TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Language of Abortion

The Language of Abortion

By now the notion of a debate between a "pro-choice" position and an "anti-abortion" position has embedded itself as a perfectly reasonable one in the mind of most of society. This is, of course, absurd to anyone familiar with formal debates in which each side must hold a precisely contradictory view. In essence, the issue must either be pro-choice/anti-choice or pro-abortion/anti-abortion. The problem occurs due to the ambiguity inherent to a single word description of an ideology.

If you're familiar with the typical discourse on the issue, then you'll probably find the following summaries fairly reasonable:

Pro-Choice means: I would prefer abortions never occurred but support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.

Anti-Abortion means: I believe that abortions are immoral and therefore should be outlawed.

So, is the issue choice, or is the issue abortion? If you picked "choice," then you were correct. Neither position is in favor of abortions. However, one position is defined by a desire to enforce its opinions and beliefs upon everyone, while the other is defined by a willingness to allow each individual woman to make her own choice based upon her own personal beliefs and opinions. One of these positions is compatible with the notion of a free society, and the other one is not.

Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter By now the notion of a debate between a "pro-choice" position and an "anti-abortion" position has embedded itself as a perfectly reasonable one in the mind of most of society. This is, of course, absurd to anyone familiar with formal debates in which each side must hold a precisely contradictory view. In essence, the issue must either be pro-choice/anti-choice or pro-abortion/anti-abortion. The problem occurs due to the ambiguity inherent to a single word description of an ideology. If you're familiar with the typical discourse on the issue, then you'll probably find the following summaries fairly reasonable: Pro-Choice means: I would prefer abortions never occurred but support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. Anti-Abortion means: I believe that abortions are immoral and therefore should be outlawed. So, is the issue choice, or is the issue abortion? If you picked "choice," then you were correct. Neither position is in favor of abortions. However, one position is defined by a desire to enforce its opinions and beliefs upon everyone, while the other is defined by a willingness to allow each individual woman to make her own choice based upon her own personal beliefs and opinions. One of these positions is compatible with the notion of a free society, and the other one is not.

look, i really don't mean to be coming at your posts, although lately it might seem like it. i'm on vacation and have been spending a lot of time here.

...but it does look like your just stating the obvious here and for arguments sake, you've left out one crucial point...when does the right to life begin?

i mean sure, you've illustrated the paradox of choice when confronted by the issue and your choices are "fairly reasonable" like you said but your assuming that the woman does not feel that LIFE means nothing more to her than a choice.

so the question remains. when does the right to life begin?

i will not argue that question with you BTW.

Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so the question remains. when does the right to life begin? i will not argue that question with you BTW.

You're right that I had glossed over that issue. It isn't so much that I don't want to discuss it, but it fundamentally rests upon a deeper philosophical question about what, particularly, the right to life applies to. This question itself is based upon a yet deeper question regarding what specific set of conditions or attributes entitle someone or something to a "right to life." So, my answer will not be fully explained.

I view the right to life as more of an agreement among rational beings that they ought not to harm one another. In order for an entity to enter into this agreement, it must be able to exhibit comprehension of the agreement and communicate with the others involved. Thus, I do not see the right to life as beginning until the child is developed enough to understand and communicate regarding life and death.

Obviously, this poses several legal, practical, and philisophical problems of its own. However, to me, the problem of citing an objective and non-transcendental origin for the right to life is yet greater.

Re: Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I view the right to life as more of an agreement among rational beings that they ought not to harm one another. In order for an entity to enter into this agreement, it must be able to exhibit comprehension of the agreement and communicate with the others involved. Thus, I do not see the right to life as beginning until the child is developed enough to understand and communicate regarding life and death.

Essentially, that boils down to about a toddlers age, and in some cases possibly older! Children don�t get a full grasp of life and death till quite old in the scheme of things I shouldn�t imagine, though in fairness I have no evidence either way to back this up, its just an opinion. How much of that is down to parents/society being unprepared to explain it to children I wouldn�t like to speculate.


Daddy�s gone...er...on holiday dear, he won�t be back for a VERY long time!

