What Issue Do You Struggle Most With?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I've thought about the possibility a lot actually... Taking care of or trying to take care of a child that has some serious disorder or defect (like Downs). I don't think I could do it, quite honestly.

 

The rest of your life is forfeited the moment that baby enters the world. Not just for 18 years, but for the rest of your life. Now, I am not making it sound like you stop being a parent after your son/daughter leaves the house or what have you.

 

But the level of attention and care required to support another human being... And being with them all day everyday for 60+ years, possibly until he time of your death...

 

I seriously doubt I could carry that burden -- physically or mentally.

 

I work as a waiter right now, and I have seen these very instances. Old(er) parents -- well into their 60s+ -- come in every once in a while with their son/daughter who has one of these illnesses and they are bound to a wheelchair...

 

And I do not envy that life at all. Both parents always look extremely stressed out and exhausted. They don't talk or laugh or smile... They feed their son/daughter with either a straw or have to cut everything up for them like they were 3 years old again... They wipe the drool and throw up off their chin and as it's running down their shirts.

 

I have the UTMOST respect for parents like those. They are far tougher than I ever will be.

 

It may be a poor reflection on myself, but I've come to that conclusion a while ago.

 

I feel about the same way. I don't think it's fair to anyone to bring a disabled baby into the world that, from day 1, will never be able to care for itself or support itself.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Not to mention the financial outlook of something like that.

[blotsfan 2,112]

And the satisfaction. I am in no way looking forward to having a baby. All a baby is is an annoying nuisance. It cant think, be reasoned with or function without help. I'd just be willing to look past that because I do like the idea of molding a person. If a child is severely mentally disabled, you get all the unpleasant work without the enjoyment.

[Thanatos 2,847]

you'll have trouble finding anyone who doesn't also acknowledge an exception for rape, and most of the people in that category aren't really worth listening to

 

I don't really care what the majority of people think about I consider to be a moral issue- not saying I won't have a discussion about it, but majority rules doesn't hold in moral arguments. If it is a person, I don't see how you can argue killing it for someone else's crime, unless you believe the mother would be severely damaged mentally/physically by bringing it to term. If you can make that argument, then it falls under life of the mother exception.

 

Having a child with down's syndrome is a very difficult life to lead. But it's just as difficult if your child suffers a seizure when they are 1-2 years old and then develops irrevocable brain damage that leads to pretty much the same situation, yet no one is advocating killing them.

 

It's very difficult for me to see an argument that allows for a fetus being a human and also allows for those exceptions.

 

Not to mention, science is not 100% on predicting these kinds of things. Our youth pastor back home has a 2-year old now, (I think she's 2 now, not completely sure on that), that they were told by the doctors would have several different things wrong with them, including their belief that the child would never be able to walk due to a curved spine or something. She was born with several issues, and quite a bit of medical problems, and indeed a curved spine that later spontaneously straightened. (She is now learning to walk.)

 

Yet the doctors recommended aborting that child. I just can't look at her and think that. If they had followed the doctor's advice to abort the child, Abigail would not be here.

[oochymp 2,393]

I don't really care what the majority of people think about I consider to be a moral issue- not saying I won't have a discussion about it, but majority rules doesn't hold in moral arguments. If it is a person, I don't see how you can argue killing it for someone else's crime, unless you believe the mother would be severely damaged mentally/physically by bringing it to term. If you can make that argument, then it falls under life of the mother exception.

first of all, I'm not talking about a simple majority, everyone except the most pro-life people will agree with a rape exception. That said, you're right, just because there aren't many people who agree with you doesn't mean you can't hold that opinion.

 

Now for an actual argument: we're talking about one of the most traumatizing experiences possible and you're going to make the woman go through the pain of child birth and force her to live with a nine month (at least) reminder of likely the most painful (mentally and physically) experience of her life? I'd call that extreme psychological damage at the very least.

[Thanatos 2,847]

first of all, I'm not talking about a simple majority, everyone except the most pro-life people will agree with a rape exception. That said, you're right, just because there aren't many people who agree with you doesn't mean you can't hold that opinion.

 

Now for an actual argument: we're talking about one of the most traumatizing experiences possible and you're going to make the woman go through the pain of child birth and force her to live with a nine month (at least) reminder of likely the most painful (mentally and physically) experience of her life? I'd call that extreme psychological damage at the very least.

 

I completely understand your point. It's not an easy question, but then this is not supposed to be an easy topic.

