Would pro-lifers rather see a mother abuse or murder her children than have an abortion?

Question

I'm asking because of the repeated questions relating these two issues in such a way that it makes it sound like pro-choice people (people who merely want the government to stay out of it) are in favor of murdering all children.

So, pro-lifers, is this what you want?

ruth: Because I said so. My question, my five points. Don't have an answer, don't respond, okay?

And ruth - I'm a woman, not a man.

No Soup: Call me by the name I am using now. I like your insinuation, that I'm trying to hide, but yes, I was those other two names. Today I'm this name. Tomorrow I might be another. And you have to deal with it.

mbush: WHAT??? Most women who carry out having the child aren't going to abuse it? Really?

Brother: Actually, medically speaking, and abortion is the "end" of a pregnancy. You abort a pregnancy, you don't abort a child. If you believe abortion is murder, you still aren't "aborting the child," you are "aborting the pregnancy," which results in what you call the "murder" of the child. Get your vocabulary right.

Butterbrain: Got a statistic to back up your claim that aborted fetuses would disagree with me? Have you polled them? Have you polled currently viable fetuses to see what they think? No? Why not?

Answer 1

The fact is...NO ONE likes the GOVERNMENT telling them what to do with their body...MEN would NOT stand for it..why should we???? I don't think abortion is right for ME...under normal circumstances (in the absence of say, rape)...but I strongly defend a woman's right to make that CHOICE....and the government has NO RIGHT to say what I can and cannot do....
Along with that, I don't think it ( the abortion itself) should be government funded, but I should have a right to CHOOSE....otherwise, back alley abortions will once again prevail and all the infection and needless deaths that go with it...is this what we want???? I think not....just because you make abortion "illegal" doesn't mean it won't still go on....
Back in the 50's...Dr's called it an "appendectomy"...so that he (the Dr) would not get in trouble and neither would the girl or her family...and it would be an "accepted" reason for little Susie to have an "operation".....

Answer 2

"why should I intervene if someone else wants to have one?" If you saw someone get robbed, would you intervene? What about if they were raped? Murdered? When someone does something to someone else, is it possible that sometimes you might feel the need to get involved and do something about it? So if you want to turn a blind eye to abortion as a convenience to dodge responsibility, it's your choice, abortion is legal, they can legally do that. But science says that cells are living things, and a conceived fetus is a living human, and abortion is the murder of a living human. It might not be walking, talking and capable of holding down a steady job, but then again, neither is a baby that's 2 months old. So why draw a line in the sand and say that this form of murder is justifiable, and why turn a blind eye to it? I'm against, murder, theft, rape, etc... and I won't turn a blind eye to others that do those things and say that's their choice and it doesn't affect me, I won't do the same for abortion either.

Answer 3

kinda putting the cart before the horse aren't you.. Tell me something , there was a bill in congress which would apply restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours.The bill required the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus and also the fetus(which is now outside the body) to receive emergency care at a hospital. It never became law. Now, the pro-choice people say that an abortion is not the killing of a baby, because it never inhaled air.. The aborted fetuses, which survived the abortion have and are breathing outside the womb, therefore are they not now babies.. Why are they not cared for.... If its because "she " didn't want it in the first place, are these mothers and doctors not murdering that baby by not getting it help????

Answer 4

There are several ways I look at it. First, everyone has the right to live. Second I believe that if a child dies before they reach the age of eight they will go to heaven ( I think being in heaven is better than being abused). Third, I find it hard to believe that a woman who would kill her own child will not be a good mother. Fourth, we will never know what good or ill the children who have been killed by their mothers would have been responsible for. Fifth, I believe that some people (evil people) should not be allowed to have kids

Answer 5

Abort = End

Aborting a life = Ending a life

Ending a life = Murder

***Add'l : Conception = Life , otherwise a baby would have to magically appear at birth. A baby evolves from a single cell during pregnancy, and is dependant on the mother to survive, or live, hence the term LIFE. Don't pro-choicers believe in evolution?

Answer 6

And the difference between abortion and murder of the child is...? Semantics?

But, based on your logic, should we then abort any child that gets abused? After all, that's much better, right? Because death is preferable to abuse, by your reasoning, then that must be right.

But, what I'm really trying to get you to think about, is that neglect, starvation, child abuse, etc is not certain, even if the child was unwanted at the time of the pregnancy. And even if the child does suffer from neglect, abuse, hunger, etc, that does not guarantee they will not become vital, life-affirming adults. Just because the pregancy was not wanted does not mean the child will not be loved and cared for.

And when abortion is so readily available, it means that women and girls will continue to choose to have sex without responsibility, without any consequences.

I don't think the 40,000,000+ Americans who never got a chance to be born would agree with you.

Answer 7

When you have such a loaded question, you are already prejudiced against one side.

A mother abusing her children is morally wrong, and a mother who chooses to abort her baby out of 'inconvenience' is also morally wrong. But you ask us to choose between two morally wrong points. My choice is neither. I will not tolerate a child abuser nor child aborter who does it for convenience.

But that doesn't mean I will go and intervene in someone else's home - I feel sorry for their children, but it is not my responsibility to save someone elses' children - unless they are being abused in public. I think it is NOT the federal government's jurisdiction. It is the local or state government's issue to choose how to deal with these moral situations.

Answer 8

I have known a few children that have been abused and have turned out to be exceptional members of society.

My question is didn't these women make the choice already having sex?

Quoting from an email...........

"If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis..." This allegedly is Beethoven's mother, when pregnant with Ludvig von Beethoven. It is confirmed that they were poverty stricken and she did indeed have 8 children I believe a few of them died already. Now what if she had lived during these times and aborted Beethoven???
I don't agree with abortion. But I think it is up to the states to decide if it should be law in their states.

Answer 9

Why do you assume, a priori, that a woman is going to abuse her child, with probability 1.0?

I do not want a mother to abuse her child, any more than I want to see her and her doctor kill it.

As Mother Teresa said, "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." and, "Give me the child."

So I suggest that you quit presuming what "pro-lifers" want. I hope you agree that we want babies to be loved.

We don't agree on the methods for having loved babies, you think that babies with a possibility of not being loved ought to be killed. You also think that babies that are born, but not loved, are not cared for at all by "pro-lifers." There you are again flat out wrong.

Answer 10

No, we wouldn't. The fact is that we want the children to have a life. If the child is being abuse, CPS should take custady of the child. People are willing to help these children. There are plenty of foster homes that are good and people who will adopt them. All children should have a life, and they should be with someone who loves them and will take care of them. I don't want children to be hurt, period. If the mother is abusive, put the child with someone who will love them.