I used to argue abortion from the standpoint of it being a free choice, however since no evidence whatsoever solves the philosophical question of what constitutes sentient human life (a critical component of answering the free choice vs. right to life argument) I've more or less explored new approachs. I now adopt a more Mills Utilitarian approach whereby I seek to maximize societal utility and the utility of the individuals involved. Utilizing this approach I have arrived at the following conclusion: making abortion illegal is acceptable should it lead to the maximization of the welfare of society and all individuals, however, I have yet to see such a condition manifest itself.

There are good arguments for free choice made by both sides. On the one hand, one makes the choice to have unprotected or risky sex and therefore should accept responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, the state should not dictate what a woman does with her own body. But what bothers me about the religious right is that their concern for life dissipates once the baby leaves the mother's body. Is a drug abusing/child abusing mother not as adept at killing a child than a mother who aborts a fetus? Are children living in poverty not tenfold more succeptible to death, misery, crime, etc.? So if we save the life of every poverty stricken, unwanted, crack-baby do we not only infuse all individuals involved with additional hardships in addition to subjecting society with the liability of caring for these individuals through welfare or the penitentary? Sure we can say that there is child protective services, adoption services, etc., however, those institutions are so woefully underfunded that they are almost hollow and meaningless. Therefore in the end, making abortion illegal leads to the minimization of utility. Not only do the individuals involved suffer as a whole, but society suffers as a whole. However, this is not the main point to the argument.

The pro-life platform concerns itself with the fundamental right to life that the fetus/child has. However, does this fundamental right to life not manifest itself in all ages of the child? Of the adult? Why does society not protect this fundamental right to life by taking draconian measures in all instances? From a pro-life standpoint, the ideology of religious fundamentalists is untennable. If you are indeed concerned with "life", why does that concern only extend to the life of the unborn child? What about the born child? Why are there not mass protests for greater funding for social services? Child protection agencies? Does the protection of the fundamental right to life only extend to easy limitations of freedoms rather than pro-active efforts that requires sacrifice? If one's concern is for life, than open up your checkbooks to put your money where your mouth is. Bear in mind that I don't think society should be liable to do all that. But if I were to argue against abortion because of the unborn child's right to life, than I SHOULD argue for all those things.

Thus if you are arguing from an ideological standpoint of protecting a fundamental right to life, than follow through with the ideological committment to fruiton by all means possible. What's the point of saving the "unborn" life only for it to be sacrificed as a born life? For these reasons I reject the pro-life platform from a utilitarian standpoint. Very little to no lives are actually being "saved". And in the process of "saving" those lives you unwittingly create additional hard ships on society and the individuals involved.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I used to argue abortion from the standpoint of it being a free choice, however since no evidence whatsoever solves the philosophical question of what constitutes sentient human life (a critical component of answering the free choice vs. right to life argument) I've more or less explored new approachs. I now adopt a more Mills Utilitarian approach whereby I seek to maximize societal utility and the utility of the individuals involved. Utilizing this approach I have arrived at the following conclusion: making abortion illegal is acceptable should it lead to the maximization of the welfare of society and all individuals, however, I have yet to see such a condition manifest itself. There are good arguments for free choice made by both sides. On the one hand, one makes the choice to have unprotected or risky sex and therefore should accept responsibility for their actions. On the other hand, the state should not dictate what a woman does with her own body. But what bothers me about the religious right is that their concern for life dissipates once the baby leaves the mother's body. Is a drug abusing/child abusing mother not as adept at killing a child than a mother who aborts a fetus? Are children living in poverty not tenfold more succeptible to death, misery, crime, etc.? So if we save the life of every poverty stricken, unwanted, crack-baby do we not only infuse all individuals involved with additional hardships in addition to subjecting society with the liability of caring for these individuals through welfare or the penitentary? Sure we can say that there is child protective services, adoption services, etc., however, those institutions are so woefully underfunded that they are almost hollow and meaningless. Therefore in the end, making abortion illegal leads to the minimization of utility. Not only do the individuals involved suffer as a whole, but society suffers as a whole. However, this is not the main point to the argument. The pro-life platform concerns itself with the fundamental right to life that the fetus/child has. However, does this fundamental right to life not manifest itself in all ages of the child? Of the adult? Why does society not protect this fundamental right to life by taking draconian measures in all instances? From a pro-life standpoint, the ideology of religious fundamentalists is untennable. If you are indeed concerned with "life", why does that concern only extend to the life of the unborn child? What about the born child? Why are there not mass protests for greater funding for social services? Child protection agencies? Does the protection of the fundamental right to life only extend to easy limitations of freedoms rather than pro-active efforts that requires sacrifice? If one's concern is for life, than open up your checkbooks to put your money where your mouth is. Bear in mind that I don't think society should be liable to do all that. But if I were to argue against abortion because of the unborn child's right to life, than I SHOULD argue for all those things. Thus if you are arguing from an ideological standpoint of protecting a fundamental right to life, than follow through with the ideological committment to fruiton by all means possible. What's the point of saving the "unborn" life only for it to be sacrificed as a born life? For these reasons I reject the pro-life platform from a utilitarian standpoint. Very little to no lives are actually being "saved". And in the process of "saving" those lives you unwittingly create additional hard ships on society and the individuals involved.

