Scenario: A horrible, drug addicted, evil woman gets pregnant. This woman has no business being a parent and is the type of person you wouldn't even want having a pet. What do you think would be worse:
1. For her to have an abortion
2. For her to have the kid and abuse and neglect it.
There is no option C. I am not of the opinion that abortion is right or morally ok. I am of the opinion that we should get over our fear of teaching our kids about birth control and get out there and prevent unwanted pregnancy. My personal opinion is that our abstinence only culture causes a majority of these scenarios. What do you pick?
2007-05-24 21:08:32 · 21 answers · asked by Reject187 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well of course there are other options, but my point was to see if people would rank these 2 evils in order of vileness. At the same time, if you think about how many unwanted kids there are in the adoption system, and how many foster parents just do it to get a state check and don't even care about the kids, doesn't birth control still seem like the best option C out there????
2007-05-24 21:20:01 · update #1
Both options are horrible,and I will not pick a "lesser" of two evils. Fortunately, there are many other legal options available in our culture. I have never thought that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, and agree that as a society, we should make available all valid, viable, safe and sane information to all who are getting ready to be sexually active.
A sad comment on our society is that with all the free alternatives, even if abortion was outlawed, we would have hacks performing them illegally and butchering the females of every age that could come up with a couple hundred bucks. This very behavior is what swung many people over to supporting abortion against their better judgement. Too many families lost (blood loss, infection, perforated innerds, etc.,.) their young women to dark alley hacks. It was a real thing, and would be a booming business should abortion be outlawed once again.
2007-05-24 21:30:59 · answer #1 · answered by OC 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd pick the abortion thing. It's better that way. Because if she does have the kid and he lived in such an environment then the kid will probably grow up to be a wreck like the mother.
2007-05-25 04:47:49 · answer #2 · answered by Triathlete88 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be so much worse for her to have and abortion. There is no reason the baby has to die because the mother is going through hard times and needs help. This is what social services is for and a baby can easily be given up for adoption rather than have the mother kill it.
2007-05-25 05:02:21 · answer #3 · answered by Dakota Lynn Takes Gun 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since I will never need an abortion, I will leave that argument to those who may.
Worse? Lesser of two evils? hm mm.. better a poor lot in life than no life at all? at least the one with a poor lot in life has a chance to overcome. The dead on on the other hand....
2007-05-25 04:15:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course there is an option C- it is called state care, option D is a foster home, option E is adoption, option F (assuming the home environment is good) is someone else from her family taking responisbility for the kid. Trying to reduce a complex issue to a simplistic state is ridiculous- it shows a desire to not face reality and the alternatives- but rather to just try to force a specific viewpoint by reframing the debate into a simplistic mold.
2007-05-25 04:13:59 · answer #5 · answered by allonyoav 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If anyone answers 2 and says "But this kid could be president one day," then you live in a fairy tale world.
That said, I entirely agree with the questioner; abstinence-only education, along with withholding money from other countries who don't follow this prudish doctrine, will only lead to trouble.
2007-05-25 04:15:12 · answer #6 · answered by abulafia24 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Your question is about on that level.
If fact the only thing sillier than your question is your statement:
"My personal opinion is that our abstinence only
culture causes a majority of these scenarios."
"ABSTINENCE ONLY CULTURE" ?
You must be living in "never never land" with Peter Pan.
......theBerean
2007-05-25 08:47:38 · answer #7 · answered by theBerean 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to pick #1.
One less child to suffer in the world is infinitely preferable. And I totally agree - these abstinence only programs are NOT working.
2007-05-25 04:17:27 · answer #8 · answered by ReeRee 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
2. For her to have the kid and abuse and neglect it.
this option is clearly worse
babies and animals are helpless
2007-05-25 04:19:46 · answer #9 · answered by p_isfor_pecker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2. option,
It is problematic to teach kids about birth control, freedom without responsibility does not exist
2007-05-25 04:40:21 · answer #10 · answered by Srbo Sutaric 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