There is a big difference between...

[Violet]

Heartless yes. Who is anyone to judge that just because you aren't rich you can't have children? That just disgusts me. Wealthy people abandon their children to childcare so their kids are raised loveless. Quality of life isn't about money.

And such people shouldn't be having children for other reasons. If you would have a child, only to abandon them: you should not have had that child in the first place.

And who the hell told you that one's quality of life isn't about money? Money is one of the most important factors in determining life quality: Can you pay for heating, food you like, a decent house, a decent car, media and entertainment, etc.? It is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT factor in determining quality of life. Resources and comforts are both purchased by money, and without money: one must live a very simple and often terrible life.

Take away every person's money, and see how far their quality of life deteriorates: Back into the stone age.

---

Heartless? You are raising that child at near the poverty level... their life has a high chance of being an unhappy one, unless they get very lucky... and few people win the lottery. I'd say it is very selfish of the mother to not realize this.

First, I did not say it was heartless to abort because you are concerned about the child's quality of life. I said it was heartless to support abortion because it's cheaper than paying for a child's healthcare with public money.

Oh, and every egg one loses in the process of menstruation is also potential life. Every animal and plant you eat WAS life, and probably could have born more life (therefore potential life). You start you origin point too late by far... the origin is with the seed, not with the impregnation of the seed.

Life and death are saddening... but it is those who are alive that concern my life... not those who could be alive right now had circumstances been different. You call it potential life... But almost is still missing.

I'm quite aware eggs are potential life, however after conception, barring any natural complications, that fetus will become a baby. You cannot deny that point. I do not think a fetus has the same rights as a living baby, but it's still killing when you abort the fetus. I would never say abortion is murder, I don't follow that rhetoric, but forgive me for feeling bad about potential life that would exist without significant human interference.

The question of the quality of life is a difficult one. It's unique to every individual and their situation. To say a child is better off not born because they would be in poverty is a very broad statement and does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. You can't tell somebody who lives in poverty they would have been better not to have been born. Not everyone at the poverty level are miserable people better off dead. The decision to abort a child is an agonizing one and it lives with that person for the rest of their life.

---

Heartless yes. Who is anyone to judge that just because you aren't rich you can't have children? That just disgusts me. Wealthy people abandon their children to childcare so their kids are raised loveless. Quality of life isn't about money.

Heh, for once we are in complete agreement. It had to happen at some point, right? -_^

Ah, that truly would be heartless... i agree with you upon that point.

Human interference CAUSED the fetus in the first place. Otherwise: the eggs would have just fallen away without impregnation. It is good that you feel bad about the loss of life... but it is only a good thing if you are able to see the same of other creatures. I would not go so far as to weep or pray for those I eat... but I am at least sobered by the lives I have devoured so that I can continue to live. To not be... and hold only value upon human life: that is hypocrisy,

Another little baby child is born... in the ghetto. Many of the people at the poverty level are miserable, and are better off: not at poverty level! Imagine the cost of a child upon those people fighting for their very survival each day? It costs a fair amount of money just to keep a child alive... let alone raise it properly. Where are you getting that money from if you are living at poverty level, working several minimum wage jobs? Pay for the extra food, clothing, possibly bedding, utility costs, etc, and hopefully entertainment of that child: and you are left with less money by the end of the day... sometimes you are left in debt by the end of the month because of renting decent shelter you cannot pay for.

I pity anyone who has to live such a life... child or otherwise. I would not kill them... but I do think many of them would suffer less if they were dead. In a choice between a frenzied, unwinnable fight for survival... and a peaceful oblivion: I would choose my oblivion. But that level of existence should not even exist in the first place... except among those who refuse to work entirely.

The decision to have a child at that level of existence... that is stupid.