• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

after-birth abortion

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
stormkroe said:
If you think bringing up incestuous marriage requires professional help, how do you feel about those who support it? Welcome to atpn, perhaps you've heard of it? http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306047&highlight=

Also, in your opinion, how young does a child have to be to morally murdered?
Click to expand...

i just added one more to the EVERYONE option. your poll is a sick joke and once again your child murder question is appalling.

you should seriously seek professional psychological help, and not from your priest.
 
ivwshane said:
Yeah, I understand your viewpoint, I think I've summarized it nicely, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
Avoiding your own death is not a matter of convenience, making sure a child doesn't grow up suffering from a defect isn't a convenience, it's a hard, emotional decision that doesn't need your input.

Until pro lifers start adopting children (roughly 100,000 currently awaiting for adoption), or they start paying to help raise the child from birth to 18 (if the child is healthy) or for the rest of the Childs life, pro lifers can keep their opinions to themselves. If you truly cared about the "inconvenience" of having a child you would be doing more to support policies that prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. What have you done in that respect?
Click to expand...

In the interest of variable elimination, I specifically used 'convenience' as the reason for the abortion. Yes, they happen.

As for what I've done? I've raised 2 adopted sons from 3 and 5, one turned 18 last march. I've sponsored a child in Africa for almost a decade (which has been great in teaching my own kids about giving), and have taught my 3 boys the value of love and respect for women, when (seemingly) every guy their age only cares about getting laid.
This is personal stuff, do you think that your stereotype of us might be slightly colored by talking points?
 
alien42 said:
i just added one more to the EVERYONE option. your poll is a sick joke and once again your child murder question is appalling.

you should seriously seek professional psychological help, and not from your priest.
Click to expand...

That's gonna be a necro. You should answer the question though, do you support partial birth abortion? That would be considered murdering a child even by many liberal-leaning posters here, as they believe you gain personhood at viability. I used 10 years old as an extreme since I figured most people would agree at that point.
 
stormkroe said:
In the interest of variable elimination, I specifically used 'convenience' as the reason for the abortion. Yes, they happen.

As for what I've done? I've raised 2 adopted sons from 3 and 5, one turned 18 last march. I've sponsored a child in Africa for almost a decade (which has been great in teaching my own kids about giving), and have taught my 3 boys the value of love and respect for women, when (seemingly) every guy their age only cares about getting laid.
This is personal stuff, do you think that your stereotype of us might be slightly colored by talking points?
Click to expand...

You've got 100,000 more kids to worry about, I suggest you start adopting more than two.
 
ivwshane said:
Yeah, I understand your viewpoint, I think I've summarized it nicely, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
Avoiding your own death is not a matter of convenience, making sure a child doesn't grow up suffering from a defect isn't a convenience, it's a hard, emotional decision that doesn't need your input.
Click to expand...
Would you be willing to limit abortions to only cases of suffering and physical defects? I'd take that.
Until pro lifers start adopting children (roughly 100,000 currently awaiting for adoption), or they start paying to help raise the child from birth to 18 (if the child is healthy) or for the rest of the Childs life, pro lifers can keep their opinions to themselves.
Click to expand...
Would you apply this to a person who didn't want those 100,000 kids killed?
 
ivwshane said:
Yeah, pro lifers can be pretty unbelievable. They can also be clueless and hypocritical as well.
Click to expand...
Nope, that was directed at you. The man did his part and you just dismiss it as insufficient.

Now, if you don't want those unwanted 100,000 children killed is it legitimate for me to ask you to personally care for all 100,000 of them or your opinion doesn't matter?
 
buckshot24 said:
Nope, that was directed at you. The man did his part and you just dismiss it as insufficient.

Now, if you don't want those unwanted 100,000 children killed is it legitimate for me to ask you to personally care for all 100,000 of them or your opinion doesn't matter?
Click to expand...

Why would I need to take care of them? I'm for the right for women to choose what happens to their body, you on the other hand are not.

Do you even know what they thread is about? What a stupid response by you.
 
buckshot24 said:
Out of sight, out of mind.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is the emotional argument. I just can't think of any logical difference.

So in other words, I guess I'm pro after birth abortions, unless someone can logically explain to me why it's wrong, relative to the ol' classic abortion.
 
stormkroe said:
Here's a tiny look at the slippery slope/progress on the abortion issue. Many of us see this as the next step in the partial birth abortion path, and I would hazard a guess that there are some people on the board who are already OK with this abomination, and some who are just waiting for one of their heroes to tell them to be OK with it.
Today's extreme is tomorrow's normal. I have expected this for a long while, along with the right to marry siblings/immediate family. Is there a point where libs and cons can agree we've went too far?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Click to expand...

