacies that generalize. It can be discussed in
terms of civil liberties, or federal versus states rights, or even the historical context of pater familia-- I mean, it doesn't necessitate that we
bring in these same old arguments/stories.
I suggest turning words into deeds.
How do you know that people do not? Jim Caviezel is very big in the Pro-Life community and he's adopted two children who had life-threatening
diseases and/or crippling conditions. The Pro-Life community is as diverse as the Pro-Choice community.
Again, can't this be debated without resorting to the same old same old? Not picking on you, I just see the same thread over and over again.
On another thread like this I asked about the future of designer babies; if people would still be Pro-Choice if it meant that someday there would be
no gay children, no transgender children, no unattractive children, no un-athletic children, no un-intelligent children, no handicapped children--no
child that was considered less than desirable by the shallow standards of our population, would people still be Pro-Choice?
Most hemmed and hawed, but Benevolent Heretic said that, yes, even if all the gays were wiped from the face of the earth she would still be
Pro-Choice. I had much respect for her because she thought about all the possible ramifications of abortion as a form of birth control and still felt
that a woman had a right to choose what type of child she had or if she had that child.
Most people don't think that far and it is a shame because science is way ahead of us. These questions will be on our plate all too soon and the
decisions and paths we take now will lead us towards a direction we might not have predicted.
Most people only think as far as this idea that it is somehow an agonizing decision for women. I would say, no, not always. Maybe now it is still a
little agonizing when there is still a stigma attached to the procedure, but as in vitro becomes more common this will go away relatively quickly.
People are already used to the idea of de-selecting or terminating embryos rather than end up an Octomom.
What about when a couple has a choice of specifically removing the girl babies? Is that okay? Or what if they can do a test to see if the child will
someday have cancer? Do you save it the suffering by terminating it now? What about the Hawk? Would you have aborted him to save him the pain and
suffering he would have faced? Or what if that idiot at Westboro Baptist? I could completely see him arguing to kill gay babies in the womb...
This issue will only be more complex and if we talk about what it could mean, what our future could look like without resorting to "stories" and
"generalizations" we can at least walk into this future prepared for the consequences of our actions.
That is what adults are supposed to do, isn't it?
). It is that unwanted dependance that causes some women to have abortions knowing that
they cannot or do not want to provide it. 
