Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by snowcone200 at 1:29 pm on May 20, 2008 If you was having a child and after running test doctors found out they would have a chronic illness. In which your child will most likely be in constant pain or discomfort through-out their whole lives and you have no idea how long they would live. Would you abort them? Having a chronic illness myself, I guess I wouldn't blame my parents if they did abort me. I suffer everyday but enough about me I wanna hear what you think. -- Posted by Phoenix27 at 1:29 pm on May 20, 2008 I would. -- Posted by xdreaxbabyx at 1:30 pm on May 20, 2008 no. cuz abortions wrong. its no ones fault. things happen for a reason. people were put into this world for a reason. you never kno they maybe are only spose to live for a certain amount of years an they might live longer. never ever would i have an abortion. -- Posted by PimpMyHoes at 1:30 pm on May 20, 2008 no -- Posted by itsmagicx at 1:31 pm on May 20, 2008 i dont think so. any life is better than no life at all isnt it? there is a silver lining to every cloud. -- Posted by Aqua Lily at 1:31 pm on May 20, 2008 it depends on my situation and how bad the illness was... but i probably wouldn't -- Posted by greatescape at 1:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would.  As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering.  If that means abortion, so be it. -- Posted by HowAboutsNo at 1:31 pm on May 20, 2008 I would want to abort the child. i would not want to bring pain and suffering into any persons life. it would guilt me alot knowing that they were suffering because of a decision I made. -- Posted by Nielso at 1:31 pm on May 20, 2008 I think that my feelings about the matter would do alot to my current descision but for now I going to go with no -- Posted by meghank91 at 1:31 pm on May 20, 2008 That's a tough decision. I would talk to the other parent, ask the doctor for more information about the illness, ask about possible treatments, etc. But if at the end of it all I was under the impression that my child would be constantly suffering throughout their life despite what I try to do to help them, I would probably abort the baby. -- Posted by snowcone200 at 1:32 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 1:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would.  As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering.  If that means abortion, so be it. heh I like that answer. -- Posted by RockerTori106 at 1:32 pm on May 20, 2008 Never in my life would I abort my child if I had one. That's what real family is. Unless they were old enough to understand life in general, and they were in the hospital and wanted to be let go and that's how bad it was. I wouldn't want someone I love to suffer. -- Posted by FirstSunspear at 1:33 pm on May 20, 2008 I think it depends how bad the condition would be, and if there was treatment. -- Posted by Libertarian Samurai at 1:33 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would.  As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering.  If that means abortion, so be it. That's horrifying. No one has the right to make that choice for the child. We should not decide who lives or dies on the basis of whether or not we think their life is worth living. -- Posted by greatescape at 1:35 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:33 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would. As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering. If that means abortion, so be it. That's horrifying. No one has the right to make that choice for the child. We should not decide who lives or dies on the basis of whether or not we think their life is worth living. That's one argument. I am pro-choice.  While the baby is still inside me, it is my choice as to what I do with it. -- Posted by Lulu Nobody at 1:36 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 4:33 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would.  As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering.  If that means abortion, so be it. That's horrifying. No one has the right to make that choice for the child. We should not decide who lives or dies on the basis of whether or not we think their life is worth living. You do realize this post isn't about shoving your opinion down people's throats, right? -- Posted by FirstSunspear at 1:38 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 1:33 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would.  As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering.  If that means abortion, so be it. That's horrifying. No one has the right to make that choice for the child. We should not decide who lives or dies on the basis of whether or not we think their life is worth living. Ok, you go and let the unborn baby make the choice for itself. -- Posted by Libertarian Samurai at 1:44 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:35 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:33 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would.  As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering.  If that means abortion, so be it.    That's horrifying.    No one has the right to make that choice for the child. We should not decide who lives or dies on the basis of whether or not we think their life is worth living. That's one argument. I am pro-choice.  While the baby is still inside me, it is my choice as to what I do with it. Legally, yes. Scientifically and ethically, no. -- Posted by greatescape at 1:44 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:44 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:35 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:33 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes I would. As a mother it is my duty to protect my child from pain and suffering. If that means abortion, so be it.   That's horrifying.   No one has the right to make that choice for the child. We should not decide who lives or dies on the basis of whether or not we think their life is worth living.    