There is a big difference between...

[Eilonnwy]

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? -_^

[fr0d0]

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

Shall I bring the Champagne?

[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.

[Ace Otana]

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.

Money is nothing more than a motivational tool to encourage people to work. I hate money. I see it as a major restriction. There are so many things I could do if money wasn't an issue. If I could gain something or contribute without the need for money, I could. Work to gain something? I've done it.
Money in the natural sense is nothing more than ink on paper but from the human perspective is something of worth because it's something that gets you things. You swap it for something else in return. Believe it or not but before the coin was first introduced, people traded clothing and food amongst other resources.

It is possible to motivate work with something other than money. Anyway, money encourages crime and corruption. If no one had money, we'd be working for some other cause.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm happy without money. It's fucking nice to have but I don't need much, only the essentials. I'm not a materialistic person. And a computer or two is a nice bonus of course

Happiness and well-being in general, is just an internal thing for me. Like I said, I'm not a materialistic person (but I am a materialist of course ).

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

---

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.

---

Not the point. The point is after the child is conceived you are killing what would potentially be a baby. Forgive me for not being entirely comfortable with that. Also just as an FYI, I'm pescatarian, I don't eat meat, only fish. The discussion of what we eat, whether it's immoral or not, is a different conversation entirely.

I'm happy without money. It's fucking nice to have but I don't need much, only the essentials. I'm not a materialistic person. And a computer or two is a nice bonus of course

Indeed, as someone who has been at the poverty level, lived with parents in debt (often because my own health problems and me not having insurance) and living with the threat of foreclosure, I can say I'm still very happy to be alive. You can't judge someone's life just because they're poor. Many people have good lives and have never had much at all. So as I said before, it's a broad statement to make that does not do justice to the complexity of social positions.

My mother could have made a decision based on money to abort my 11 year old sister. We were in a very bad financial situation when my mother accidentally got pregnant. But my mother loved the child as soon as she knew she was pregnant and it wasn't a question in her mind that she would have her. A lot of people asked her about abortion since she was 42 at the time and our family situation wasn't the best. But she had Liz and I couldn't imagine life without her. We may not still have the best financial situation, but we still have our house, and we have Liz. If the decision was so simple as figuring how much money we have, Liz might not be here.

At the same time my older sister has had two abortions because she got pregnant at a really bad time in her life, and her reasons for abortion were good and I supported her. I couldn't imagine her with children, she wouldn't be as successful as she is now if she had children. Nevertheless, the decision is still painful to her and it makes me sad to think of the nieces or nephews that I'll never know because they were never born.

The simple fact is that abortion is a deeply personal decision, which is the only reason I am pro-choice. There is no easy answer for what is the right thing to do in any given situation, and if you think you have the answer, then you don't understand how complex and heartbreaking the experience is for people who go through it.

The best thing for people is to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

[Violet]

---

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.

Money is nothing more than a motivational tool to encourage people to work. I hate money. I see it as a major restriction. There are so many things I could do if money wasn't an issue. If I could gain something or contribute without the need for money, I could. Work to gain something? I've done it.
Money in the natural sense is nothing more than ink on paper but from the human perspective is something of worth because it's something that gets you things. You swap it for something else in return. Believe it or not but before the coin was first introduced, people traded clothing and food amongst other resources.

It is possible to motivate work with something other than money. Anyway, money encourages crime and corruption. If no one had money, we'd be working for some other cause.

---

Money is value in our current world, which is the only world I have mentioned here. Even without a representation of simple value: the poor would still have nothing of value. Money only allows for efficient and simple trade... you would have crime and greed with or without it. Those same criminals 'generated' by lack of money would simply become criminals 'generated' by lack of having anything of value.

---

I'm happy without money. It's fucking nice to have but I don't need much, only the essentials. I'm not a materialistic person. And a computer or two is a nice bonus of course

Happiness and well-being in general, is just an internal thing for me. Like I said, I'm not a materialistic person (but I am a materialist of course ).

EvF

You probably aren't at the poverty level then I don't advocate having more money than you need or could ever want... but a computer is something just about everyone has a right to own

Would you be as happy starving?

[Edwardo Piet]

I've been "poor" at least as in working class, my whole life. And still am. No changes there (at least yet).

My family has never had a car, for example. And I have two computers now, but they both are only capable of running games like Call of Duty 2 that were made several years ago (they're on like call of duty 4 or 5 now). Just to give a bit of a picture.

We've been in this house for like 3 years now and going to move relatively soon. For like the first two years we couldn't even afford downstairs carpets/they weren't a priority. And we still haven't got any downstairs, we decided not to bother and we're going to move pretty soon now anyway.

I have to save up for things for quite a while before I can afford to buy anything for myself, something that isn't just the essentials.


Just to give a picture

I'm very happy though. I'm living evidence against Saerules' argument that money is the main factor I reckon

Unless Sae, you're talking about third world countries or something? Unless you mean no money, very bad conditions, etc.

Thank fuck I don't live in America. Thank fuck we have free health care!

EvF

[fr0d0]

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.

More money than you need deteriorates your quality of life too. People move to cities with poorer community, or separate themselves ..also destructive. Like Ace says money serves a purpose: to replace bartering.

How does simple equate to terrible?? A simple life can be the happiest. To have mastery over the drive for wealth beyond your needs is healthy.

A hard life can be happy, an easy life can be destructive.

[Edwardo Piet]

How does simple equate to terrible?? A simple life can be the happiest. To have mastery over the drive for wealth beyond your needs is healthy.

I couldn't possibly agree more there. I probably haven't ever agreed with you so much. I'd give kudos +10 for that if I can.

A hard life can be happy, an easy life can be destructive.

I quite agree with that too. I certainly agree that an easy life can be destructive. Totally. And, yes hard life can be happy...although that can be quite hard I imagine! I think balance is key. Not too easy, not overindulgence, but not so hard you're driven out of your mind! Everyone has their limits.

EvF