Genophobic
<- thats me. :)
- 13
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- i live in the mountains.
- Seen Oct 2, 2009
no dude. i cant even raise myself and country is overpopulated. theres no abortion despite living in a catholic country.
No matter the situation, I don't think I can ever find it in myself to abort my own child, it would feel completely against my morals and I'd find it incredibly hard to stomach that I'd be preventing the blossoming of newborn life, that said, the only time I ever want to have a child would be when I'm finally married and completely devoted to my husband, and that we are both willing to start a family, but if that doesn't go quite to plan then I'd most likely keep the child and work as hard as I've ever had to protect the welfare of my own offspring.
:( Hypothetical situation, I believe this thread asks for--there are plenty of situations past practicing safe-sex that could result in pregnancy. Aside from abstinence, there is no contraceptive that is 100% effective. I just figured OP wanted people to respond as if the situation has already occurred, regardless of the means that caused it.I wouldn't be so horrifically stupid to have done so in the first place. Contraception was invented for a reason, people, and if your religion says it's wrong, then chances are they say sex before marriage is also wrong. I've no sympathy for those who freely choose to ignore the risk that unprotected sex carries.
And please, before you start hating on me, make sure you read what I've said. I'm condemning those who could use protection (whether it be condoms, the pill or whatever) but do not; those who are raped and whatnot have the greatest sympathy for their plight from me.
Google "ectopic pregnancies." You are just taking away womens right to choose.I wouldn't let my wife/girlfriend abort any child, no matter the how bad things are. I don't think it's fair that we brought a life into this world and didn't give it a chance to live. Even if we were dirt poor, i want that child to have a shot at life. So, no... i'd rather give the child up for adoption then to not give him/her a shot at living.
Honestly, I don't know. The idea of pregnancy horrifies me but idk if I could go through with an abortion. It would be a REALLY hard decision to decide between the two for me, though. (And if I did end up having the thing, I'm sure it'd go up for adoption the moment it was out. uggggh kids.)
:( Hypothetical situation, I believe this thread asks for--there are plenty of situations past practicing safe-sex that could result in pregnancy. Aside from abstinence, there is no contraceptive that is 100% effective. I just figured OP wanted people to respond as if the situation has already occurred, regardless of the means that caused it.
I'd have an abortion. My body, my choice.
It's probably more selfish to bring a child into the world when you can't support it.
Flippin' "hypothetical threads". Oh how I am sick of them. But might as well give this one a spin. :p
First off, I wouldn't be so stupid to put myself in a situation where I would literally be screwed underage in the first place. But if worst were to come to worst (i.e., an embryo was magically conceived in my uterus, as if by God) I would abort it. If I were over 18, I wouldn't, but you know, I'm what they call "underage".
Sorry, Jesus. =(
By the way, for those extreme pro-lifers out there (woo, yet ANOTHER abortion debate in which nobody actually listens to the other side of the debate!), people who have abortions are not doing so to simply say, "Whee! I get to eject my fetus! What a wonderful day!". The decision is a hard one to make and one that requires much thought. A person who has an abortion usually does so for realizing that the environment is not suitable for a child to grow up in, and the pregnancy was either caused by accident or was thought of too hastily, or due to a sudden change in environment such as losing a job or one's home burning down. Animals exhibit similar behaviours, although unable to kill an animal in its embryo form, it will rather starve the weaker offspring to support the stronger. Why? Because the environment is not suitable for the offspring to live in, and it's better to support a strong one to survive than to malnourish both to cause them both to survive, but not grow to their potential.
Death of the young is cruel, but nature is cruel. Only the toughest will survive, and that's why most parents do what it takes to make a child survive in the real world, to be strong, healthy and to have vigour. Without such traits, the child will live a sickly life and will most likely die at a young age. It seems even if an abortion won't kill them, nature will, which is why some parents, due to the situation, would much prefer an abortion than to see a child with memories and experiences of love and hate, of friendship and loneliness, of colour, sound, tastes and feelings, with emotion, die. Admittedly, a fetus has the potential to feel such experiences, but not when they are in the uterus.
And thus, the debate grinds down to this. When does simple growth end and human life and personality begin? Does it begin when the fetus has a mind, or when it begins to use that mind?