How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

thee glitz wrote:

Sorry, I don't know what point you're making. It should be a pleasure to raise your own child. Of course it's not always easy and involves some unpleasant aspects, but it's the best thing ever, apart from naybe hoke and cookers.

My first point is you, like Depp, seem to be changing what you're saying.
The second was that just because you are in a position where it is a pleasure, doesn't mean everyone else is. There is a wide variety of reasons for getting an abortion.

Depp

sup_dude wrote: »

Firstly, now you're changing what you said. You were talking about her having a choice, and now all of a sudden it's her actually doing it.

Secondly, if you look at the first post I made in this thread, I made my position clear. No, it really isn't depressing. What's depressing is that you don't seem to have any consideration for circumstance and yet are still trying to make your point.

you have conviction in your beliefs and I respect that but I just cant identify with your point of view, feel free to say no but just out of interest, did your parents have difficulty raising you and your siblings (if you have any), not trying to poke holes in your arguement or anything just trying to see where you're coming from

sup_dude wrote: »

My first point is you, like Depp, seem to be changing what you're saying.

I don't think so, speaking for me anyway.

The second was that just because you are in a position where it is a pleasure, doesn't mean everyone else is. There is a wide variety of reasons for getting an abortion.

I'm guessing, with confidence, that you don't have a child.

Depp wrote:

you have conviction in your beliefs and I respect that but I just cant identify with your point of view, feel free to say no but just out of interest, did your parents have difficulty raising you and your siblings (if you have any), not trying to poke holes in your arguement or anything just trying to see where you're coming from

Like I said in my first post, my mother was a teenage single parent with zero support. She often went hungry at the end of weeks just so she had enough food to feed me. She suffered so I could exist. That's not even going into how she had to put her whole life on hold for me, how she didn't get to finish her Leaving Cert etc.
Yeah, it worked out okay but I wouldn't ask anyone to starve themselves and have family/society shun them for me, so how could I ask that of the people I love? If, for some reason she chose to have an abortion and if, hypothetically, I had some awareness of the fact afterward, I would have fully supported her decision.
For the record, even if she had the choice, for various reasons (which I wont go into) I don't think she would have, but the choice would have been there. She wouldn't have been forced. So you might think that it's sad/depressing/whatever to know your mother would have aborted you if she had the choice... I think it's depressing that people can't see outside the box of single minded judgement, and can't see that there may have been a damm good reason for it.

thee glitz wrote:

I don't think so, speaking for me anyway.

One minute you're talking about from the child (now adult) point of view, next you've switched to the parent.

thee glitz wrote:

I'm guessing, with confidence, that you don't have a child.

I'm guessing, with confidence, that the fact your wife struggled to get with child (congrats by the way) has skewed your perception, and that you've never had to deal with anything other than happy family therefore can't comprehend anything else.

sup_dude wrote: »

One minute you're talking about from the child (now adult) point of view, next you've switched to the parent.

Was it the bit about being better off? I meant that from the parent's view, but the child is too.

I'm guessing, with confidence, that the fact your wife struggled to get with child (congrats by the way) has skewed your perception

Thanks, we're engaged now too. Not at all - I didn't know about that until afterwards!

and that you've never had to deal with anything other than happy family therefore can't comprehend anything else.

My own upbringing was grand ye, though my parents obviously made sacrifices to took care to look after me. I've close friends whose parent/s didn't have an easy time of it at all. I've seen it, and arguments for abortion availability based on hardship endured can be made. Babies change Everything, well your first one does anyway. I've gladly given up on / put on hold for 20yrs many things I wanted to do, places I wanted to go - I couldn't care less now. It's all about the little one.

Fair play to your ma btw. There's something really wrong in a society where people choose to feed themselves or their child.

rainbow kirby

Depp wrote: »

so your mother rings you up in the morning and says she should have been allowed to abort you you're just going to say thats grand ma you shouldve had your rights?