That's one argument.    I am pro-choice. While the baby is still inside me, it is my choice as to what I do with it. Legally, yes. Scientifically and ethically, no. Legally yes. Scientifically yes Ethics are pure opinion -- Posted by Libertarian Samurai at 1:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Scientifically, that kid has a different genome, and cannot possibly be part of you. Ethics are based on logic and the principles of the universe. I'd say that respecting the life of another is pretty basic. -- Posted by greatescape at 1:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Scientifically, that kid has a different genome, and cannot possibly be part of you. Ethics are based on logic and the principles of the universe. I'd say that respecting the life of another is pretty basic. I never said that it was a part of me.  I said that it is inside of me and therefore completely under my care. And your ethics are extremely one-sided, in that they do not factor in the life of the mother, or the child after it is born. -- Posted by the raven at 1:56 pm on May 20, 2008 Yes, I would. -- Posted by Libertarian Samurai at 1:59 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Scientifically, that kid has a different genome, and cannot possibly be part of you.    Ethics are based on logic and the principles of the universe. I'd say that respecting the life of another is pretty basic. I never said that it was a part of me.  I said that it is inside of me and therefore completely under my care. And your ethics are extremely one-sided, in that they do not factor in the life of the mother, or the child after it is born. Care does not involve killing. Interestingly, danger life of the mother is an incredibly rare occurrence. The legal exceptions generally include "health" of the mother, which can be financial or mental. In other words, whatever one feels would be inconvenienced. Once again, killing the child is not an acceptable option if one thinks their life will not be worth living. I believe the Germans did that, killing off handicapped German children to save money. -- Posted by greatescape at 2:07 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:59 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from greatescape11 at 4:52 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 3:47 pm on May 20, 2008 Scientifically, that kid has a different genome, and cannot possibly be part of you.   Ethics are based on logic and the principles of the universe. I'd say that respecting the life of another is pretty basic.    I never said that it was a part of me. I said that it is inside of me and therefore completely under my care.    And your ethics are extremely one-sided, in that they do not factor in the life of the mother, or the child after it is born. Care does not involve killing. Interestingly, danger life of the mother is an incredibly rare occurrence. The legal exceptions generally include "health" of the mother, which can be financial or mental. In other words, whatever one feels would be inconvenienced. Once again, killing the child is not an acceptable option if one thinks their life will not be worth living. I believe the Germans did that, killing off handicapped German children to save money. Handicapped is not equivalent to being in severe physical pain -- Posted by Libertarian Samurai at 2:12 pm on May 20, 2008 There are often meds for that. I just don't see how anyone would decide that someone should not live just because their life will be painful. -- Posted by the raven at 2:15 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 5:12 pm on May 20, 2008 There are often meds for that. I just don't see how anyone would decide that someone should not live just because their life will be painful. What, pain killers? I would rather not have a kid, than watch them become tolerant to every pain killer, or even addicted, and eventually have no other outlet to turn to. -- Posted by greatescape at 2:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 4:12 pm on May 20, 2008 There are often meds for that. I just don't see how anyone would decide that someone should not live just because their life will be painful. I am assuming in the rhetoric of the question that the assumption is that the child will be suffering from untreatable pain. -- Posted by Libertarian Samurai at 2:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from The Raven at 5:15 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 5:12 pm on May 20, 2008 There are often meds for that. I just don't see how anyone would decide that someone should not live just because their life will be painful. What, pain killers? I would rather not have a kid, than watch them become tolerant to every pain killer, or even addicted, and eventually have no other outlet to turn to. Heh, once you've conceived, you already have a kid, as far those in the Pro-Life movement go. -- Posted by the raven at 2:34 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 5:31 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from The Raven at 5:15 pm on May 20, 2008 Quote: from Libertarian Samurai at 5:12 pm on May 20, 2008 There are often meds for that. I just don't see how anyone would decide that someone should not live just because their life will be painful.    What, pain killers? I would rather not have a kid, than watch them become tolerant to every pain killer, or even addicted, and eventually have no other outlet to turn to. Heh, once you've conceived, you already have a kid, as far those in the Pro-Life movement go. I give up. You're too fucking stupid to have a debate with. our arguments are pathetic and lack any type of common sense. You have the same answer for everything. Just...stop. -- Posted by Libertarian Samurai at 2:47 pm on May 20, 2008 I give the same answer, because that is enough. You can throw "what if's" at me all day, and it doesn't change the basic fact. Pages: 1 2 3  Next