Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 1:59PM #1
Bei1052
Posts: 986

To all those people who always go on about how it's better for someone to be aborted than it is for them to live a hard life, have you ever taken the time to ask those people if they'd rather be dead than alive?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 4:08PM #2
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

Jan 24, 2010 -- 1:59PM, Bei1052 wrote:


To all those people who always go on about how it's better for someone to be aborted than it is for them to live a hard life, have you ever taken the time to ask those people if they'd rather be dead than alive?





I haven't encountered anyone here who "goes on" about it being better for someone to be aborted than to have a hard life. Pro choice is about women maintaining control over their reproductive lives, and not having the government interfere in their private medical decisions. It's my view is that the person who is in the best position to determine whether to continue a pregnancy is the woman who is pregnant, not the government. I'm not in a position to tell another woman what to do regarding her pregnancy. I realize that, and so do a lot of people who call themselves pro-life, who believe that abortion is wrong and wouldn't have one themselves, but also believe that it should remain legal. Many of these folks who call themselves pro-life agree that it should ultimately be the woman's decision. It's the woman who is pregnant who will ultimately have the responsibility of all the pre-natal care, who will experience all the physical ramifications of the pregnancy, and she and her partner or other people who may have a role in supporting the child are the ones who will bear the responsibility for the care of the child. Outsiders who are willing to take no responsibility whatsoever in the direct care for the child after it's born or the fetus before it's born have no place in the decision-making process.


Bei, your post does nothing but erect a strawman in an attempt to demonize pro-choicers. We've seen so many threads like this -- demonizing women who've had abortions or their doctors as baby-killers, demonizing pro-choicers in general -- don't you realize yet that it's a waste of time? You'll never get people to hear you by preaching at them and demonizing them.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 4:45PM #3
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 24, 2010 -- 4:08PM, newsjunkie wrote:

I haven't encountered anyone here who "goes on" about it being better for someone to be aborted than to have a hard life.



As an example among one of many, post 24, last paragraph. I'm willing to bet that you gals around here never bother to read each other's posts. Srsly. I can find no less than twenty examples of people making statements like the above, and me responding "It's not better to be dead than it is to live a hard life", and that's no exaggeration.


(Man, I can't wait to see how you rationalize this away.)


Bei, your post does nothing but erect a strawman in an attempt to demonize pro-choicers. We've seen so many threads like this -- demonizing women who've had abortions or their doctors as baby-killers, demonizing pro-choicers in general -- don't you realize yet that it's a waste of time? You'll never get people to hear you by preaching at them and demonizing them.



A straw man, you say? Methinks you should try again.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 5:24PM #4
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

 


Jan 24, 2010 -- 4:45PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Jan 24, 2010 -- 4:08PM, newsjunkie wrote:

I haven't encountered anyone here who "goes on" about it being better for someone to be aborted than to have a hard life.



As an example among one of many, post 24, last paragraph. I'm willing to bet that you gals around here never bother to read each other's posts. Srsly. I can find no less than twenty examples of people making statements like the above, and me responding "It's not better to be dead than it is to live a hard life", and that's no exaggeration.


(Man, I can't wait to see how you rationalize this away.)


Bei, your post does nothing but erect a strawman in an attempt to demonize pro-choicers. We've seen so many threads like this -- demonizing women who've had abortions or their doctors as baby-killers, demonizing pro-choicers in general -- don't you realize yet that it's a waste of time? You'll never get people to hear you by preaching at them and demonizing them.



A straw man, you say? Methinks you should try again.





I read the paragraph, and nowhere did it say or that the child she fosters should have been aborted. Tolerant Sis cares for and loves children that others have abandoned. She believes that if a woman is in a bad situation, and being addicted to drugs that lead to birth defects and finding yourself pregnant is a bad situation in my book, it ought to be up to the woman to decide whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy. She cares for the children of women who have chosen to continue the pregnancy to term, and takes on the responsibility for caring for children like the one she describes, who faces very serious challenges.


So what do you do? You demonize T-sis, tapping away on your computer in your free time, not distracted by any children who need care. I recall you said that you'd like to be a mentor for children when you have time. Well why not disconnect yourself from your online pulpit for a while and do something useful instead of badmouthing somebody who doesn't mentor for an hour or two a week but parents unwanted children? You're so busy trying to show your superiority over "us gals" that you apparently don't realize that to the rest of us it's just more of your mean-spirited schtick.