I'm at least third generation pro-choice - my grandmother organised a secret whiparound in her area in the late 70s to send a local woman to England who was pregnant for the 7th time through marital rape while she was trying to leave a violent husband. Both her and my mum voted against the 8th in 1983. I was born about 8 months after it passed, my mum was young (early 20s) and still living at home but her family and my dad's family were nothing but supportive.

seamus

thee glitz wrote: »

Was it the bit about being better off? I meant that from the parent's view, but the child is too.

You state it like it's a universal fact.

It's true for you, it's true for me, and it's true for most of us and our families.

But that doesn't mean it's true for everyone. There are plenty of instances where the birth of child will result in a poorer quality of life for the parents, the child and most crucially the other children in that family, which can be avoided by terminating the pregnancy. This is especially true where early scans show that the child will have a serious illness or disability requiring full-time care.
By bringing that child into the world, you are foisting a lifetime of dependency onto your other children, who have no choice in the matter.

The majority of abortions are procured by women who are aged over 25 and have at least one other child to care for.

Abortion isn't just used by silly teenagers and drunk college girls.
It's in the majority being used by women who already understand the "joy" of having children and the hardships and difficulty that brings, and making the choice to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of themselves and their family.

It's naive and arrogant to think that because the child you have brings so much joy to your life, the same is true of everyone. There's a reason why people don't keep going and having 10/12/30 children, despite the "joy" every new child supposedly would bring.

seamus wrote: »

It's in the majority being used by women who already understand the "joy" of having children and the hardships and difficulty that brings, and making the choice to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of themselves and their family.

Maybe if there are fetal abnormalities but the vast majority of abortions are not carried out for such reasons. I can understand such decision being taken at 0-12 weeks (maybe a little longer) but after that I really can't. Some things in life have to be taken on the chin and unless the mother's health is at risk, or there are fetal abnormalities, then concern for the quality of life of family members is a poor excuse to take the life of an unborn defenseless child in the womb.

It's naive and arrogant to think that because the child you have brings so much joy to your life, the same is true of everyone.

Joy, or lack thereof, at the prospect of giving birth is of no relevance to whether or not we as a society should allow child destruction, which currently is legal in the UK (for three weeks of a pregnancy) and with the advancement of science, that time period is only likely to increase, unless the disgraceful laws in the UK are amended.

On a side note. I'll vote to repeal the 8th (with the hope of it leading to abortion law reform - as I feel it's much needed) but I really wish the Pro Choice movement would get it into their heads that all adults thus far have been allowed to vote in Ireland's abortion referendums, not just "old men". Yet again we see feminists exploiting the abortion debate just so they can play the martyrs.

rainbow kirby

^ I missed the 2002 referendum by around 3 months - I'm 32. There are a hell of a lot of people affected by the 8th that never got to vote on any referendum.

...and that's why I support there being another referendum, but that still doesn't justify the suggestion that "old men" are responsible for the 8th amendment, they are not, no more than old women are. It's just being used as yet another chance for feminists to play the nonsense that is the patriarchal oppression card.

nozzferrahhtoo

Depp wrote: »

so your mother rings you up in the morning and says she should have been allowed to abort you you're just going to say thats grand ma you shouldve had your rights?

Yes, exactly. Would you be any more or less emotionally put out yourself if you found out that your parents HAD planned to use contraceptives the night you were conceived, realized they had none, and rather than go purchase them they decided to take the risk in the heat of the moment?

Many humans are alive today because their parents used contraceptives that failed, or in the heat of the moment failed to use the ones they planned to.

Other than emotional self-investment is there any reason to be more emotionally upset that you exist because of THAT failure in family planning, than the abortion version of family planning?

thee glitz wrote: »

You do know it is actually killing babies though? It's taking an innocent's life. Why the head burying in the sand? It's not emotive language, it's an emotive subject.

Yes, it is an emotive subject. Which is why one should not just throw out emotive language without clarifying and grounding the use of that language. Language like "Babies" is emotive but one has to be very clear what one means by "Baby".

Similarly, even when language is not emotive, it can be very labile. Words like "Human" and "Life" are highly labile and contextual at times, and their use without clarification or context does not say much at all.