Not to pucker up too much on your backside, but that was an outstanding viewpoint.

Re: Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I view the right to life as more of an agreement among rational beings that they ought not to harm one another. In order for an entity to enter into this agreement, it must be able to exhibit comprehension of the agreement and communicate with the others involved. Thus, I do not see the right to life as beginning until the child is developed enough to understand and communicate regarding life and death.

Heh, so it would be okay for me to walk into a hospital with a shotgun and start doing a bit of a target practice at the birth section?

quote:

Obviously, this poses several legal, practical, and philisophical problems of its own. However, to me, the problem of citing an objective and non-transcendental origin for the right to life is yet greater.

The fact that (un)born children are not sentient right now, doesn't mean that they won't be sentient in the future. Even we are not sentient all the time, like when we go to sleep or fall unconscious. I guess what you could do then is to say that every being that not only is sentient, but which also has potential to become a sentient lifeform should be given a right to live. That would kinda solve the problem imo, as children would be given a right to live, while you could still beat up and demolish rocks and cars all you want.

Anyway, to get back to the original issue. I mostly agree with what occrider said, especially about the part about religious nuts. I am well aware about the problems of forcing bums to have children, knowing that it might be more fucked up for those children to actually have a life of their own than if they were just flushed out of the womb. So here's my ingenious solution to the problem:

1) Make aboriton illegal unless the pregnancy poses a danger to the mother or if the infant is defective.

2) Establish government funded foster homes, where mothers could leave unwanted children.

3) Provide those children with food, shelter, care, and education until they grow old enough to be independant.

Aside from costing a lot of money, I think it would be a relatively good thing. Viva la socialism, problem solved

Meh, I'm off to sleep now, I've been awake for like 20 hours.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, so it would be okay for me to walk into a hospital with a shotgun and start doing a bit of a target practice at the birth section?

No, that would be an infringment upon the parents' property rights.

Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter By now the notion of a debate between a "pro-choice" position and an "anti-abortion" position has embedded itself as a perfectly reasonable one in the mind of most of society. This is, of course, absurd to anyone familiar with formal debates in which each side must hold a precisely contradictory view. In essence, the issue must either be pro-choice/anti-choice or pro-abortion/anti-abortion. The problem occurs due to the ambiguity inherent to a single word description of an ideology. If you're familiar with the typical discourse on the issue, then you'll probably find the following summaries fairly reasonable: Pro-Choice means: I would prefer abortions never occurred but support the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. Anti-Abortion means: I believe that abortions are immoral and therefore should be outlawed. So, is the issue choice, or is the issue abortion? If you picked "choice," then you were correct. Neither position is in favor of abortions. However, one position is defined by a desire to enforce its opinions and beliefs upon everyone, while the other is defined by a willingness to allow each individual woman to make her own choice based upon her own personal beliefs and opinions. One of these positions is compatible with the notion of a free society, and the other one is not.

This may suprise some of you - but being a "fundy" (as I've been labeled due to my defense of Christianity) - I support Pro-Choice abortion.

In my view, it comes down to what our forefathers founded the country on. Although they founded it on the basis of Christianity and the morals and ethics it puts forth, they also founded our nation to have freedom of religion. If we are going to truly allow people to freely choose their religion, which I support and every Bible reading Christian should also, then you also have to embrace the fact that the other people will have different views on life, and in this case, abortion.

