Too many replies....
You support, or wouldn't oppose it, considering your former post.
I wouldn't oppose it becuase it is a personal choice.
Seems like in your former post you connotated "if their life is shitty let them kill themselves". Doesn't seem like you're doing much for the cause.
True, but I would love to help someone going through suicide.
And now you're putting words into my mouth, by saying I am undermining 1st world lives. What the hell?
I didn't even mention that. :/
No, I didn't say that. I said that life in a 1st world country is not miserable, and people in 3rd world countries have it much worse and don't have suicide rates as high as 1st world countries. If life was a miserable in US and Europe as you people claim it to be, suicide rates in 3rd world countries would be out the roof. If the rates of abortion really reflected miserability, then 3rd world countries would have much more abortions.
Look, you don't know me, and therefore can't say I have no idea of what a "1st world" country's suffering is like k? Not at thispoint in time am I facing all the "suffering" but for a fact my ancestors sure as hell did.
Are you your ancestors? I don't know you, but I can guarantee what you're going through is nothing compared to the hell that the 3rd world is going through today.
Africa isn't the only country with "real hardship", by the way. urgh :/
Yeah, people in US have it hard. That economy took away their heath benefits, oh no! And I'm not referring to only Africa, but the 3rd world in general.
People in Africa have to walk hundreds of miles to get to a overcrowded clinic. How's that for healthcare?
YOU are no one to judge people on their knowledge, of the suffering they know.
Neither are you or the mother of an unborn child. Only the child can determine if his or her suffering is that bad.
Only if the baby/toddler/child/teen/adult is feeding off of the mother. Giving the kid some cereal in the morning is not NEARLY the same thing as taking our blood supply.
Same thing pretty much. The child still feeds off you regardless.
You have no problem telling us women, who have rights, what quality of life we can have.
I never told you what quality of life you should live. I said only the liver of the life can determine its quality. People can be happy in the most horrid situations.
And why should you have rights if you take away those of others?
Do you know WHY their lives are that way? Because, for starters, the amount of people outstripped the environment's support systems. Yes, the US has it better than Africa. However, Africa pretty much proves the point that giving birth is not always a good idea.
If it isn't a good idea, then the rate of abortion in places life Africa would be much higher than that of the US. Giving birth isn't a good idea, but unfortunately, people are stupid and sex-driven.
The killing of a born child is much different than an abortion. The child has been born into rights that protect it and the mother decided to keep the child. It being alive is a matter of opinion as we don't know how alive it really is. It doesn't get the ability to physically feel until after the 3rd trimester starts and even then it is limited. Human - sure why not. Person - no. If it was a person like us whod eserved to live, it would be bound by the same laws as us which, in a womb, is impossible to do.
Pain and felling do not make a human. The 46 human chromosomes of a person make a person. If I gave you some pain pills to dull your senses, do I then have the right to kill you? And being bound by laws makes you human? Then I cannot still be a human if I don't live in a country.
Of course Africans have it worse than most in the US. But I fail to see ?????? address HOW that continent GOT into that situation.
It is not relevant at all.
Oh, you and your crazy fantasies.
Read up on your history. The US split from Britain becuase they didn't recognize their rights. The rights the US wanted were described in the Declaration of Independence as
Natural Rights. The government doesn't give anyone rights. It only protects them.
The job of the government is not to grant rights, but to protect them. If the government gave and protected rights, they would eventually become corrupt, which is exactly what is happening.
9 months of labor pains, 18 years of raising the child and feeding it, giving it financial support. Yeah, the mother is only protecting herself for 9 months; that's assuming she'll give it up for adoption.
It's the mother's fault if she doesn't. If she doesn't want the child then she should give it up.
Feeding off her body and feeding off the meal that she prepares for you at dinner time is really not even the same thing. She doesn't reserve the right because now her child is a person and was born into the rights the Constitution established for every person born in the US.
The Constitution doesn't establish rights, and it also doesn't establish what a human is. Rights are natural, and people have the 46 human chromosomes.
Oh, yeah, no, apparently watching your father slowly commit suicide and almost losing your mother to cancer doesn't count as suffering. Don't assume **** like that when you have no ****ing idea what anyone else here as been through because it just makes you look a complete douchebag. You are no one to tell me what I do and don't know. We can't assume a fetus' quality of life but you can assume ours? Don't fool yourself for one second that you know me or anyone else here. This kind of ****ed up, ******* behavior really ****ing pisses me off.
You're saying that you're life is worse than those in a 3rd world country? I hate to diminish your suffering, but this is quite commonplace where I come from. And they are still "happier" than you "suffering" people.
If any assumption of quality of life actually can be made, the actual 1st-3rd world classification is pretty accurate. I can't assume your suffering, but I can assume that people in 3rd world countries have it worse than you. And they still don't get abortion to supposedly "stop their suffering".
Because we all know the state is entirely made up of racists without a shred of common decency.
Read up on history.
Who the hell says abortion is glamorous? I'd like to meet these people who say abortion is glamorous.
You advocate it in place of suffering, which will always exist regardless.
So before you make such an assumption, kindly shut the everloving **** up.
I suppose you should do the same. See what it's like when the quality of your life is assumed?
"Blah blah blah that aborted kid coulda been the next Gandhi or the next Martin Luther King"
That kid could also be the next Stalin, or the next Pol Pot.
Or, more likely, they could just be another average citizen.
This point is a failure.
It only fails when you can tell the future of a child. Assuming the quality of someone else's life fails. If you really think that abortion is valid in that situation, go set up an abortion clinic in Africa. They "have no future".
Oh okay, so they only MIGHT suffer. Here's the thing. The mother WILL suffer. In a case where the delivery could kill the mother, abortion should be an option.
I agree with you here.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. Our lives aren't as bad as those of people in third-world countries, no. But you make it sound as if to make up for it we should suffer more.
My point of giving my account of 3rd world life is not to make you feel sorry, but to show that people don't have abortion in the face of even worse suffering, and these people are happy. The argument for abortion for suffering is flawed in many places because not only will people always suffer, but becuase people suffer more and are still happy.