I read almost all of Tolerant-sis's posts. She has the wisdom of experience; experience I don't have. I don't agree with everything she says, but I have great respect for her. And I suspect I am not alone in holding her in high regard.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 5:48PM #5
Bei1052
Posts: 986

 


Jan 24, 2010 -- 5:24PM, newsjunkie wrote:

I read the paragraph, and nowhere did it say or that the child she fosters should have been aborted. Tolerant Sis cares for and loves children that others have abandoned. She believes that if a woman is in a bad situation, and being addicted to drugs that lead to birth defects and finding yourself pregnant is a bad situation in my book, it ought to be up to the woman to decide whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy. She cares for the children of women who have chosen to continue the pregnancy to term, and takes on the responsibility for caring for children like the one she describes, who faces very serious challenges.



Because I said it did.


...Oh, no wait, I didn't. What I said was, and I'm going to quote myself verbatim here, "To all those people who always go on about how it's better for someone to be aborted than it is for them to live a hard life, have you ever taken the time to ask those people if they'd rather be dead than alive?"


So what do you do? You demonize T-sis, tapping away on your computer in your free time, not distracted by any children who need care.



*le sigh*


Isn't it funny that instead of responding to what I wrote out, you're going off on some unrelated tangent? My question was simple, and based on posts which have been posted again and again and again and again. Time and time again it's been stated that children who are likely to be born in less-than-stellar situations should be aborted as an act of "kindness". Like I said earlier-- Something you blatantly ignored-- I can find at least twenty of the aforementioned posts. Very easily, too.


The notion that it's better to do be dead than it is to live a hard life isn't quite common around the pro-choice movement, whether you acknowledge this fact or not.


I recall you said that you'd like to be a mentor for children when you have time.



I didn't say I would like to do so; I said I did do so. Yet again, pay more attention to the things I type out (Especially when I say them multiple times).


Well why not disconnect yourself from your online pulpit for a while and do something useful instead of badmouthing somebody who doesn't mentor for an hour or two a week but parents unwanted children?



*see above*


You're so busy trying to show your superiority over "us gals" that you apparently don't realize that to the rest of us it's just more of your mean-spirited schtick.



I lol'ed. I can most certainly be "mean spirited", whatever that means, if it suits you. But, oh, you wouldn't like that one bit ;)


I read almost all of Tolerant-sis's posts. She has the wisdom of experience; experience I don't have. I don't agree with everything she says, but I have great respect for her. And I suspect I am not alone in holding her in high regard.



That's great and all. What's that got to do with what I posted?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 6:19PM #6
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

Jan 24, 2010 -- 5:48PM, Bei1052 wrote:


 


Jan 24, 2010 -- 5:24PM, newsjunkie wrote:

I read the paragraph, and nowhere did it say or that the child she fosters should have been aborted. Tolerant Sis cares for and loves children that others have abandoned. She believes that if a woman is in a bad situation, and being addicted to drugs that lead to birth defects and finding yourself pregnant is a bad situation in my book, it ought to be up to the woman to decide whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy. She cares for the children of women who have chosen to continue the pregnancy to term, and takes on the responsibility for caring for children like the one she describes, who faces very serious challenges.



Because I said it did.


...Oh, no wait, I didn't. What I said was, and I'm going to quote myself verbatim here, "To all those people who always go on about how it's better for someone to be aborted than it is for them to live a hard life, have you ever taken the time to ask those people if they'd rather be dead than alive?"


So what do you do? You demonize T-sis, tapping away on your computer in your free time, not distracted by any children who need care.



*le sigh*


Isn't it funny that instead of responding to what I wrote out, you're going off on some unrelated tangent? My question was simple, and based on posts which have been posted again and again and again and again. Time and time again it's been stated that children who are likely to be born in less-than-stellar situations should be aborted as an act of "kindness". Like I said earlier-- Something you blatantly ignored-- I can find at least twenty of the aforementioned posts. Very easily, too.


The notion that it's better to do be dead than it is to live a hard life isn't quite common around the pro-choice movement, whether you acknowledge this fact or not.


I recall you said that you'd like to be a mentor for children when you have time.



I didn't say I would like to do so; I said I did do so. Yet again, pay more attention to the things I type out (Especially when I say them multiple times).


Well why not disconnect yourself from your online pulpit for a while and do something useful instead of badmouthing somebody who doesn't mentor for an hour or two a week but parents unwanted children?



