... Okay. A pro choicer's comment got me to think...
< provoking thought >
Okay - Firstly, usually, a pro-choicer did not address, the life in the womb is a child or not. A pro-choicer simply brushed that aside and then tried to show the advantages of killing unborn babies cos they are weaklings in the womb. Secondly, whenever or not a baby is "unwanted" is pretty irrelenet (sp). Just because a human being is not wanted does not mean that human being has no value or necessarily should be killed. Plus, there are huge numbers of families who are willing to adopt "unwanted" babies, so they are 'wanted' - not "unwanted". I do not believe in wanted-ness vs unwanted-ness, anyway.
Medical science and the law has already addressed the issue of whether a fetus is considered to be a child or not. That is what the point of viability determines. So, it has been addressed and determined for all legal and medical purposes. If all "unwanted" children were adopted, we would not have the millions of children caught in the system now waiting for homes that most likely will never be found. Especially when people are going out of the country to adopt rather than accept the children in this country that so desperately need homes. What do you propose to do with all this influx of children into an already overcrowded system where homes are not available for the children that need them now, much less the ones that will be added to it tomorrow?
Well, if I follow to this pro-choicer's logic that unwanted babies are more likely to commit crimes in the future, then you are seeking to justify killing them (due to the possibility of "unwanted" ones commiting a crime). Is that correct, eh?
No one said that unwanted babies are more likely to commit crimes. What was said that children of teen mothers are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. That is fact that is supported with extensive data.
Well, what are your arguement in favor of killing people based upon what they might do, but not what the have done? But, sure, a pro-choicer is correct that abortion can reduce the number of unwanted children. Well, keep that mind, murder also reduces the number of unwanted people too!
Fallicious argument.
Poisoning the water supply, dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, spraying a poisonous gas around places, and etc etc. So, if the reduction of unwanted people is the goal, then I guess I suppose that opens us up for all kinds of genocide type possibilities. Since, various researches said that criminal involvement is increased with unwanted children... so, does that various researches tell us about the character of people who would carelessly screw around, get pregnant, and have no qaulmys about killing a life in the womb?
It tells us that they are responsible enoght to determine that attempting to raise a child when they are not capapble of doing so only creates a situation of harm for the child, and no child deserves to be brought into that situation.
What is kind of attitude and a lack of character that just produces criminals? Those who value human life and seek to protect the weak, and the unborn ones are far less likely to be involved in crime. But again, is the fact that unwanted babies are the reason they are more likely to be criminal, or is it because of the parents of the children would kill them who have a poor moral basis on whichever they raise a child?
You are misinterpreting the data and the claims. It is not lack of character that creates criminals for the most part. It is environmental circumstances, poverty, lack of parental involvement, undereducation, lack of opportunity, and children who are totally unprepared to take care of even themselves thinking they are ready to become parents.
Well, you see, the truth is people need to start being more responsible with their own actions, their behaviors, their own children, and for themselves... they need to stop the blame on everyone else! Seriously, if you truly want to reduce various crimes, then go and kill all crazy people, all gang members, all drug abusers, and kill them the another unnecessary people. I'm sure that would sovle a problem, anyway! On the other hand, if the support for killing is the reduction of various crimes, then why do pro-choicers stop at unborn babies? Unless... because those little unborn ones are not able to defend themselves that is so easy for them to be a target, isn't it? But what about the gang members and drug abusers would fight back against you? No? It is easy to kill the innocent and helpless only, isn't it?
Humph. Well, I 'speak' in a favor of, as my personal belief, adults behave responsibly and they face the consepuances of their actions. I 'speak' in a favor of society as a whole require this responsibility. With my aware, I 'speak' in a favor of statistics and reasoning is not be used to justify killing, and pronounce condamnation upon a people by accusing unborn babies for being parasitic, the source of problems, and unwanted. Seriously, I meant, what is the point?
If there is no value of the life for the weak and innocent, especially those ones who in the womb, then you lay the foundation for the future murderous "anarchy" when one (who rules regardless of a constitution [or laws]), who gain power to use the same rationale to justify killing others.
Therefore, many pro-choicers consider the unborn children are weaklings that is so easy to be targeted for the kill. That is how it works.
< /provoking thought >
EDIT: Again, this is my POV. I know this post is pretty simple and sound..
