Abortion Discussion - spilt from Green Energy Thread

Carrie,
In that you choose an a argument that is "show me yours and I'll show you mine" , I am happy to tell you that my wife and I have 2 children, "bred" by us.
My reading of your post indicates that you do not have any children, "bred" or adopted. Is that correct? You asked me of my family and I answered, will you be forthcoming with your familial status? Or perhaps you do not want children as you post makes mention.
An infant is not viable on its own, it needs to be nurtured or it will die, regardless of how hard the child cries. Can I take it to mean that a child can be killed because it cannot feed itself?
Unwanted child, is in the eye of the beholder, what you would discard into the trash would be treasured by another.
Logic and ethics and interesting compliment to psychology. You do realize that logic has no relationship to ethics? Or would you prefer to discuss situational ethics and its place , if any in logic.
I am looking forward to that discussion. Why? Because you arguments of overpopulation as a reason to abort , is exactly that situational ethics. I refer you to Jermey Bentham, et.al.

As an aside, I find this statement unbelievable " Those children did not have a choice of being born." did you ask them? what hubris you have.

And I find your last question unbelievable. They existed. They did not have a choice. Your point?

No, I have no children, did not marry until I was 34 and had a 16-year-old stepson. I made him wash a dish and make his bed for the first time in his life. He thought I was the meanest stepmom EVER---until he went in the service. He sat on my couch and told me that and said, "Every time I made my bed or polished my shoes in boot camp, I'd look up at the sky and say 'Thank you, Carrie'. Just thought you ought to know." This was many years after his father and I divorced.

And you are incorrect in logic and situational ethics not having a correlation. It is the use of logic in EVERY situation that leads you to a valid decision--or should be.

So, why did you not adopt, presuming you knew the plight of wonderful children who had been discarded? If you cared about the children that resulted from your "principles", why not?

I still adopt--rescue animals. By the time I adjusted to marriage and financially in a position to raise a child, I was way too old for children, but have rescued animals all my adult life. Every species is important to me, not just those I can breed to validate my existence.

Thank you for your support of your stepson in the military. Do we have to assume that his mother was uncaring? You do not mention her. Did you and his father split because of his maternal mother? How does he feel now? Lots of details missing.
You introduced your personal situation into the debate and as such it is incumbent to know what other facts influenced your divorce from his father.
My wife and I chose to have our own children. Other relatives opted for adoption, whether they were unable to conceive is not my business. Our whole hearted support of their adoption was our position, I am sorry that you were not supported as they were. Perhaps you might have adopted a child along with your animals.
Let us discuss situational ethics, situational ethics is based on whatever works for the "situation" is considered ethical, do you agree? If not how do you define the term.
Like you. Carrie, I have adopted rescue animals but in no way do I equate a dog or cat to a human being, do you?
"financially in a position to raise a child, I was way too old for children, but have rescued animals all my adult life. Every species is important to me, "
Too old for children but old enough to adopt animals, an interesting perspective. Please tell us more.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. I never met Skip's mother, as she lived out of state, but by all accounts, she was not an uncaring mother. Skip was an only child and she waited on him hand and foot. It seems to have been a joint custody thing, and when he was 16, Skip decided to come live with his father to do some of the things his mom didn't do--fishing and learning other, more "manly" things. His father was a Purdue graduate, spoke several languages fluently and an avid reader. We were dear friends and stayed in touch and he and Skip would come to visit us after they moved back where they had family, until he passed away. He made a much better friend than husband for only one reason, and the one for which I divorced him. He was a jolly, often irresponsible alcoholic. I took only those belongings that I brought to the marriage and moved out. The day our divorce was final, we walked out of the courthouse hand-in-hand and went out to dinner.

It was not a lack of support that led me to not adopt. I was single, working and travelling the country when I could, and was not ready to settle down to a committed relationship, be it a partner or child. (Dogs were much more flexible for my lifestyle!) Plus, and a major reason for not having children was my parents, but not for the reason you think. I did not realize until I started college how much my parents gave up for us--how much it cost them to buy us a dime ice cream on a weekend trip to the grocery store when we were little, because I never knew we were "poor". I never had a babysitter except my grandparents. My parents would take us with them when they would play cards with friends and other visits and I was in my thirties when one of those friends caught me in a grocery store when I was home visiting and told me how polite, quiet and well-mannered we were when Mom and Dad would bring us along to those card nights. It was not until my second semester of college when my parents told me that, regardless of what they did, they just didn't have the money for my second semester of college, and my brother was starting college the next year. My mother sewed me the most beautiful clothes, including my dress for the high school prom. We were raised to be good kids and we were. I had two teachers from my high school who offered to pay my second semester tuition. I worked the counter at Woolworth's in between classes and then bartended after I turned 21. My sister, brother and I were model students and citizens. To this day, we have one speeding ticket (baby sister, when she was in high school!) between the three of us, all of us business owners and active in our communities. The main reason I never had kids? Because I could never be as unselfish and as good a parent as mine were.

