Abortonist Kermit Gosnell convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to life
View Single Post
May 17th, 2013 (9:28 PM).
♥ Cammybear ♥
Higher than average. A health risk is moreso that the mother has an abnormal risk of dying from giving birth or carrying to term. Maybe she has a tumor. Maybe she has an underlying condition that will cause her a great deal of pain and internal damage. Maybe she's a hemophiliac and has a very, very high chance of bleeding out and dying while giving birth because of it. It is not the average joe; it is whether or not a medical condition exists that would make the pregnancy have a higher-than-normal chance of causing ill to the mother.
Yes, mothers can still die giving birth, regardless medical advances, but the "risk to the mother" part is, again, focused on pre-existing conditions that will aggravate the pregnancy or cause further risk to the mother.
As for why there are certain conditions, that's where leniency comes in (and where you try to reason with others, really). Some people want all abortions banned, and I don't agree with that. Even with the "conditions" I've set and agree with, I'd prefer carrying to term and adopting instead; however, I've tried to come up with scenarios where abortions may be more "understandable" based on the environment and situation.
A homeless person could not afford a child if they cannot even clothe themselves. This is not a good living condition for a newborn and can be a basis for the CPS to come and remove the child altogether. The environment needs to be good to benefit the child's development. If you cannot guarantee that it will have food, then aborting it (or, preferably, adopting it out) is an option. It would not be healthy for the child to live in such conditions.
Teenagers are, unfortunately, "wild" nowadays. Parents are afraid of their kids, so they can walk all over them and do what they want; which is why, perhaps, they are more promiscuous and act "maturer" than they are. Hormones, too, and media only worsen the scenario. It's pretty much a given that in North American society, teenagers are going to engage in sex and you can't stop them from doing it. If they get pregnant, then, who raises the kid? The parents shouldn't be responsible for their child
their child's child, yet the law would force them to at least keep caring for their offspring (and therefore, the new baby, too, since it'd be living in the same quarters). That's not fair.
I also think that for a teenager, forcing them to be a mother when they aren't ready only makes them a waste of space in society (not being productive, rarely ever finish secondary / post-secondary as a result). The kid who wanted to be a doctor now won't be because she's a mom at fifteen. This regresses society. There's no excuse regardless, information and condoms being readily available, but they are given the benefit of "ignorance" until they become legal adults.
In all honesty, though, if not for the fact the parents would get the short end of their stick (supporting child & grandchild), I'd want teens to carry to term, too. I just feel bad for the parents of pregnant teens and the fact that tax dollars are wasted on supporting them on welfare. Teen moms actually achieving something is uncommon (pregnancy is difficult and raising a child is full-time, and the government doesn't make daycare cheap or readily available) while if they got a "second chance" through abortion, we might have more doctors available (or other professionals due to actually completing post-secondary).
The conditions I listed, other than rape, unfit mentality / psychology, and physical issues in birth, are somewhat-agree & somewhat-don't, but enough that I'd be OK with those scenarios if ever it were the case. I'm trying to be lenient and open to how others might feel, esp. pro-choice individuals (in all scenarios). I think there are limits and I try to be reasonable with pro-choice arguments and achieve limits that are "sound" or "reasonable" to me, even if I'd prefer if everyone carried to term. That's just not possible / a reality so I have to alter my view around the fact that banning abortions outright just won't work - but how can we make it work, but still have reasonable limits. That's what that list is. Not too restrictive and gives a second chance to people who cannot support themselves (and where a child would be a very hard burden) or who were ignorant (even with all the information and clinics out there) and made bad choices.
I'm a bit less forgiving for adults, who ought to know better. Which is why I put the <18 limit. Sure, if you're 19, you're probably not ready for a kid either, but I think you're old enough to make good, mature, sound decisions about sex at that point that conceiving shouldn't even be an issue, much less abortion (unless, you know, you were raped or something).
Conditions = Just not trying to be too narrow-minded in a society where a complete ban on abortions is really not realistic.
IGN: Irène, Etoile
Joined May 2013
Also Known As:
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Belldandy
Visit Belldandy's homepage!
Find all posts by Belldandy
Find threads started by Belldandy
Ignore Posts by Belldandy