Myself, as a Christian, can say that I would not support abortion, in my case. When it comes to forcing my belief and moral outlook onto other people however, I have to respect their right to choose whether or not to embrace God or not - and if they do not - they are free to choose to practice abortion or not. As long as it does not affect society as a whole, or detract from the well-being of sound minded individuals in our society, I believe this is how it should be.

Those that cannot accept other's right to choose freely in what to believe in have a distorted view of what religion, or Christianity, truly stands for.

In the words of Jay and Silent Bob - "A womans body is her own f*ckin business."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter No, that would be an infringment upon the parents' property rights.

Oh, right...well, at least you could slaughter your own kids all you want.

the language of abortion debate is what has been so convoluted recently between the 'sides' whatever they may be, over 'partial-birth'.

that is, labelling a birth makes going against it seem more sinister than just saying abortion, which in turns blurs the lines even more under intense discussion. or perhaps creates *more* lines of division|

Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil This may suprise some of you - but being a "fundy" (as I've been labeled due to my defense of Christianity) - I support Pro-Choice abortion. In my view, it comes down to what our forefathers founded the country on. Although they founded it on the basis of Christianity and the morals and ethics it puts forth, they also founded our nation to have freedom of religion. If we are going to truly allow people to freely choose their religion, which I support and every Bible reading Christian should also, then you also have to embrace the fact that the other people will have different views on life, and in this case, abortion. Myself, as a Christian, can say that I would not support abortion, in my case. When it comes to forcing my belief and moral outlook onto other people however, I have to respect their right to choose whether or not to embrace God or not - and if they do not - they are free to choose to practice abortion or not. As long as it does not affect society as a whole, or detract from the well-being of sound minded individuals in our society, I believe this is how it should be. Those that cannot accept other's right to choose freely in what to believe in have a distorted view of what religion, or Christianity, truly stands for. In the words of Jay and Silent Bob - "A womans body is her own f*ckin business."

Just to clarify - Christians are not the only group opposed to abortion. Also, I don't believe you can compare religious freedom with the right to abort an unborn child. How exactly does that go together? Anyone can choose freely to do just about anything - but that doesn't mean it's right.

Side note: i hate the verbosity in some of these posts...

Re: Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by MezzicanTrancEr Just to clarify - Christians are not the only group opposed to abortion. Also, I don't believe you can compare religious freedom with the right to abort an unborn child. How exactly does that go together? Anyone can choose freely to do just about anything - but that doesn't mean it's right. Side note: i hate the verbosity in some of these posts...

I think relating religious freedom to aborting an unborn child is relevant. Anti-abortion persons usually believe that terminating a human life is wrong, based on Biblical or sociological beliefs. Thou shalt not kill...

While I agree, personally, that you shouldn't kill an unborn child - I am Pro-Choice because I have to respect others views on the subject, that they may not embrace the same moral baseline that I have (the Bible).

I look at abortion the same way as capital punishment - I do not agree with it (I think no human has the right to take another's life, except in self defense) - except under severe circumstances. These are two examples of where murder is socially acceptable in our society.

If you have ever been to one of these clinics where the abortions are being performed, you will quickly see that no woman in there is wanting to kill the babies growing inside of them. These places are quite possibly one of the most depressing places one could go, you can just feel the sadness radiating off the the poor(as in feeling sorry for) people that need their services. Most of these people who get pregnant and choose to abort only do so because their lives would be ruined if the baby got delivered.

If hyperconservatives and overreligous people wouldn't scorn these mothers so much, then maybe they wouldn't feel the need to kill their babies so often.

What really angers me about the world is that people can be so cruel to each other that mothers would rather kill their children then face the unfair consequences that our society brings to them if they let their baby live.

A woman who has just aborted her child is one of the saddest things one can ever see, and I wouldn't wish it to happen even to my worst enemy.

IMHO we shouldnt be fighing over weather abortion is right, we should be fighting over weather the things we do to these mothers when we find out that they are pregnant are right.

Until the world is more fair to people who get pregnant, abortion is sadly needed.