Okay, that's a small part of my history. Now, for your comment that "whatever works for a situation is ethical". No, I cannot say I agree. If someone who wants to buy something but is poor, is it ethical for him to steal or rob to get it? No, and you don't believe it is either. Situational ethics are circumstances outside the norm, where standard rules do not apply. They soldier who falls on a grenade to save his comrades, the person who steps in when a bully is picking on another person, knowing he might not win a fight--those are situations outside the norm where decisions are made not based on the "norm". The "norm" is self-preservation. That is an extreme example of "situational ethics", but most certainly logic applies in the aspect that what you believe the right thing to do is going to have consequences and are you willing to accept those consequences to do that which you believe to be the greater good. No one would question your decision if it were based on self-preservation--except you.

In answer to your last question of do I value a dog or other animal the same as a human being? Let me answer it like this: Animals kill for food or defense. Man is the only species who kills indiscriminately and often his own kind.

Your last comment about adopting children I can only answer with "the life of a dog is generally 10-15 years. I can give a number of whole lives comfort and love with a dog. Children, hopefully, outlive you, and you can no longer give them support and love when you leave them. It is a life-long commitment. As I said, I could never do it as well and as unselfishly as my entire family did, including my grandparents. It is, to a degree, a selfish decision, but one I have never regretted. I can still help others, be they children, seniors or those in between, and I do. A friend or mentor can be as valuable in someone's life.

Carrie wrote: In all of the bantering about abortion, including the stalwart posturing on morality by the anti-abortionists, I have as yet to hear ANYTHING about how to support all of these unwanted children after they are born to make them well-adjusted and productive members of society. I counselled a lot of kids for years--abused kids, poverty kids and even juvenile delinquents for St. Louis County Probation & Parole. I know one thing--there is nothing wrong with any kid that a new set of parents or friends wouldn't have fixed, and the kids' friends are under the control of parents. What kind of life will unwanted children have?

Another fact, is that almost all of the staunch anti-abortionists I meet don't want abortions to be legal, but sure haven't adopted rather than breed. The high horse morality card has no value when there is hypocrisy and short-sightedness as to the life AFTER birth. What's the short-term plan for making these children a valuable part of society? Isn't that the point of breeding in the first place? And don't tell me adoption. It's a long, expensive process that doesn't work and too many kids "age out" of orphanages with little emotional support or education because the system is ineffective, at best. And those potential adoptive parents, want babies, not older children.

And long term, The world cannot handle the continued over-population of mankind. The last figures I saw a few weeks ago by various environmental groups was that, between plants and animals, there are 1000 species A DAY going extinct directly as a result of the over-population of humanity. I'm sure your children and their children will be cursing your name when they are starving and can't breathe because of ego rather than intelligence.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing about the "immorality" of abortion with no long-term plan or morality applied to after the birth, and those who don't follow through by adopting instead of breeding. It just makes them hypocrites with no follow-through on their short-sighted posturing.

The question of WHO IS GOING TO COMMIT TO 18 YEARS OF SUPPORT FOR THE CHILD IS STILL UNANSWERED.....(oh my, a small oversight). The bolded is the reality of UNWANTED responsibility. AGAIN,who is taking on the financial aspect of this newly born infant that pro lifers INSIST be born...r THEY
willing to set aside a donation MONTHLY to aid the mother? R THEY willing to adopt a teenager that is going to age out of the system (with NO supportive platform)? R THEY volunteering a chuck of time to any under staffed and under funded agency that is struggling to assist these children who r abandoned and r in desperate need of someone to CARE?

NOT your decision to make.....here's a tender tale of a couple faced with the "unthinkable"

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/1...eption-fetal-anomaly

They only had a few days to determine the course of the rest of their lives.

The situation: 18 weeks into her pregnancy, Karla Renée learned the baby she was carrying had a serious genetic anomaly that could lead to severe physical and mental disabilities, miscarriage or stillbirth.

The state law: North Carolina's current law forbids abortion after 20 weeks gestational age. The law was passed in 1973 – it had been blocked by a judgein 2019 because Roe v. Wade protected the right to abortion until viability, which is generally considered to be about 24 weeks gestational age. But on the very day of the Supreme Court ruling in June, the leaders of the state senate and house – both Republicans – sent a letter to the state attorney general requesting that he take steps to put the 20-week ban into effect. Ultimately, the judge lifted his injunction and the law went into effect on Aug. 17 this year.

And it will take cases like this to get national attention in order to reform abortion laws. For instance France bans late term abortions but they have exemptions if a couple of doctors will sign off on it. Reasonable restrictions are a good thing.

the extreme pro life elitists would NEVER allow a very personal option,... INCEST AND RAPE R NOT EXCEPTIONS,

homeagain wrote: the extreme pro life elitists would NEVER allow a very personal option,... INCEST AND RAPE R NOT EXCEPTIONS,

”Elitists” don’t get to decide abortion law in individual states HA, the people who live in those states do. It’s kinda like how a democracy works, only better.

I was attempting to be kind....the REAL EXTREME RIGHT (religious zealots,who impose their BELIEFS ON OTHERS )......as if, THEY r the chosen ones.