*see above*


You're so busy trying to show your superiority over "us gals" that you apparently don't realize that to the rest of us it's just more of your mean-spirited schtick.



I lol'ed. I can most certainly be "mean spirited", whatever that means, if it suits you. But, oh, you wouldn't like that one bit ;)


I read almost all of Tolerant-sis's posts. She has the wisdom of experience; experience I don't have. I don't agree with everything she says, but I have great respect for her. And I suspect I am not alone in holding her in high regard.



That's great and all. What's that got to do with what I posted?





What you wrote out was a nasty demonization of PCers in general in the OP and pointed the finger at TS in the subsequent reply. I'm not going back to junior high with you -- if you want to snipe and point fingers you're on your own.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2010 - 6:49PM #7
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jan 24, 2010 -- 6:19PM, newsjunkie wrote:

What you wrote out was a nasty demonization of PCers in general in the OP and pointed the finger at TS in the subsequent reply. I'm not going back to junior high with you -- if you want to snipe and point fingers you're on your own.



You do this a lot (Misconstrue what I write into a straw man while claiming I'm engaging in a straw man), and my response is always the same-- Try again.


And my previous post should say "is quite common*", instead of "isn't quite common".


*grumbles*

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2010 - 11:51AM #8
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Okay, Bei, I'll bite.


Yes, I believe that there are situations in which it is a kindness not to bring into the world a child who is going to be disabled, or unwanted, or abused.  I have absolutely no issue with mothers who want to parent a child that they have damaged in utero; that is their choice.  But much of the time, that is not what happens.  The parent can't cope for whatever reason of her own, and then the child suffers even more from first being abused, neglected, damaged in utero, then abandoned.


Many of these children NEVER learn to attach to even well-meaning foster parents, and the system doesn't do a good enough job in training foster parents how to deal with these kids, so more often than not, a child who is finally removed from a home where he or she is being abused and neglected goes to a foster home where he or she is abused or neglected.  Few high-needs kids are adopted.  


Our home is an extreme exception to the rule and even we haven't been able to deal with all the kids who have been sent to us.  Most of these kids get bounced from home to home until the system gives up on them, warehouses them in kiddie jails (group homes) until their eighteenth birthday, and then pushes them, unprepared, into a world that suddenly has to deal with the creatures they've become.  


A scant 3% of these 'emancipated state wards' ever go to college.  They are far more likely to abuse drugs themselves, abuse alcohol themselves, abuse themselves by cutting and other self destructive behaviors, than kids raised in either single parent or two parent homes.  They are more likely to commit suicide, be homeless, join gangs, commit crimes, be drummed out of the military, be unemployed.  They are more likely to give birth to children who are going to be abused, neglected, and damaged.


And you and your little 'prolife' friends want to make more of them. 


Of course, you have no idea what you're asking for.  You never will, because while you want women to bring these children to term, you want no part of everything it would take to make them productive members of society.  You don't want to be a foster father, even though you could.  You don't want to work with disabled children in the school system.  Most prolifers (I don't know if you are among this number) want lower taxes, don't like paying for preschool or after school programs so that these young mothers might have a ghost of a chance of working and supporting their own kids.  Most prolifers don't like the idea of section 8 housing in their neighborhoods; don't want to pay for specialized programs for troubled kids, would fight tooth and nail to avoid having a group home on their block or a program for homeless teens.


They're not out there on the front lines waiting to adopt these kids, either. By the time it is obvious to the system that the parent can't do the job, nobody wants to adopt them.  They are mentally ill, they have reactive attachment disorder, they hurt the cat or the baby, they run away, they cut class,  they shoplift, they are discipline problems at school and the school won't even let them take the bus home because they might stick a pencil into someone's eye.  They aren't allowed in summer day camps because they have become aggressive and verbally abusive.  They smoke, drink, and do drugs.  They carry weapons.  


So no, Bei, if you ask one of these budding sociopaths ... sociopaths our society has created ... if they would rather have been aborted, the majority of them would say no, I guess - the ones who haven't attempted suicide, anyhow.  The question is, is it fair to force them to be born when a good percentage of them are going to end up like this?


 


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2010 - 10:34AM #9
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Why don't we read all of your gems when you post the same things ad nauseum? Why would we? You're going to come up with another  "Oh, I'm so clever" bit like asking those who were aborted if they would have rather had a hard life instead. 


