I think the government should not be able to control who has kids. I mean could you imagine the government saying you have to have that baby. I do not recomend getting abortions, but sometime people do make mistakes. People are not perfect. Conservative woman and liberal women have had abortions. I just feel people should have babies when the are financially and emotionally able to support one. If someone is in a very desperate situation, and they know that child will be brought into a world where it will not be supported or loved it is their choice whether to get an abortion or not. It is not population control or murder like some say it is.... but it is a very personal decision and a person would only have one if they know that the child will not have the fair oppurtunities that other kids have or will not live a decent life. Do pro-life people think about what happens to those kids after they are born?
2007-06-12 04:02:10 · 15 answers · asked by Lindsey G 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Agreed. The SCOTUS has upheld abortion.
2007-06-12 04:05:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
You seem to have gotten past the simplification that conservatives are prolife and liberals are prochoice, but for prochoice liberals the last part of your question can backfire - "Do prolife people think about what happens to those kids after they are born?"
If all the liberal social programs (most of which I support by the way) are effective, then those kids can be helped after they are born. If you argue that they have no chance at a decent life, then how do we argue against conservatives who think the social programs are an ineffective waste of money?
What is so wrong about abortion is that it denies someone an opportunity to become what they have the potential to be. That is the same thing that is wrong in killing anyone. What one already has become is due to things in the past that can't be changed, only what one can become can be destroyed. This is the same reason it was wrong back before the 60's to educate girls only to become homemakers, rather than teach them the skills they would need to compete in "a man's world". While a girl in grammar school isn't a scientist or MBA, she may have the potential to be, and therefore should be educated in a way that respects that potential. Likewise a fetus might not be a "person" in some learned biologist's view, but it's potential to be one should be respected.
I don't see how I can demand that the government protect the decade or two of potential life I have remaining, but also say it is alright to disregard the century of potential life an unborn child has.
However, I do think that prolifers are wrong to think we can get a lot of women to give up their "right" to have their unborn killed if we don't work to develop technology for allowing women to terminate pregnancies without killing their unborn.
http://www.yaktivist.com
Polite Discussion, Respectful Disagreements regarding nonlethal alternatives to Abortion, Death Penalty, Lethal Weapons.
2007-06-12 11:27:14 · answer #2 · answered by Yaktivistdotcom 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We/society/parents/community should take care of our children. The problem isn't that they won't have a decent life because most will. Most children that are abused, were wanted children, planned children. Especially when you have a 16 year old trying to get pregnant just because she wants to make mom angry (true). She is emotionally unstable. Where as one who worries about how they will support and care for the child will actually support and care for the child. The government lets the unstable 16 year old have her baby and doesn't do anything until the child is beaten and brain dead.....but doesn't care if someone who will take care of their baby, kills it.
The point is we should care for all children. If it was illegal the pro-life movement would need to step in and help these women who are having their babies.
2007-06-13 01:41:36 · answer #3 · answered by Peggy Pirate 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about people stop having sex until they are emotionally, and financially ready to deal with the possible outcome? Why should an innocent baby pay with it's life, because the parents made a "mistake"? Why is death a better option than having less advantages than other kids? A baby who is adopted by a loving couple (there are waiting lists full of them) will be supported and loved. Yes, a woman in the U.S. has a LEGAL right to abortion, but she will never have a MORAL right.
2007-06-12 11:11:52 · answer #4 · answered by Tiss 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Murder. Bad choice, every time.
edit:
I had to add more. Lady, you have to be very jaded to talk the way you do about children. This is what you seem to be saying:
A child that is not brought forth into an idea situation is better off dead (murdered in his mother's womb) than the chance and the hope of life.
You disregard the many who have been born into this world into, not just bad circumstances, but down right atrocious ones, but have risen above those circumstances to have very successful, wonderful and fulfilling lives. Whereas, many brought into the world have come with silver spoons in their mouths and every sort of advantage you can name, and live horrible, absolutely miserable lives.
There is no way to say how one will turn out based ONLY on the circumstances of his birth. You fail to realize that there is a God. He is more than able to redeem even the life of a child born into a home where he is not loved and cause that life to flourish and be successful. You can't know Him yourself if you can so easily disregard His workings in the lives of men.
2007-06-12 11:08:14 · answer #5 · answered by fruitypebbles 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
good points sweetie ,most pro life folks do not think at all about the cirmstances that a child would be born in to as a social worker for years and years i've seen alot and will remain pro choice some kids would have been better off not being born than being born and than getting brain damage from there parents that beat them so badly there brains swell and they almost die we had one girl her mom who beat her so bad she'll never be able to walk or talk or live a normal life never even came to see her or pick her up at the hospital that's how she came to social services , most of the pro life are hyprocrates who talk the talk but won't to a friging thing to help anybody they just spew out garbage and and listen with def ears
2007-06-12 12:01:01 · answer #6 · answered by auntie s 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
"Women shouldn't be able to control their destiny", I don't know what the Right Wing argument is.
I don't like abortion, but people will have it regardless, and so I think it should be made unnecessary.
And if you don't like abortion because it kills innocent people, then I'll show you something that you will hate...
The Quagmire in Iraq.
2007-06-12 11:07:00 · answer #7 · answered by ck4829 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
You are right that "sometime people do make mistakes". Abortion is a "mistake" putting it mildly. What to do with the children? Adoption.
2007-06-12 11:07:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Look at the statistics of babies born to mothers who are ON welfare or live in ghettoes
and then look atr the statistics of women who HAVE the abortions.. hint: it ain't the people who can't afford the baby.
2007-06-12 11:06:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 5⤋
I agree with you. The "pro-life" movement should be renamed to the "pro-birth movement."
Far too often, pro-birthers espouse the idea that all babies deserve to be born, but are also vehemently pro death penalty.
Hypcrites, you can't have it both ways.
2007-06-12 11:07:36 · answer #10 · answered by ken erestu 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Nothing is wrong with them.... the turmoil is due to the religious right attempt to redefine human life -- blastocyst or zygote I get sooooooooooooooo confused!
2007-06-12 11:09:59 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