Conjecture

Anyway, Just because two people make the mistake of having unprotected sex that leads to a pregnancy, that does not mean that they should then "deal with the consequences" of their actions. If they can correct those mistakes then they should. Like it or not, having an abortion IS taking responsibility for one's actions.

Having a child that you can not care for, or choosing to give it up for adoption, is the exact opposite of "taking responsibility".

Putting it up for adoption is doing a selfless act and is good for all concerned, the exact opposite of abortion.
And yes you should have to deal with consequences.

The OP of that thread admitted he wasn't fit to be a parent, had a shitty childhood, and didn't want kids.

If they had the child, it undoubtedly would have been supported by taxpayers at least until it was 18, and a good chance a lot longer if it ended up in prison.

He probably saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If you pretend adoption doesnt exist sure, but if you want to argue like that i can just pretend the guy is a millionare and can easily support the kid.

Mebe u outta go kill all dem disabled folks to.
Cud save da taxpayas even moar!

Who is the victim?

I would argue that the victim is the fetus that comes to term. The fetus who grows to be a man and who suffers and dies, who's life's work is built on blood, sweat, and tears will be stolen from him for eternity, is the real victim.

When you create a new sentient being, you are creating a welfare. And only victims have a welfare that is neglected.

If you create a child, you are creating a horror story. Even if your child lives the best life possible, chances are he will consume the suffering of ten thousand animals and give birth to ten thousand heart attack/organ failure/chronic disease/cancer victims.

~~

ALWAYS have an abortion

NEVER procreate.

You can accomplish nothing and only create the potential for harm.

There was no guarantee that kid would have been put up for adoption or adopted if it was.

This way the taxpayers are definitely off the hook for someone else's fuck up. Sounds pretty responsible to me.

Why should I have to deal with the consequences? We have a perfectly viable medical procedure that can allow me to NOT deal with the consequences. So why should I be obliged into caring for a baby I don't even want and cannot even afford when I have the alternative of simply terminating the pregnancy?

~~

And no, you're wrong. Putting a child up for adoption is not a selfless act. It is a selfish act, made acceptable only through ignorance. You are pooping out a child that must be cared for by the community. Because someone dumped a baby onto the community's lap does not mean that what they did was a good thing. They expose the child to harm, the force it to grow up without it's real parents, they have no idea if the child actually even enjoys being alive. You have no idea if the child will be mentally or physically sick....

It's not always a win-win. I know a family that had 4 children and two of them were retarded. The marriage was ruined, the family broke apart, and it turned into a life of hardship for everyone. Everyone was a LOSER because of procreation. That is a real possibility and you nee to give it more respect.

This post was edited by tric-isHUGE on Aug 7 2012 02:23am

Anti abortion = pro back alley clothes hanger vaccume jobeys

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Aug 7 2012 02:22am

Just...wow. When I was 17 I didn't do stupid shit like get drunk off cheap alcohol and stick my cock in the nearest 15 year old. Too bad he can't be charged with statutory rape.