Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Why won't any pro-lifers ANSWER this question? (Page 1)

Does the U.S. have sufficient resources to take care of all the extra babies should abortion be banned?
Yes
No
Maybe, with some serious reform
I don't know... why are you asking me this?
22%  22%  [ 4 ]
61%  61%  [ 11 ]
5%  5%  [ 1 ]
11%  11%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 18
User Profile
For those of you that believe abortion should be banned, I ask you this, hopefully for the last time: what the hell are we supposed to do with all these extra people? "A million babies slaughtered every year" sounds impressively horrifying for your posters and petitions, but who considers the other side of the coin and imagines an extra million babies being born every year to mothers that did not want to have a baby? I've never gotten a practical answer from anyone and it's got me to wondering if a practical answer exists.

As it stands, this country can barely support the unwanted children that already clog the system. Babies may be in high demand, but there's no "long line of childless couples" vying to adopt older and/or special needs kids. In some places, they're so desperate for space that confiscated and abandoned children are sleeping on the floors of DCF offices. In short, we've already got more children than the citizens of this fine nation want to care for, so how is it justifiable to demand that we pump MORE of them into society?

Some have suggested that if only they're stopped "for their own good," most mothers will come to their senses and realize that they wanted a baby after all. While this is true in many cases, it's also based on a great deal of wishful thinking. I've personally known three women who absolutely HATE their kids (I used to be a nanny, if you can believe that!) and all of them were forced in some way or another to have and raise them - usually by family pressure, guilt trips, and even outright threats. As far as I could tell, none of them were "criminally" abusive, but apathy is an overlooked form of cruelty. As long as there are children in this country who have NEVER heard the words "I love you" or fallen asleep in someone's arms, I think it's childish and irresponsible to demand MORE BABIES because... well, aren't they just so cuddly?
Did you find this post helpful?
First Helper User Profile DamianaRaven
|

replied May 25th, 2010
Experienced User
I have answered that question and just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it is an acceptable answer. If you are so worried about population and the effect on the economy, why not put yourself where your mouth is? Why condemn others to death for your convictions?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 25th, 2010
Experienced User
All right, if you've answered my question before, then please forgive me and repeat yourself. I do not remember you response and would really like to consider your theories.

You're no better than I am in that you're willing to condemn others to various degrees of suffering (instead of quick death) for your convictions. Both of us could walk away and leave the world alone, minding our own business and taking care of our families, but we don't because we believe in our cause. Somewhere in the whole mess is probably a solution everyone will be willing to work on.

I'd really like to hear a solution to this - one that will take into account the current public apathy for unwanted children. Maybe I'm being dense, but I genuinely don't see how the situation could be improved by forcing society to add - what was it....4000 a day? - MORE children to the equation.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 26th, 2010
Extremely eHealthy
Respect wrote:
I have answered that question and just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it is an acceptable answer. If you are so worried about population and the effect on the economy, why not put yourself where your mouth is? Why condemn others to death for your convictions?


Death has many forms, therefore why are you condeming people to death?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 27th, 2010
Experienced User
Respect wrote:
I have answered that question and just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it is an acceptable answer.


I think I remember your idea of a "solution." Wasn't it your theory that if women are denied abortions, they'll have nine whole months to "come around," in which case most of them will go on to be proud and happy mothers? I'm sure you base your contention on the fact that a large percentage of adoptions fall through the instant a mother lays eyes on her theretofore "unwanted" baby. Suddenly she realizes that all her reasons to abort/adopt (such as no man, no money, no job, no car, no completed education, and a family who's disowned her) don't mean a thing because... "awwww, isn't it just soooooo cute and it's all MINE."