Why not ask if they are having a better time in Heaven than they would be having if they'd been born in Haiti? Or the people who lost all their possessions and jobs in the Gulf states still reeling from the damage of Katrina?


How about a life in which you are always going to be behind the other kids who weren't born with fetal alcohol syndrome? There's some chance if you were"only" born addicted to drugs, although a large percentage of those kids seem to be unable to bond with anyone, even off the drugs. On the other hand, their very earliest experiences with people are all going to be of the pain of withdrawal and tubes, needles, and no one making the pain go away. Their lives are hard from the first breath they take.


If you are so sure that life and ensoulment start when a sperm hits the egg, any of these "babies" go through unending Hell until they are born into something worse.


But of course, that isn't your problem. The ones on the front line are the ones like Tolerant Sister, and her commitment is 24/7 compared to a few hours a week from you. As I recall, I did compliment you on doing at least that much. However, it's not the same as dealing with an addicted newborn or fostering children no one else wants, is it?


Growing up "different" --no matter what that "different " is--can leave emotional scars for a long time.


There's another way to look at your question. How many children have said "I wish I had never been born?"  and are in enough pain that they mean it. Ask them.


 

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2010 - 12:16AM #10
Bei1052
Posts: 986

There are tons wrong with TS' post.

1.) You've already established pre hoc (Before the fact) that every single one-- Or, heck, I'll be generous and say most-- Of those children are going to end up "sociopaths". There are thousands upon millions of people who prove that assertion dead wrong, and I'm pretty sure there are one or two people around here who would take offense with your blatant mischaracterization. But, of course, that's all you have, so it's not terribly surprising.

2.) You know, what actually surprises me is the fact that, following your own logic, none of your adopted children should have been born. Go figure, right? This is why I laugh when you try to claim some difference between stating that someone shouldn't have been born and that their mother's should have had an abortion given the circumstances. It's absolutely impossible to divorce those two sentiments, because have an abortion means that one is killed before they can be born (99.9999% of the time anyway).

3.) The question "Is it fair to force them to be born when a good percentage of them are going to end up like this?" is a false dilemma and just plain asinine. You've already admitted that if you were to ask those "budding sociopaths" whether or not they would have like to have been aborted, that the majority of them would say no. Therefore, if they would rather be alive now than to have been aborted at some point in the past, and if they don't have a problem with their lives and want to continue living them, then who are you to decide that they would have been better off not being born? The answer? No one. The only person who can decide that their life isn't worth living, or that they'd be better off dead, is the one who owns it. Not you, not me and not anyone else. The very fact that you think-- Yes, I said think-- That it's better for someone else to not be born doesn't mean that the other person would feel the same.

4.) Why not kill of those people who are likely to be born into, for example, extreme poverty? Or, better yet, why not kill of those who do currently live in extreme poverty? Fundamentally, it's no different than what you advocate.

...Actually, I take that back. At least my proposal would kill someone based on an actuality, while you advocate killing someone based on an assumption. But I digress.

You'll undoubtedly respond with, as you normally do, "Killing someone before they're born isn't the same as killing a living, breathing human being (As if those three things don't apply to the unborn)", but that's an empty argument. When you kill someone is inconsequential. What's important is that you've killed them, and if your argument is that it's better to be dead than to live in situation X, then that argument should apply not only to those who are likely to live in that situation, but those who already do. But, for some odd reason, you think killing someone who lives in the situation you deem to be, for lack of a better word, hell is worse than killing someone who is likely to be born into that situation. I'd ask you how that works, but it doesn't. If it wouldn't be acceptable to kill someone who is disabled, or unwanted or abused, then it stands to reason that it's equally unacceptable to kill someone who is likely to be born disabled, or to be born unwanted or to abused after they're born.

5.) I have absolutely no idea what world you live in, but contrary to what you constantly state, yes, pro-lifers do adopt; yes, pro-lifers do run adoption centers; yes, pro-lifers do work with otherwise "unwanted" children; and, yes, pro-lifers do practice what they preach. I realize that it's much easier for you to ignore this fact, but please try to do so.

6.) You do know what they say about assumptions, don't you? I'm just wondering, because you sure do like to make them.

At any rate, congratulations on epitomizing what's wrong with the pro-choice movement.

(See, Newsjunkie? I told you it wasn't a straw man when I stated that some pro-choicers feel that abortion is an act of "kindness".)

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook