Actually, I think I was arguing what I thought was the least painful action for everyone involved - baby included - and I thought I made it clear that the baby was suffering. For 15 fucking minutes after forcing it to be born just so it could die anyway. And yeah, I was arguing the suffering of the parents. I didn't say they suffered more, I pointed out that they ALSO suffered. Excuse me if you feel they get discounted in all of this.
Most of the children that COULD be born don't get to be. I think people cite a rather poetic passage by Dawkins about this, but I'll spare everyone the now-cliched usage of it. Let's just put it down to "most potential human beings get flushed down a toilet/lost in biological waste receptacles/get swallowed on a friday night after a lot of drinking..." And then there are the ones who make it past that point but for whatever reason nothing happens. I watched a girlfriend of mine go through two miscarriages very early on in her pregnacy. Was that part of God's plan? Why does a potential child who happened to make it further along than that, but was going to die anyway, mean so much more?
As a potential mother, I wouldn't want to watch my child suffer. Not because I'm being selfish, but because that child is my responsibility and my love, and the thought of it going through 15 minutes of needless pain when a quicker alternative could have ended its suffering much sooner seems a better route. I couldn't have handled sitting there for 15 minutes watching my child die. I'm not even the mother and I can't handle that.
But that's not the overwhelming issue in all of this. Most of the people who are against abortion don't give two shits about the mother or the baby, as has been stated elsewhere. I think Carlin said "Republicans want live babies so they can make dead soldiers." Maybe not always so extreme as that, but if the baby has all these "rights," I think we'd see children cherished and also given more rights than they currently have. The bills they've been proposing against abortion are ludicrous at best, and frequently blame the victim for things happening to them. I'm for abortion in cases like this, or when it's dangerous to the mother (even Jews realize that sad as losing a child is, save the mother who might be able to have more children later - don't be an idiot and make her dangerously carry a child to term to satisfy your sick need). Sure, I think it's sad if you terminate a child because you feel you can't take care of it - after all, there are plenty of people willing to adopt - but who am I to think I have a right to dictate your life? I'm for abortion because there are times when its needed, but those who are against abortion would rather see it abolished altogether. They only add those "for" clauses to make people stop screaming so much.
And let's not forget that most of the ones who are against abortion are for the death penalty...at least in this country. Human life is only sacred before it breeches its mother's vagina.
Most of the children that COULD be born don't get to be. I think people cite a rather poetic passage by Dawkins about this, but I'll spare everyone the now-cliched usage of it. Let's just put it down to "most potential human beings get flushed down a toilet/lost in biological waste receptacles/get swallowed on a friday night after a lot of drinking..." And then there are the ones who make it past that point but for whatever reason nothing happens. I watched a girlfriend of mine go through two miscarriages very early on in her pregnacy. Was that part of God's plan? Why does a potential child who happened to make it further along than that, but was going to die anyway, mean so much more?
As a potential mother, I wouldn't want to watch my child suffer. Not because I'm being selfish, but because that child is my responsibility and my love, and the thought of it going through 15 minutes of needless pain when a quicker alternative could have ended its suffering much sooner seems a better route. I couldn't have handled sitting there for 15 minutes watching my child die. I'm not even the mother and I can't handle that.
But that's not the overwhelming issue in all of this. Most of the people who are against abortion don't give two shits about the mother or the baby, as has been stated elsewhere. I think Carlin said "Republicans want live babies so they can make dead soldiers." Maybe not always so extreme as that, but if the baby has all these "rights," I think we'd see children cherished and also given more rights than they currently have. The bills they've been proposing against abortion are ludicrous at best, and frequently blame the victim for things happening to them. I'm for abortion in cases like this, or when it's dangerous to the mother (even Jews realize that sad as losing a child is, save the mother who might be able to have more children later - don't be an idiot and make her dangerously carry a child to term to satisfy your sick need). Sure, I think it's sad if you terminate a child because you feel you can't take care of it - after all, there are plenty of people willing to adopt - but who am I to think I have a right to dictate your life? I'm for abortion because there are times when its needed, but those who are against abortion would rather see it abolished altogether. They only add those "for" clauses to make people stop screaming so much.
And let's not forget that most of the ones who are against abortion are for the death penalty...at least in this country. Human life is only sacred before it breeches its mother's vagina.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