I don't think it's ANY kind of practical solution to state that just because most women will feel some affection and attachment for the babies they're forced to have, they'll all be eager and adequate mothers. If abortion is suddenly banned, the adoption market will immediately be FLOODED and within the next few years, child confiscations will SKYROCKET as reports of abuse and neglect spike at about the same rate that the adorable helplessness of all the babies wears off. You'll either have a legion of "state property" children living on the fringes of society or (more likely) the overburdened taxpayers will suddenly insist that "minor" offenses such as criminal neglect no longer be grounds to "rip a loving family to shreds." People get viciously apathetic about the suffering and rights of others when those same others encroach upon their own comfort and well-being. If I'm wrong, then why is abortion even an issue at all?!?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 27th, 2010
Extremely eHealthy
Respect wrote:
I have answered that question and just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it is an acceptable answer. If you are so worried about population and the effect on the economy, why not put yourself where your mouth is? Why condemn others to death for your convictions?


(Just adding on to my other post)

The concept of personhood is different then human life, we are all human but are we all the same, why not accept the difference? If human life begins at conception but fertilized eggs are also human lives but the ones that aren't implanted are usually thrown away, is this murder? If in vitro isn't murder than how is abortion?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 28th, 2010
Experienced User
I think that my challenge has proven too great for the pro-life camp to tackle. Sure, there are many theoretical solutions, but none of them can stand up to the fact that we ALREADY have more children in this world than adults who want to care for them. Advocating ANYTHING that will increase this anomaly seems viciously short-sighted to me. To me, the philosophy sounds remarkably like, "It doesn't matter how many children might suffer neglect and deprivation - so long as every single one of them is forced to crowd their asses on an overpopulated planet, people will see that I was RIGHT about my beliefs and God is on MY SIDE. See? Behold my mighty compassion and moral superiority to all those murderers who thought more of society's needs than an embryo's right to be born!"
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 28th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
Most prolifers have the mentality of locusts. They won't see a problem with overpopulation until their children are choking on air-born toxins and wasting away from lack of food.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 29th, 2010
Experienced User
In America we throw away TONS of food daily. It is a crime how much we throw away and we consume way more than is required.
I have said again and again, if you advocate the death of other humans for economic, population, environment concerns, why not do for yourself what you advocate for others? It's called "putting your money where your mouth is" in my neck of the woods. There is a way but it is harder than just deciding to kill off the weaker of our society. It actually would take sharing. unselfishness and cooperation, something I don't see any of you willing to do. Easier "getting rid" of your offspring through abortion, I guess.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 29th, 2010
Extremely eHealthy
Anyone who produces more than two children needs to be sterilised. Just my opinion.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank oopoop for this post: GreyWolf 

User Profile
replied May 29th, 2010
Experienced User
Respect wrote:
In America we throw away TONS of food daily. It is a crime how much we throw away and we consume way more than is required.
I have said again and again, if you advocate the death of other humans for economic, population, environment concerns, why not do for yourself what you advocate for others? It's called "putting your money where your mouth is" in my neck of the woods. There is a way but it is harder than just deciding to kill off the weaker of our society. It actually would take sharing. unselfishness and cooperation, something I don't see any of you willing to do. Easier "getting rid" of your offspring through abortion, I guess.


Now you're getting the picture, it would seem. Human beings are not going to "wake up" and start sharing unselfishly and cooperating with each other - not anytime soon, at least. Therefore, the "solution" you offer is nothing more than a pipe dream decorated with the snide suggestion that I handle overpopulation by killing myself instead of the unborn. For the record, that ain't going to happen, so you can stop recommending it. I'll personally stomp to death a thousand unwanted embryos with my bare right foot before I even think about doing anything to deprive my friends and family of the joy that is me. Is there some way I can make this sentiment clearer? Frankly, your little "hints" are starting to come across as petty and resentful. It's not my fault that you can't come up with a better answer than "we throw away too much food."

By the way, I hope you do realize that there is much more to raising a child than merely feeding it. Material resources are not what's needed most - it's the time, patience, love, and attention a child needs that we as a nation are clearly NOT willing to give. Even so, you're willing to condemn millions of children to a cold, isolated existence devoid of affection or any sense of worthiness. In my estimation, the willingness to do that in defense of your "moral code" makes you more heartless than a murderer.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 29th, 2010
Experienced User
And you are willing to kill thousands of human lives because of the possibility they could suffer. Do you wear a black robe and carry a scythe? 100% mortality for the possiblity of the suffering of a few?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 29th, 2010
Experienced User
Respect wrote:
And you are willing to kill thousands of human lives because of the possibility they could suffer. Do you wear a black robe and carry a scythe? 100% mortality for the possiblity of the suffering of a few?