 

My problem is, that if the fetus is a human, I don't see how you can kill it for someone else's crime, *unless* the harm to the woman would be equal to the death of a child. And if you make that argument, you're not actually arguing for an exception based just on the fact that it was rape- as horrible as that is, and it is horrible, and we can talk about how rapists should probably, at the very least, lose the ability to procreate, if you catch my drift- you're actually arguing from the life of the mother exception.

[oochymp 2,393]

I completely understand your point. It's not an easy question, but then this is not supposed to be an easy topic.

 

My problem is, that if the fetus is a human, I don't see how you can kill it for someone else's crime, *unless* the harm to the woman would be equal to the death of a child. And if you make that argument, you're not actually arguing for an exception based just on the fact that it was rape- as horrible as that is, and it is horrible, and we can talk about how rapists should probably, at the very least, lose the ability to procreate, if you catch my drift- you're actually arguing from the life of the mother exception.

I would love it if there was a statutory punishment of castration for rape, but unfortunately I think might fall under 'cruel and unusual punishment'

 

as far as the question of rape, it sounds like you want more proof that it's harmful to the mother, I'm willing to accept the proposition that forcing a rape victim to take the child to birth is an undue hardship as true at face value, but that's not really the main reason I support an exception to rape, I actually look at it as an issue of choice (I know, weird stance for an anti-abortion person) as I said initially I think the decision to have a baby (or at least create a significant likelihood of having a baby) is made at conception, but in the case of rape the woman did not make the decision, suffice it to say that no matter what you use as reasoning to be anti-abortion there is a reason that rape is an exception.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I would love it if there was a statutory punishment of castration for rape, but unfortunately I think might fall under 'cruel and unusual punishment'

 

as far as the question of rape, it sounds like you want more proof that it's harmful to the mother, I'm willing to accept the proposition that forcing a rape victim to take the child to birth is an undue hardship as true at face value, but that's not really the main reason I support an exception to rape, I actually look at it as an issue of choice (I know, weird stance for an anti-abortion person) as I said initially I think the decision to have a baby (or at least create a significant likelihood of having a baby) is made at conception, but in the case of rape the woman did not make the decision, suffice it to say that no matter what you use as reasoning to be anti-abortion there is a reason that rape is an exception.

 

I grew up pro-life, but have changed in recent years. I do have a question that I want to pose in reply to the idea of a rape exception--what about the times in which a woman knowingly goes off birth control but does not tell her partner? She's knocked up, he thinks her BC failed (bahaha, the irony) until she admits she went off of it and here he is, the sucker, having a child he did not plan for. It's not the same as rape, obviously, but it's a completely unplanned child. The man, in this case, was unknowingly forced into conceiving a child with his partner. Is there an exception in that case? Because he still has to deal with all of the financial hardships that come with raising a child, even though he had no intention of having a child.

 

Is there a difference there? Now, you could say that you can't prove that the woman did that, but can you ALWAYS prove that a rape occurred, in the other scenario?

[Thanatos 2,847]

I would love it if there was a statutory punishment of castration for rape, but unfortunately I think might fall under 'cruel and unusual punishment'

 

Heh, it probably would. And you'd run into the problem of people getting castrated for a crime that it turns out they didn't commit. In a world where I could definitely prove that it occurred beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I'd have no problem with that punishment at all. Rapists are scum.

 

as far as the question of rape, it sounds like you want more proof that it's harmful to the mother, I'm willing to accept the proposition that forcing a rape victim to take the child to birth is an undue hardship as true at face value, but that's not really the main reason I support an exception to rape, I actually look at it as an issue of choice (I know, weird stance for an anti-abortion person) as I said initially I think the decision to have a baby (or at least create a significant likelihood of having a baby) is made at conception, but in the case of rape the woman did not make the decision, suffice it to say that no matter what you use as reasoning to be anti-abortion there is a reason that rape is an exception.

 

No, I'm not talking about more proof, I'm talking about coming at it on a case by case basis, rather than a blanket statement one way or the other.

 

It is definitely harmful to nearly all women, psychologically, if nothing else, though there are apparently a few people that said it started the healing process- somehow I doubt they're in the majority. Point granted, although I was never contesting that. Is the harm, however, enough that the killing of a child is equal to the harm that would be caused to the woman? This should be on a case by case basis. Note that this is a purely hypothetical discussion, because I don't realistically see how you would implement such a thing in the real world. Force someone in this situation to get a psych evaluation first? Sounds ridiculous to me.