The real problem is the nutjobs that think killing abortion doctors is God given and right. THey keep forgetting thou shall not kill but the problem with this issue is that it has become so violent on some sides. I personally think Abortion is wrong and I'll stand by that decision.

I think everyone thinks abortion is wrong, the question is to what degree do they think it is wrong, and weather intervention is neccesary to stop it.

Nobody is happy with killing their offspring in this way, unless they are fucked up somehow

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I think relating religious freedom to aborting an unborn child is relevant. Anti-abortion persons usually believe that terminating a human life is wrong, based on Biblical or sociological beliefs. Thou shalt not kill... While I agree, personally, that you shouldn't kill an unborn child - I am Pro-Choice because I have to respect others views on the subject, that they may not embrace the same moral baseline that I have (the Bible). I look at abortion the same way as capital punishment - I do not agree with it (I think no human has the right to take another's life, except in self defense) - except under severe circumstances. These are two examples of where murder is socially acceptable in our society.

Ethics and morals are not invented by the bible. Religious scriptures merely formalize already existing sociological relations and transform them into dogmatic commands. The question here is not whether we should consider murder acceptable, but whether abortion should be considered a murder. The logic behind your statement is such that it could be easily used to allow murder of adult people because, oh well, you shouldn't interfere into murderer's own religious and moral values. There is a limit at which individual's personal beliefs should be dictated by the rest of the society, and that limit is when the individual in question is directly harming another member of the society. What is disputable is whether unborn children who are potential members of the society should be given at least some rights which are given to already existant members.


UnWorldly, you talk about pregnancy as if it was some sort of a disease which you can't choose whether to get or not. Well, birth control is quite simple and not that hard to carry out. If a woman doesn't want to have children, that's her own business, but getting pregnant and then aborting shows a great lack of foresightedness, morals, honor, and dignity. Not all aborted kids would grow up in horrible environment, not all would ruin their parent's lives. Sure, having kids is definitely a long term duty and you can say goodbye to partying for the first few years at least, but there are billions of people who have kids and who somehow do manage to live good lives regardless that they don't have nearly as much free time as they used to have. C'est la vie, and you should stand behind your unthoughtful actions instead of taking the easy way out and getting rid of that little parasite inside of you that you didn't want there.

Have you ever been to one of these clinics? I guarantee that nobody in that room hasn't thought about what they were doing millions of times before going inside.

I don't think getting pregnant is a disease that we can't stop, your putting words into my mouth that I didn't even remotely say. I agree with you that abortion shows lack of honor and foresight, and that there are people who abort children even though they could possibly grow up in a nice environment without ruining their parent's lives.

But if you actualy go to one of these clinics(at least in my region, they won't even let you in unless you have a reason to be there though) you will see that people aren't killing their babies because they want to still be able to go party and don't want to sacrifice their free time, by choosing this "easy way out". I agree with you that it is a bullshit reason to kill somebody.

The real reason the people here are killing their kids(at least over here) is because they simply can't bear to face what will happen to them if they try and keep them. They all want to let their children live, they are all willing to make the sacrifices in their social lives and their walets. Over here, they are all(mostly) willing to stand behind their unthoughtful actions, but the reason they choose to abort is because of the unthoughtful actions of others.

Abortion came to be because of a problem that society created, that problem is the way people who get pregnant are treated.

Why can't an unmarried woman who gets pregnant just have their baby in peace? Why do they have to face so much hate, why do they get booted from their homes when it happens, why must they get expelled from their religions and schools and jobs when it happens? why does every person who doesnt believe in premarital sex have to come up to them and scorn them? why can't we just accept that the pregnant woman had a different opinion about sex and just let them have their kid without punishing them for it so much?

Why is society hateful towards unmarried mothers instead of supportive?

I think if we fixed the problem that our society created the right way, people wouldn't be aborting their babies anymore.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Language of Abortion

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ethics and morals are not invented by the bible. Religious scriptures merely formalize already existing sociological relations and transform them into dogmatic commands. The question here is not whether we should consider murder acceptable, but whether abortion should be considered a murder. The logic behind your statement is such that it could be easily used to allow murder of adult people because, oh well, you shouldn't interfere into murderer's own religious and moral values. There is a limit at which individual's personal beliefs should be dictated by the rest of the society, and that limit is when the individual in question is directly harming another member of the society. What is disputable is whether unborn children who are potential members of the society should be given at least some rights which are given to already existant members.