"The possibility of the suffering of a few." See, this is where I start to get impatient because the suffering I speak of is NOT theoretical and it affects MORE than a few. There are already thousands upon thousands of children in this country that have no one to care for them. I spent ten months in one of those "institutions," and it was probably the bleakest period of my life. If I'd had to face my whole childhood living like that, I'd definitely want to have been aborted instead.

I think you're trying to defend your position with the delusion that the suffering I'd prevent is purely hypothetical and would only affect a handful of kids. It's infinitely more complicated than that - I would also prevent the children who are already BORN from having to endure the horrors that come with virulent overpopulation. Then again, maybe everyone will enjoy famine, riots, and disease so who am I to try to avoid it? After all, everyone knows that overpopulation is just a BS scare tactic used by my cronies to justify the luxury of aborting on a whim. There's plenty to go around, even if we crank out an extra million a year ad infinitum.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 30th, 2010
Experienced User
Well instead of aborting unborn humans who still have much potential, why not conveniently and compassionatly end the lives of everyone, say, 65 and above. After all, they consume and no longer are productive, in most cases AND are a drain of medical resourses and money. They may end of getting confused or having a debilitative condition due to age that may cause them discomfort. I don't think I would like to live like many of them do so my vote is to end their lives for their own good and the good of the rest of us.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 30th, 2010
Experienced User
Respect wrote:
Well instead of aborting unborn humans who still have much potential, why not conveniently and compassionatly end the lives of everyone, say, 65 and above. After all, they consume and no longer are productive, in most cases AND are a drain of medical resourses and money. They may end of getting confused or having a debilitative condition due to age that may cause them discomfort. I don't think I would like to live like many of them do so my vote is to end their lives for their own good and the good of the rest of us.


If you're being sarcastic, it won't work because I might be willing to consider an "age limit" if it were fairly and unilaterally enforced. If humans keep breeding and breeding whilst developing technology that enables us to live longer and longer, our grandchildren will not live on a pretty and happy planet. The "horrors" our society now endures will seem like a paradise when resources really start to run out and can't even be wasted anymore. In my opinion, this fate - even in theory - is far more horrifying that the thought of willing women having abortions, so I'm willing to allow that not every method of "thinning the herd" is going to be sunshine and lollipops. Sometimes, hard choices have to be made.

Overpopulation is NOT an urban legend, and it's not a joke. If you make snarky comments like "well, why don't we just kill all the old people," I'm just going to ask you in all seriousness "why don't we?" However, I think you'll find that old people are not without their wiles and are probably much better equipped to defend and speak for themselves than bloody little blobs.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 30th, 2010
Extremely eHealthy
Aborting unwantd fetuses alone isn't going to be enough to stop overpopulation. We really need a way of stopping people "wanting" so many babies, who grow up to reproduce more and more. The trouble is the obsession with reproduction, which is also characteristic of the anti-choice nobbos.It is two sides of the same coin -- stop women aborting/babies are wonderful and must make more! Lunacy. Absolute head-in-the-sand-reality-denying lunacy.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank oopoop for this post: GreyWolf 

User Profile
replied May 30th, 2010
Experienced User
oopoopoop wrote:
Aborting unwantd fetuses alone isn't going to be enough to stop overpopulation. We really need a way of stopping people "wanting" so many babies, who grow up to reproduce more and more. The trouble is the obsession with reproduction, which is also characteristic of the anti-choice nobbos.It is two sides of the same coin -- stop women aborting/babies are wonderful and must make more! Lunacy. Absolute head-in-the-sand-reality-denying lunacy.