 

It's a horrible situation to be in, either as the woman or someone close to them, (obviously worse as the former)- and in no way would I advocate a federal law that did not allow for an exception in the case of rape. It is simply something that personally I don't see how you can say the child is a human being, and yet allow them to be killed for a crime they did not commit.

 

But like I said, the reason why, would not be because it is rape- it is because the mother's life and well-being supersedes the child since she didn't ask for or do anything that resulted in the child. Perhaps it's merely semantics that I'm arguing here. The disconnect I have is with the idea that someone could be killed for someone else's crime because of psychological, but not irreversible, harm to another innocent. But again, it's not a decision I would advocate forcing on people, because it's not a case where I would be willing to tell my sister, for example, that she must have the child. That's kinda how I differentiate things here, my line in the sand. If I'm not willing to do it myself, (or in this case, force someone I love to do it, since my doing it would be impossible), then I would be against a law that tried to do that, because it's not a black-and-white issue.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Thanatos 2,847]

I grew up pro-life, but have changed in recent years. I do have a question that I want to pose in reply to the idea of a rape exception--what about the times in which a woman knowingly goes off birth control but does not tell her partner? She's knocked up, he thinks her BC failed (bahaha, the irony) until she admits she went off of it and here he is, the sucker, having a child he did not plan for. It's not the same as rape, obviously, but it's a completely unplanned child. The man, in this case, was unknowingly forced into conceiving a child with his partner. Is there an exception in that case? Because he still has to deal with all of the financial hardships that come with raising a child, even though he had no intention of having a child.

 

Is there a difference there? Now, you could say that you can't prove that the woman did that, but can you ALWAYS prove that a rape occurred, in the other scenario?

 

Not entirely sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that in this case, in essence, the woman "raped" the man? Because she went off BC and didn't tell him about it?

 

So.... the man should be allowed to force the woman to abort the child because he didn't want it? That seems highly irrational, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this is what I'm reading here.

 

The obvious answer to this one is that if the man can prove the woman knowingly went off of BC, and didn't tell him, he shouldn't be forced to pay money for the child if he doesn't want to. If he can't prove it, then I'm with oochymp on this one. He should have been ready to have a kid if he's having sex. Birth control can fail, it's actually not quite as effective as most people think it is.

 

Sure you can't always prove that a rape occurred, and you're never going to get something that is 100% accurate. You're trying to cover the vast majority of cases.

[oochymp 2,393]

I grew up pro-life, but have changed in recent years. I do have a question that I want to pose in reply to the idea of a rape exception--what about the times in which a woman knowingly goes off birth control but does not tell her partner? She's knocked up, he thinks her BC failed (bahaha, the irony) until she admits she went off of it and here he is, the sucker, having a child he did not plan for. It's not the same as rape, obviously, but it's a completely unplanned child. The man, in this case, was unknowingly forced into conceiving a child with his partner. Is there an exception in that case? Because he still has to deal with all of the financial hardships that come with raising a child, even though he had no intention of having a child.

 

Is there a difference there? Now, you could say that you can't prove that the woman did that, but can you ALWAYS prove that a rape occurred, in the other scenario?

I see very little difference between that scenario and one where the birth control failed, either way you're taking part in an act that has a natural consequence, you may think there are more safeguards against that than there actually are, but you still know there's a chance that the natural result will occur, I do think the guy has a better case in that scenario to avoid child support if he wants to go that route, and really the financial issue is the only thing the guy has to deal with (unless you want to talk about emotional attachment, which having no first hand experience I could believe is there) but it doesn't really play into the abortion issue since that doesn't sound like a situation where the girl is going to try to get an abortion, unless she was counting on child support in which case I'd say she made a gamble on that and lost

 

No, I'm not talking about more proof, I'm talking about coming at it on a case by case basis, rather than a blanket statement one way or the other.

that's pretty much what I meant, sorry if I was ambiguous

 

 

It is definitely harmful to nearly all women, psychologically, if nothing else, though there are apparently a few people that said it started the healing process- somehow I doubt they're in the majority. Point granted, although I was never contesting that. Is the harm, however, enough that the killing of a child is equal to the harm that would be caused to the woman? This should be on a case by case basis. Note that this is a purely hypothetical discussion, because I don't realistically see how you would implement such a thing in the real world. Force someone in this situation to get a psych evaluation first? Sounds ridiculous to me.

let's clarify this, in this hypothetical scenario the rape victim believes having the child will help with the healing process, so why is she going for an abortion? or are you thinking along the lines of every rape victim gets an abortion? because that's not something I (or anyone else to my knowledge) would advocate, it should just be available as an option

 

It's a horrible situation to be in, either as the woman or someone close to them, (obviously worse as the former)- and in no way would I advocate a federal law that did not allow for an exception in the case of rape. It is simply something that personally I don't see how you can say the child is a human being, and yet allow them to be killed for a crime they did not commit.

