Yeah, I do that too, sometimes, I can see that.
I’m about as pro-choice as they come, but I’m having trouble reconciling your concern about “innocent new human beings’ lives” with the assertion that the better choice in many of these cases would have been abortion. I think “better never to have been born” is in almost all cases a tough argument to sell.
To my mind, there’s a vast difference between someone who makes a mistake, then sucks up, grows up, and deals with the consequences versus someone who makes them same mistake(s) over and over and blames everyone else for their problems.
However, a single mother who is doing the responsible thing by raising the child bitching about an absent father who won’t pay court-ordered child support is really bitching about someone else not living up to his responsibilities, not so much about her own past mistakes.
I fail to see the conflict. A person who never existed cannot be a victim. “Better to have never been born” is exactly the same as “better to have never been conceived.” What’s so hard to sell about it? Abortion is just emergency birth control.
And a person who dies at any age can no longer be a victim, so why is it we’re not in favor of the Swiftian solution of simply killing and eating the children of the poor? (See, of course, A Modest Proposal.) I mean, if our chief concern is to end the victimization, what could be more efficient than eliminating the victims? Again, I am not courting an abortion debate, but when you have already announced that existing persons would have been better off never born than they are now, it does in fact sound odd if you later register concern for their current condition. And why? Because that’s the concern you should have registered first, before announcing their mothers should have aborted them. Changing the wording of the assertion from “better to have never been born” to “better to have never been conceived” changes my point not one iota; both statements sound the same in this context. And my point holds whether you personally see it or not.
Yeah, I agree. I was very young and once I realized what the future held, I left. I never whined. I preferred to do it on my own. It was the best choice given the person I was dealing with.
It sure didn’t seem as if the woman on facebook was “bitching” to me, more like a rueful laughing at life kinda thing from what I read. And I am the type that gets VERY annoyed at the type of person who plays the victim and wants to be handed life on a silver platter. I didn’t see any of that here.
Thjis is a totally bullshit analogy. Nobody’s talking about killing anybody. We’re talking about not creating them in the first place. People who are never born cannot be victims. Do you think condoms victimize people too?
I don’t understand your point whatsoever. How can totally imaginary people be victims? How can you deny that it’s better not to make babies than to make babies you can’t or won’t take care of?
“Better off not having been born” is a term of art. In purely literal terms, a person cannot be either “better” or “worse” off if they were never born, because they wouldn’t have existed at all. What we’re saying is that it’s a more ethical choice on a woman’s part to avoid having babies than to have them and treat them poorly. A non-existent child is preferable to a suffering child.
Possibly that is what you are saying. What the OP appears to be saying though is that it is a more ethical choice to abort a child than to raise a child without a father. Also that it is a more ethical choice to abort a child than to raise a child sired by a father who cannot or will not support them sufficiently.
She also appears to be saying that it is a more ethical choice to abort a child than to have the child if you are going to complain about the father ever, even if it is more than a decade later. This last is less clear; it may be that she only goes so far as to say that people who ever complain about the father of their children are stupid but not so far as to say that the existence of the child is an example of poor judgment on the part of the mother.
I didn’t get either of those from the OP.
Oh, sure. Every child needs two responsible parents to care for it. Any child who does not have two responsible parents is not receiving the care it needs or deserves. It is an irresponsible decision to not provide your child with two parents. If you need financial support to raise you child you must pick a father with earning potential.
But anybody who thinks that the overwhelming majority of humans throughout human history were monogamous for life has already got a few, um, blind spots built in.
I don’t think it’s necessary or advisable to put words in her mouth. I certainly don’t like it when people do that to me.
Ok, this post is the best yet in the thread. Thank you Broomstick for your eloquence and getting straight to the point. If people can’t complain about things that make them unhappy, I expect never to have a conversation about the weather, the price of gas, or poor service ever again. But people do complain, sometimes knowing its their fault, and sometimes because other people let them down, and sometimes cause “shit happens”
It’s what she said. I am not putting words in her mouth.
Yes you are. Learn to read better.
Nyah, nyah, am not.
They are taken directly from her posts.
Not from the posts that she’s written in this thread. At least, not the ones that are visible to everyone else.
Oh, I think it’s pretty clear, nor do I think it’s either obscure or particularly controversial. Frankly, I find I’m not really all that interested in whether you personally understand it or not. You either disagree with it or don’t get it; I’m good with either of those.
*No, I don’t automatically think that a woman who makes a child with less-than-desirable father material is a bad mother. She is just a woman who acted with poor judgment and made poor decisions.
The difference is, her choice brought an innocent new human being into the world who needs two responsible parents to care for it, and it isn’t receiving the care it needs or deserves. She knew this before she made the choice. Therefore it was an irresponsible decision.
Picking a person to father or mother your children is a very important choice that should be made with great care. If you need financial support to raise your child, then you should probably pick a guy who has some earning potential.*
The good decision then, was to have had an abortion; she has herself helped needy single mothers in society by working to increase their access to abortion. This will avoid these situations in the future.
You should at least care about whether you’re able to articulate yourself in a comprehensible manner. Yes it’s true that “better off not being born” is kind of a semantically senseless way to phrase things. So what? Do you actually have a comment on the core point of whether it’s more ethical to abort than to have an unwanted child or was your complaint purely a grammatical one?
Tell you what: When I have multiple people telling me they can’t comprehend me due to my inability to articulate myself, I promise to revisit the issue. Until then, I think I’m good. ETA: And no one, anywhere, said anything about these children being “unwanted”, so maybe the comprehension problem is with the reader and not the poster. ET additonally A: And by “reader,” I of course mean only you.