Unfortunately, there's probably not a practical way to decrease the human urge to reproduce - it's been inherent to our survival as a species and we haven't had time to evolve yet now that the urge is getting counterproductive. What is much simpler to control is the right to reproduce, which I think America (yes, G.D. it, the land of the f'ing FREE) needs to start thinking about. Who does it serve to wait until starvation is rampant before admitting that there MIGHT be a problem here.

People in this country still have a very cavalier attitude about overbreeding. In China, Nada Suleman would be a criminal, but here in the states she's "Octomom" the celebrity. This is not an isolated celebration of rampant reproduction - look at the Duggars or John & Kate. I've never liked the congratulatory attitude we have toward people who have a slew of kids and count on handouts to support them. That's perverse!

I wouldn't be averse to making women get a license before they're allowed to have a baby, but such a logical rule would require some pretty harsh enforcement, such as mandatory abortion or outright kidnapping. Whatever we're going to do about the problem of overpopulation, we can be sure of one thing - IT WILL NOT BE EASY OR PLEASANT!!! I've literally begged the pro-lifers (and everyone else) for ideas about how to prevent the problem in a humane and universally fair manner. I get nothing, because I believe there is no answer. Something's going to have to suck - the only thing we get to decide is just what will do the sucking.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 30th, 2010
Experienced User
Here's a good link that relates to what I just said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienz a/nadia-suleman-the-duggars_b_165890.html

"Clown car vagina" made me fall out of my chair!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 30th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
I think it's because the average female tends to have a seemingly innate desire to produce at least one child, those who don't are considered abnormal, in denial or bitter over being female.

At least, that's been my experience as a childfree woman.

No, I don't hate kids; I simply don't like long-term exposure to them and have no desire for any of my own. It's like accusing someone of hating cats just because they don't want any.

No, I don't hate being female. I sometimes hate certain parts of my femininity because they give me so much grief, but I have no desire to be male.

No, the desire to remain childfree does not mean I am immune from the desire to share sexual intimacy with my husband. Just because I refuse to welcome pregnancy each time we sleep together doesn't mean I hate my husband, myself, children or those who have them.

I can tell people what I DO hate though, and that's people who refuse to believe any woman would want to limit the number of children they have or outright not have any. I hate people who think the most important function a woman can fulfill is childbirth.

In short, I hate people that try to push their own reproductive and sexual preferences on everybody else because they believe if it's right for them, it must be right for everyone.

If every fertile woman on the planet wanted children or subscribed to the more radical idea that their worth depends on how many offspring they have, there wouldn't be a tree left in sight and everybody would be living like roaches in garbage.

It's just as natural to NOT want children as it is to want them. It's called balance, and I for one am tired of certain kinds of people (I'm sure I don't need to explain which kinds I mean) treating women (and men) who do NOT wish to reproduce like abominations.

I would also like to point out to the birth peddlers that every child I and my fellow childfree people choose not to have leaves another slot open for THEIR children to have better opportunities. You'd think they'd appreciate their children having less competition in the future when they apply for college or work, or when they search for real estate. I don't think these ingrates need to be whining about our choice to decline reproduction.

Quality, not quantity.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank Darkmoon for this post: GreyWolf  motherofhighspiritedones 

replied May 31st, 2010
Extremely eHealthy
Let's just be clear on one thing: there is, logically, absolutely no biological basis for an "urge to reproduce" in the sense of "wanting a baby". How can I assert this? Because there doesn't need to be any such urge in order for procreation to take place -- it is entirely superfluous. All you need is a desire for SEX. Until very recently, the desire for sex led, almost inevitably, to the creation of babies and hence the survival of the species. Do you think when a cat goes into season what she is thinking is "I'd really like a litter of kittens!" Nope -- she is hankering after that big old tom cat.

"Wanting children" is completely cultural and social, and perhaps psychological. And much of that was generated in order to control people's sexuality, particularly women's. If your only value in your society is your ability to produce heirs, then you want children. If your society has also determined that "sex is bad and a duty" then one way to get you to have sex is to make your role in life to raise children.

This isn't to deny that "wanting children" is a genuine feeling for some people -- but it is not a biological urge.
|
Did you find this post helpful?