 

But like I said, the reason why, would not be because it is rape- it is because the mother's life and well-being supersedes the child since she didn't ask for or do anything that resulted in the child. Perhaps it's merely semantics that I'm arguing here. The disconnect I have is with the idea that someone could be killed for someone else's crime because of psychological, but not irreversible, harm to another innocent. But again, it's not a decision I would advocate forcing on people, because it's not a case where I would be willing to tell my sister, for example, that she must have the child. That's kinda how I differentiate things here, my line in the sand. If I'm not willing to do it myself, (or in this case, force someone I love to do it, since my doing it would be impossible), then I would be against a law that tried to do that, because it's not a black-and-white issue.

That can easily be reversed to say why should the rape victim be forced to bear a significantly greater hardship than she has to? When talking in the abstract it's easy to forget how big of an impact we're talking about, when you talk about having a child that can have life altering consequences for the mother. This is what really makes this issue complex, it's a balancing of rights, because of the nature of pregnancy you have the rights of two individuals, the mother's right of choice and control over her body and the child's right to life, inevitably intertwined and have to be balanced against each other. At a certain point the right to life definitely outweighs the right of choice, so the biggest question is at what point does that happen? To me, in the case of rape the mother's right of choice is much stronger because she was deprived of the opportunity to make the choice at conception so she should be allowed some window to exert that choice, though it should be a pretty narrow window because we are talking about a right to life on the other side of the scale.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

So for the abortion argument I would ask, when is it truly a human being ?

 

For me it took many hours on a foot patrol thinking about random things but this often came to the forefront. I am in no way comparing Iraq to an abortion, however in Iraq you cant kill something that has no heart beat. That is where I drew my moral line. If it has no heartbeat than it more resembles a parasite then a human. However once that heartbeat is audible or even there it is now a human being and your window of opportunity is over period. This is where I will say the only exception is health of the mother. If you are raped and cannot figure out in time whether you want it or not the NOW human life you have should not have to pay the price and obviously it did not bother you to carry it this far.

 

I am firmly against killing a defenseless human being as in the case of a human child. I am also a believer that is a crack addled mother decides she will be an unfit mother until she gets clean than an abortion may be the only act of kindness that she displays. The only issue I have found with this is while in the Army I have had the distinct pleasure of meeting many people who grew up in a situation like that and they are the most upstanding and honorable men I know. And in turn they are the most loving fathers in the world to ensure that their child never has to go through that. While that part is tough to grapple with I find solace in numbers. more often than not those baby's end up being fruit of the poisonous tree and perpetuate the cycle.

 

It is a touchy issue no doubt but I think the moment it has a heart beat your options have left. The reason is starts there is because that is the definitive line to where you would be killing something.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Duck Fallas 209]

If you ask someone who grew up in a home that didn't want them, do you think they would answer that they would rather have never known life at all?

 

I have a friend of mine who his mother attempted to abort him and the procedure failed. The mother and father both didn't want him, and so they put him up for adoption after he was born. I am so glad that is the case, instead of him having never had the chance to see life at all, and so is he. You're making the decision for them, saying that the majority of unwanted babies would rather never see life than come into a world where their parents don't want them. Yes, it hurts, and yes it has a negative impact on those people, but you can get past it. I'm sure my friend's wife is very happy that he got to experience life instead of just being killed before he could even see it.

 

To me, if its a person, then its murder. And so your argument of unwanted could also be stretched to say a child that is actually born that was unwanted, say, the abortion failed, should be knocked off to prevent them growing up in a home that doesn't want them.

That all really depends on how they are treated. If they are treated as unwanted; neglected and what-not, then yes, I would assume they would consider having never been born preferable to the life they live.

 

I am incredibly allergic to shellfish. I have never tasted shrimp or Lobster or Mussels or Oysters or even crab. Having never tasted them, I don't miss them in the least.