You are talking about infanticide, a practice as old as the Human race where the child is unwanted, deformed or the wrong sex and still in use world wide right now. So what is your point?
 
stormkroe said:
I'm sorry if my post looks like I'm hanging my hat on this article. It's true that it popped up in my feed and made me think about it again (working as intended, I imagine). Yes, I know the paper is old, but it's not this article that I thought we would discuss. Rather, the idea of after birth abortion. I'm simply stating that there are people who are for this, my opinion after reading years of posts here is that there are probably people on this forum who agree with the idea (it's virtually no different than partial birth abortion, and there are certainly people here who support that), and wondered if anyone would actually come out in support of it.
If it makes you or others happy to cry 'fooled', that's fine. I didn't get the memo on which topics where 'real' enough to discuss.
Click to expand...
If not this article, then what? I'm not aware of anyone talking about "after-birth abortions," let alone actually advocating them. I've never seen anyone here even hint at it. It seems to me to be a completely invented issue.

As far as where do we draw the line, that seems pretty straightforward. The foundation of pro-choice is that a woman has the right to make her own decisions about her body, including a fetus hosted within it. Once that fetus is independent of her body, her rights become more limited. She is now the mother rather than the host.
 
ivwshane said:
No that wasn't my logic, you dumb ass troll.
Click to expand...
844895749-internet-tough-guy.jpg
You really could do without these personal comments. It doesn't help get your point across.

But yes, this is your logic. Unless I personally support the aborted abortions (children born because abortions didn't happen) then I don't have any standing to say we shouldn't abort them.

Well, if I wanted to kill the 100,000 unwanted children sitting in orphanages how doesn't your logic prevent you from telling me I shouldn't kill these kids if you don't want to care for them personally?

Remember you thought OP's 2 adoptions were insufficient.
 
buckshot24 said:
844895749-internet-tough-guy.jpg
You really could do without these personal comments. It doesn't help get your point across.

But yes, this is your logic. Unless I personally support the aborted abortions (children born because abortions didn't happen) then I don't have any standing to say we shouldn't abort them.

Well, if I wanted to kill the 100,000 unwanted children sitting in orphanages how doesn't your logic prevent you from telling me I shouldn't kill these kids if you don't want to care for them personally?

Remember you thought OP's 2 adoptions were insufficient.
Click to expand...

You don't know what my point is because you are too stupid to get my point. Sorry you suck at trolling.
 
stormkroe said:
I'm not side stepping the issue. I made it clear that I think PBA (and by extension post-natal abortion) is an abomination. I asked if there was a point that was extreme enough for libs and cons could agree on it. I'm not sure how these 2 things were unclear. What is your stance on it?
Click to expand...

Good for you adopting (sincerely), at least you're walking the talk.

That being said have you considered how extreme your position is?


Here's the case of a 9 year old in Brazil who was raped and impregnated with twins by her step father. The doctors who performed the abortion and the mother were threatened with excommunication by the church in an effort to stop the abortion. The doctors said she was at a high risk of complications including hemorrhage, sterility, and death.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case

Should she have to risk her life to give birth to her rapist babies? Would you want the government to use force to ensure she gives birth or dies trying?

What if the authorities didn't find out about her condition until the third trimester? What then?


If you truly are concerns about infanticide there's truly only a few ways it actually happens:

Young women who are ashamed to be pregnant hide their pregnancy and dump the baby so no one knows.

Poor women who can't afford a child or an abortion dump their baby.

Mothers suffering from post-partum depression and no support kill their children, like Andrea Yates.

Maybe instead of worrying about a nonexistent movement to allow after birth abortions you should concentrate on supporting mothers, and reducing poverty.
 
If someone doesn't want their kid, they should be required to get an abortion.

After birth seems extreme; at least here in the US it seems like adoption would be an easy solution there. But it wouldn't really bother me a whole lot in the scheme of things. Treating ourselves like we treat our animals would probably help society out quite a bit.
 
Paratus said:
Here's the case of a 9 year old in Brazil who was raped and impregnated with twins by her step father.
Click to expand...
Since the vast majority of abortions are NOT something like this, why do you bring it up? Would you be for abolishing abortions that aren't due to rape? No? Then this is a red herring.
 
Eli said:
If someone doesn't want their kid, they should be required to get an abortion.

After birth seems extreme; at least here in the US it seems like adoption would be an easy solution there. But it wouldn't really bother me a whole lot in the scheme of things. Treating ourselves like we treat our animals would probably help society out quite a bit.
Click to expand...
When you're not wanted, we can start with you. This is simply disgusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top