AdlersMommy22
Well-known member
Quote:
Uhmmmmmmmm.. I disagree.. for these reasons:
Abortion advocates often argue that it is acceptable for a woman to abort her pregnancy if she cannot afford to raise a child. While they are careful to use noble and compassionate language, they are essentially arguing that if a baby is going to be too expensive, the mother has a right to kill it. Such rationale falls apart on many levels, but we'll start with the most fundamental. Like so many abortion arguments, this one assumes something about the unborn embryo or fetus that it hasn't proved. It assumes, in fact, the very thing that it must prove before the argument can hold any water.
Isn't it true, that there are born-children in America today who are growing up in poverty? Yes it is true, but has anyone ever heard someone argue that the mothers of these born-children should have the right to kill them, since they can't afford to raise them? No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child. The only reason anyone uses this argument to try and justify abortion is because they are assuming that unborn children are not human persons. But until abortion advocates can demonstrate that children are not human beings before they're born, all such appeals to financial hardship have no foundation. Poverty is not the issue. The real issue is the humanity of the unborn child.
Another reason this "poverty" argument falls apart is because most abortion advocates support abortion on demand. They want women to have the right to abort their children for any reason or no reason at all. Therefore appealing to the hard cases of financial instability is just a smoke-screen designed to mask what is an incredibly broad agenda.
Finally, and most practically, it is simply not true to suggest that there are any women in America who cannot afford to carry their pregnancy to term. There are MORE resources now than ever before to help a woman financially with her pregnancy- even if she IS married.
I personally, am a part of "moms and children" in illinois. All of my OB visits were paid for by the state (a special fund set aside by our govenor that is a VOLUNTERY tax payment.. true money does go to this from taxes but it is VOLUNTARY...)... the birth of my son and all my doctors visits are even paid for. Until my son is put on his piece of shit father's medical insurance, all of his visits are paid for- and he sees the TOP pediatritian in central IL... I had a great, all-expense paid pregnancy and delivery and continue to receieve great aid. I do also work as well though... I work 40+ hours a week and bring in my own money. I pay for all of my son's clothes, diapers, food, etc. I work hard.. I work my ass off.. but I do work.. and I do do EVERYTHING I can that any other woman who was on a typical insurance would do as well.
So to say that a woman can not afford a pregnancy in most states is just absurd.. a woman would in fact, be more inept to go through such a program as I went through because I literally paid one $2 co-pay and that was it. Not only was my pregnancy affordable, but I got some of the best treatment and highly enjoyed my pregnancy. I knew healthcare was NOT something to stress about despite the stress I had from everything else going on in my life.
(still abort73)
Originally Posted by ratmist
It's not that I don't agree with you, but I'm merely stating that if someone doesn't want to have a child because he/she can't afford it, that's a valid position. It isn't a virtue to be raised in poverty any more than it's a virtue to be raised with money. People often say that if you can't afford something, you should think again about trying to have it anyway. This applies to human beings too. |
Uhmmmmmmmm.. I disagree.. for these reasons:
Abortion advocates often argue that it is acceptable for a woman to abort her pregnancy if she cannot afford to raise a child. While they are careful to use noble and compassionate language, they are essentially arguing that if a baby is going to be too expensive, the mother has a right to kill it. Such rationale falls apart on many levels, but we'll start with the most fundamental. Like so many abortion arguments, this one assumes something about the unborn embryo or fetus that it hasn't proved. It assumes, in fact, the very thing that it must prove before the argument can hold any water.
Isn't it true, that there are born-children in America today who are growing up in poverty? Yes it is true, but has anyone ever heard someone argue that the mothers of these born-children should have the right to kill them, since they can't afford to raise them? No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child. The only reason anyone uses this argument to try and justify abortion is because they are assuming that unborn children are not human persons. But until abortion advocates can demonstrate that children are not human beings before they're born, all such appeals to financial hardship have no foundation. Poverty is not the issue. The real issue is the humanity of the unborn child.
Another reason this "poverty" argument falls apart is because most abortion advocates support abortion on demand. They want women to have the right to abort their children for any reason or no reason at all. Therefore appealing to the hard cases of financial instability is just a smoke-screen designed to mask what is an incredibly broad agenda.
Finally, and most practically, it is simply not true to suggest that there are any women in America who cannot afford to carry their pregnancy to term. There are MORE resources now than ever before to help a woman financially with her pregnancy- even if she IS married.
I personally, am a part of "moms and children" in illinois. All of my OB visits were paid for by the state (a special fund set aside by our govenor that is a VOLUNTERY tax payment.. true money does go to this from taxes but it is VOLUNTARY...)... the birth of my son and all my doctors visits are even paid for. Until my son is put on his piece of shit father's medical insurance, all of his visits are paid for- and he sees the TOP pediatritian in central IL... I had a great, all-expense paid pregnancy and delivery and continue to receieve great aid. I do also work as well though... I work 40+ hours a week and bring in my own money. I pay for all of my son's clothes, diapers, food, etc. I work hard.. I work my ass off.. but I do work.. and I do do EVERYTHING I can that any other woman who was on a typical insurance would do as well.
So to say that a woman can not afford a pregnancy in most states is just absurd.. a woman would in fact, be more inept to go through such a program as I went through because I literally paid one $2 co-pay and that was it. Not only was my pregnancy affordable, but I got some of the best treatment and highly enjoyed my pregnancy. I knew healthcare was NOT something to stress about despite the stress I had from everything else going on in my life.
(still abort73)