 

If a fetus is aborted before having a life, it cannot miss its life, can it? Nor can people miss the person. My mother lost a baby 8 days after it was born, she had a name (Angela) and everything. She died before ever even living her life. Is my life diminished in any way from not having her in it? Not in the least, as she is nothing more than a memory and a single photograph. I have another sister who was born a year later who did survive and now has children of her own. If I did not have that sister all of a sudden, of course my life would be greatly diminished.

 

Here is where my argument and the third part of your statement vary greatly and where i feel as though you (and to a degree F4E) are putting words in my mouth, or getting confused on what I am saying; Once the child is born and the mother has gone through the pain of childbirth, they cannot kill the child, as that is murder.

 

I am a father of two daughters whom I love with all that I am. But I will admit, there was a point when my (ex) wife and I discussed aborting our second child as neither of us knew if we wanted another child. We chose to keep her, obviously, but the discussion still happened.

[Duck Fallas 209]

So for the abortion argument I would ask, when is it truly a human being ?

The best answer that I can come with to that is this; It is a living being when it can have memories. (Just to be clear, I have only now thought of this and have not floated the idea around in my head)

[oochymp 2,393]

The best answer that I can come with to that is this; It is a living being when it can have memories. (Just to be clear, I have only now thought of this and have not floated the idea around in my head)

when it can form memories? I don't know a lot of the science here, but I know I don't have much of anything in the way of memories from my time as an infant

[Thanatos 2,847]

That all really depends on how they are treated. If they are treated as unwanted; neglected and what-not, then yes, I would assume they would consider having never been born preferable to the life they live.

 

Just going point by point here. This is incorrect, IMO. I have personally known several people who grew up in abusive homes, not one of them wished they had never been born- seriously. Regardless, you're making the decision for another human being, that they would rather be dead than in the position they're in. That's one hell of a decision. I would think that if you could prove this isn't always the case, which is rather easy to do, it throws this argument out of the window.

 

I am incredibly allergic to shellfish. I have never tasted shrimp or Lobster or Mussels or Oysters or even crab. Having never tasted them, I don't miss them in the least.

 

If a fetus is aborted before having a life, it cannot miss its life, can it? Nor can people miss the person. My mother lost a baby 8 days after it was born, she had a name (Angela) and everything. She died before ever even living her life. Is my life diminished in any way from not having her in it? Not in the least, as she is nothing more than a memory and a single photograph. I have another sister who was born a year later who did survive and now has children of her own. If I did not have that sister all of a sudden, of course my life would be greatly diminished.

 

This doesn't really work to me. This argument would work for allowing you to kill a child that was born 8 days prior if you thought you didn't want it. The child isn't going to remember anything, so by this argument it "can't miss its life."

 

Here is where my argument and the third part of your statement vary greatly and where i feel as though you (and to a degree F4E) are putting words in my mouth, or getting confused on what I am saying; Once the child is born and the mother has gone through the pain of childbirth, they cannot kill the child, as that is murder.

 

Why? What is the difference between a child that is 30 seconds from coming into the world, and a child that is 30 seconds out of the womb? Are you saying the mere act of the child exiting the vagina makes it a person?

 

I agree with Ngata. As soon as we can detect a heartbeat, at the very latest, it is alive. And killing a defenseless creature is wrong.

[Duck Fallas 209]

If the "child" takes even a single breath, then it is viable and cannot be legally terminated.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

So... You can abort up until the baby breathes on it's own? Babies (in the womb) actually have a tendency to practice breathing by inhaling and exhaling amnionic fluid (yay child development courses... lol). Does that count?

 

Maybe we would not misconstrue your meaning if you would be more specific? Att his point, I am not so sure you are even fully behind your own opinion.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

This issue is the worst.

[Thanatos 2,847]

This issue is the worst.

 

It is very difficult. It's a gray area, and one that even the staunchest of supporters still say there is an exception.

 

If the "child" takes even a single breath, then it is viable and cannot be legally terminated.

 

I'm not asking you what is legally permissible. It is legally permissible as you describe it, yes. I'm asking what is morally permissible.

 

Why does the act of a child taking a breath outside of the womb- the first time it is exposed to air, so it couldn't breathe beforehand, if I understand correctly, even if it had the capability to do so- why does this single act make it a human being? It's an arbitrary line in the sand that people draw that makes no sense at all to me.

