No, if your object is to avoid having a child, you continue the pregnancy and adopt the child out. Abortion is an alternative to pregnancy, not parenthood.
I’m so glad that I’m not the only one who was thinking of that. So very glad.
Is the chicken baby bus thing a reference to something?
I’m naive and sheltered for not wanting to kill a living child rather than save money? Cool. Just checking.
Last episode of MASH*
I might change my username to chicken baby bus just to remember this thread by.
Thanks, Bryan.
jsgoddess, it would make me crack up every time I saw your user name. It’s just a great combination of words…even if you haven’t seen the episode in question.
I’m as pro-life as they can, but I sure as hell would love for that to be true. I can deal with another stupid simplistic pro-lifer.
Grandparents? With UHC coming? Now, THAT’S a way to reduce healthcare costs.
Why wait till they cry? Pre-empitve strike, baby.
It’s an alternative to both. The point remains that if you don’t want a child, you don’t want to get pregnant and you don’t want a child.
Certainly you can give that child away once its born, but there’s no particular reason to do that, especially if you don’t have much faith in the foster care system or the success of adoptions. There’s still no “person” there, so you might as well look at the odds of that future person enjoying their life and going with the wiser decision.
As an aside, you’re probably one of the few people on this board that could answer this: I once had a manager that told some pretty unbelievable stories, and one of them was that her friend that was born in China in the early 80s had her twin killed at birth. I’m sure this has happened in the past, choosing the healthiest baby or the one with the wanted gender, but in the 80s? That’s not too long ago.
It probably happens among the few hunter-gatherers today. In conditions where the mother cannot get enough nurtients to breast-feed two infants at once, the choice is disassociate from one child at birth (usually in situations like this the mother never touches the child to be abandoned) or watch both children die. Quite honestly, if put in the same position, do you think you would react any different?
Question–are you planning on becoming the equivalent of Cesario, but for killing babies?
When it means placing that child, which represents at best a small bit of human potential, above the welfare and safety of entire groups of people, absolutely. It’s a tragic waste of resources.
Question-do you value people’s lives once they stop shitting in their pants?
Yeah, but these situations like the chicken on the bus MAS*H scenario are really rare. You also said that you’d kill a child rather than have to pay it child support. That doesn’t seem like valuing the welfare and safety of a group of people–it sounds like you being too lazy to support your kid.
You know, not every one is a millionaire. Just because you work hard doesn’t mean you earn a lot. If in some incredibly horrible scenario, I got pregnant and my husband insisted on keeping the brat and suing me for child support, I would not be able to send the money I send back to the Balkans to support my relatives there. That means they starve or possibly some of them become petty criminals or prostitutes. Right now in America there are families that will lose their homes if the mother of the family loses her job.
I thought your issue was a woman’s mental health? Now it’s money.
As opposed to someone supporting actual, honest-to-goodness murder, for financial reasons. Your logic is downright fucked up. It’s sick.
That still doesn’t justify murder. Lobby for better support for women with young children, or women in the situations you mention, then.
(BTW, how would you plan on killing this infant? Just curious)
Why wouldn’t you get an abortion in this situation?
Guinastasia, it’s both. I happen to think keeping families off the streets and keeping teenagers out of harm is definitely worth murder? Do you know what the life expectancy of a teenager prostitute is? Do you know the conditions in which some of them die? Can you honestly say you would rather have a twelve-year old girl bleed to death from being sodomized than “accidently” let a pillow fall on the face of an unwanted baby? Same question as I had for Freudian Slit, do you stop caring about people’s lives once they grow out of the diaper stage?
Go back and read the thread that quote came from. The question was what would we ladies do if we couldn’t get a legal abortion? My answer was if a safe abortion wasn’t possible, giving birth in secret and committing infanticide would be my alternative. Also, based on what I’ve heard from Romania (where abortion was banned under Communism), unless you really know the person doing an illegal abortion and know they have the skills and the ability to keep the procedure anti-septic, it’s safer to rely on infanticide.
I don’t think people are worth less after they’re out of diapers. Is it inconsistent to say that I would like people to not kill babies, and for them to also not rape children? I support birth control for every woman and the right for every woman to have abortion. If we’re talking about situations where a woman is born into slavery and her child’s life will truly be one not worth living, then in those rare instances I would support it.
But we’ve mostly been discussing life in the U.S. And as pro choice and pro women’s right as I am, I–and I don’t think anyone–can sanction killing a child because of the financial burden.
It’s interesting that one few of the places where infaticide is “common” is China, where abortion is more than legal and most of it happens to girls.
The only other places are those where life is always a (literal) crumb away from death. But still, even in refugee camps in Africa you don’t see mass infanticide.