Murder is acceptable by today's society in two ways - capital punishment and abortion. I agree the "is abortion murder" topic is a good one, and one that I'm not 100% set on - it's a grey area.

While I see how you could contrue my statements like that, I believe it was taken out of context. Although I am Christian, and I believe in murder, and I respect another's right to believe in another religion - when said religion begins to affect the harmony and disrupts the peace (like a cult of mass murdering maniacs would) - you have to draw the line.

Abortion, currently, does not fall under that category. While I myself feel it is wrong, I have to respect others rights to not believe in what I believe.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 Have you ever been to one of these clinics? I guarantee that nobody in that room hasn't thought about what they were doing millions of times before going inside.

Yes, but after they had irresponsible sex. Look, I am not saying that those women there are thriving in happiness, they're most certainly fucked up completely, but they should have thought about it earlier. It's like me getting in a car drunk and driving over a person who was passing by, and then start worrying about what I may have done. Sometimes people come to their senses too late, and well, too bad for them, but their mistakes were nevertheless not justified and we should not feel too much empathy for them.

quote:

I don't think getting pregnant is a disease that we can't stop, your putting words into my mouth that I didn't even remotely say. I agree with you that abortion shows lack of honor and foresight, and that there are people who abort children even though they could possibly grow up in a nice environment without ruining their parent's lives.

I merely said that to emphasise my point of view that there is always a point where a person can choose to avoid pregnancy, and that point is right before sexual intercourse.

quote:

But if you actualy go to one of these clinics(at least in my region, they won't even let you in unless you have a reason to be there though) you will see that people aren't killing their babies because they want to still be able to go party and don't want to sacrifice their free time, by choosing this "easy way out". I agree with you that it is a bullshit reason to kill somebody.

Yet there are women who have had several abortions behind them, many of them strictly because of their commodities. Some people say that they don't want to introduce their children into this world when they're in bad financial situation, but I think it's an exaggeration on their part. It is normal that we all want what is best for us and for our children, but we should consider the fact that there are literally billions of children living in far worse situations than any of those born in Europe or America would ever be in. We can't all have children in perfect homes and perfect families. If only people with perfect conditions would have children, worldwide birthrates would drop to about 0.0001 child born per woman. I can take my own mom for example in this case. She got pregnant before she had me, she was not that well off at the time, but she certainly wasn't living in poverty, and she had an abortion. Why? A mixture of commodity and a feeling that she could provide better conditions for a child if she had it later on in life. Basically an overreaction not justified by any logic.

quote:

The real reason the people here are killing their kids(at least over here) is because they simply can't bear to face what will happen to them if they try and keep them. They all want to let their children live, they are all willing to make the sacrifices in their social lives and their walets. Over here, they are all(mostly) willing to stand behind their unthoughtful actions, but the reason they choose to abort is because of the unthoughtful actions of others.

What actions of others?

quote:

Abortion came to be because of a problem that society created, that problem is the way people who get pregnant are treated. Why can't an unmarried woman who gets pregnant just have their baby in peace? Why do they have to face so much hate, why do they get booted from their homes when it happens, why must they get expelled from their religions and schools and jobs when it happens? why does every person who doesnt believe in premarital sex have to come up to them and scorn them? why can't we just accept that the pregnant woman had a different opinion about sex and just let them have their kid without punishing them for it so much? Why is society hateful towards unmarried mothers instead of supportive? I think if we fixed the problem that our society created the right way, people wouldn't be aborting their babies anymore.

I do agree with you on this part. The society is not very interested in helping young mothers, it is mostly strong on words. Such a thing should definitely be changed, and I believe that child bearing subsidies should be greatly increased.

Most of the world is anti abortion but does little to provide help to mothers who are pregnant or even some answers to these people. I rather have these people let the child be adopted because I feel it is not for us to decide if the child should live or die. You create a human with another person, you get pregnant, you should carry the child to full term and then either raise it or let people adopt. There are many couples that can't have kids and want to adopt a child to raise and love.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.