 

At the very least, as soon as we detect a heartbeat, we know its alive. From that point forward, at the very least, the child should not be able to be killed, unless its to save the life of the mother.

[BwareDWare94 723]

We have to concede that women are not just hear to bear children. While I understand that they are just as responsible for its conception (barring a rape), we cannot honestly, in today's society that preaches equality, tie them down to the child because of a "moral code." We either must agree to let abortion continue or make abandoning a woman and child a severely punished crime. These are out only two options, since some people don't seem to take adoption seriously.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

We have to concede that women are not just hear to bear children.

 

No kidding. She better not forget her responsibilities in the kitchen.

 

[Duck Fallas 209]

So... You can abort up until the baby breathes on it's own? Babies (in the womb) actually have a tendency to practice breathing by inhaling and exhaling amnionic fluid (yay child development courses... lol). Does that count?

 

Maybe we would not misconstrue your meaning if you would be more specific? Att his point, I am not so sure you are even fully behind your own opinion.

The intake of oxygen is more what I am referring to. Until a child takes his/her first breath of air, the parents have every right to terminate the pregnancy. I know that my opinion may be harsh, and maybe this comparison isn't fair but; I see a fetus much like a brain-dead individual. When is it okay to "pull the plug"? When does a person cease to exist as a person?

 

 

I'm not asking you what is legally permissible. It is legally permissible as you describe it, yes. I'm asking what is morally permissible.

 

Why does the act of a child taking a breath outside of the womb- the first time it is exposed to air, so it couldn't breathe beforehand, if I understand correctly, even if it had the capability to do so- why does this single act make it a human being? It's an arbitrary line in the sand that people draw that makes no sense at all to me.

 

At the very least, as soon as we detect a heartbeat, we know its alive. From that point forward, at the very least, the child should not be able to be killed, unless its to save the life of the mother.

The act of breathing does not make it a human being, but it makes it 'real', that is to say the baby is no longer a theoretical life. Until the moment of birth, the child could be born a chimpanzee, there is no way to know until it is born.

 

{Slightly Tangential to main point, but just to give you an idea of my moral compass (or lack there of)}

I may not win many friends with this next thought, but here goes; I don't think that murder is that big of a deal. The only crimes that make me angry are rape and child molestation. Life is not that sacred to me, honestly it never has been. I have tried to take my own life, why would I care if I took someone else's?

 

Don't take that as me saying that I am going to randomly murder people for no reason. I am just saying that if the circumstance arose, I would do it without even a twinge of guilt or remorse. Age and/or gender have zero bearing, either. I would take the life of a woman or child just as easily as the life of another man. The only reason that I haven't done so is that I have not had reason.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Duck Fallas

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The intake of oxygen is more what I am referring to. Until a child takes his/her first breath of air, the parents have every right to terminate the pregnancy. I know that my opinion may be harsh, and maybe this comparison isn't fair but; I see a fetus much like a brain-dead individual. When is it okay to "pull the plug"? When does a person cease to exist as a person?

 

 

The act of breathing does not make it a human being, but it makes it 'real', that is to say the baby is no longer a theoretical life. Until the moment of birth, the child could be born a chimpanzee, there is no way to know until it is born.

 

{Slightly Tangential to main point, but just to give you an idea of my moral compass (or lack there of)}

I may not win many friends with this next thought, but here goes; I don't think that murder is that big of a deal. The only crimes that make me angry are rape and child molestation. Life is not that sacred to me, honestly it never has been. I have tried to take my own life, why would I care if I took someone else's?

 

Don't take that as me saying that I am going to randomly murder people for no reason. I am just saying that if the circumstance arose, I would do it without even a twinge of guilt or remorse. Age and/or gender have zero bearing, either. I would take the life of a woman or child just as easily as the life of another man. The only reason that I haven't done so is that I have not had reason.

 

 

the difference between brain dead and a child is the child still has potential and in all likelihood would develop past the point of being brain dead.

 

And all that other shit is easy to say....until you have to do it.

[oochymp 2,393]

We have to concede that women are not just hear to bear children. While I understand that they are just as responsible for its conception (barring a rape), we cannot honestly, in today's society that preaches equality, tie them down to the child because of a "moral code." We either must agree to let abortion continue or make abandoning a woman and child a severely punished crime. These are out only two options, since some people don't seem to take adoption seriously.

I wouldn't be opposed to that at all, and in a way you could say child support does that, tho perhaps that's not severe enough