Ending a pregnancy and terminating a fetus is what is happening with abortion. And if you want to show there is something morally wrong with that, then you need to couch your position in something more than merely emotive and labile language. You would need to actually establish moral and coherent arguments to get there. And this you do not appear to have moved to do.

What EXACTLY is it you think qualifies something for having rights, specifically a right to life? Is mere DNA enough for you? Or if ANY simple dictionary definition of the word "Human" fits to something, does this qualify it for you?

Or can you stop and realize that what most people appear to mediate moral and ethical concern on.... are things that the fetus up to 16 weeks, and possibly beyond, simply lacks entirely?

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The analogy compared the intent

And your inability to give up a failed analogy is at this point lacking in interest for me any more. If you want to discuss the intention of laws you can do it with someone else as ALL I have been discussing until now is the moral implications of Abortion in and of itself. And I am not going to bore the readers any further here going round and round on issues entirely tangential to what I have actually been discussing.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I never said anything about sentience. You know that I didn't.

Actually the only thing I "know" is that you are not being coherent here. You are producing links to studies, at least 2 at this point, showing responses in the fetus to stimulus.

Then on one hand you are saying that this shows "someone is home".... but on the other hand denying you are saying anything about sentience. So what you ARE saying, or THINK you are saying, is really opaque to me at this point. And I suspect possibly to you too, but this is only suspicion at this juncture.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The researchers stated that the 16-week-old fetuses included in the study moved their mouths and tongues in response to music as if they were trying to speak.

I admit I only read the study in it's entirety twice. And I remember they discussed Mouthing and Tongue expulsion multiple times. But I recall no point at which they added the value judgement "as if trying to speak".

Is that from them? Could you quote it for me, as I genuinely do not recall it and do not wish to read the study a third time. It is a startling unprofessional conjecture if it is there.

Or did you invent this bit yourself perhaps in order to make what was observed more emotive than it actually is?

However as I said above I genuinely do not know what your point is. We KNOW the fetus at various stages responds to stimulus of varying kinds. What are you trying to read into that?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You do realise that babies have been born at that stage of gestation and survived.

I do. And that is a testament to the wonders of the ever increasing sophistication of the medical technology of our species. What you think this means in terms of a point related to abortion however, I am similarly baffled at for most of the same reasons as above..... in that you cite observations of this kind.... but do not really seem to coherently link them back to a point.

Not one aspect of my position on abortion takes viability..... natural viability or artificial viability under the ministrations of our medical technology......... as a foundation. So comments about viability are not a rebuttal or reference to anything I have thus far espoused.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They should. I'm on record as saying Sarah Catt should have been charged with child destruction. If she had killed her baby the following week after she had given birth, she'd have been done for murder and so it's insane that he had her sentence reduced from eight years to three and half.

I am with you on this. I genuinely can not get my head around the user of boards.ie who thinks abortions up to the day of birth should be entirely ok. As if passage down the birth canal is some magical moment when a child gains a right to life. Attempts to pin him down on that position and what it is based on were alas met with little more than him claiming that he believes HIllary Clinton agrees with him.

seamus wrote: »

making the choice to terminate the pregnancy for the sake of themselves

Yes - so it's selfish.

If you can't get happiness from raising a child, it's probably because you still resent it for ruining your life.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Maybe if there are fetal abnormalities but the vast majority of abortions are not carried out for such reasons.

Financial and other concerns are valid too though. If you have a family already struggling and on the breadline, another child will smother them. You could have a mother (or indeed a father) with a history of mental illness, and PPD in particular, who feels that one more child will tip them over the edge.
You could have another child already with a life-limiting condition or a disability, and you feel wrong about bringing a second child into that situation.

Or two parents who have developed crippling alcholism, or a heroin habit, or whatever.

My point is that the old trope of "every child brings joy to your" life is naive and short-sighted.

Why do people "stop" at a certain amount of children? Because they know that more children will be a burden on themselves and their existing children.
Nobody tells these people, "Yes, another child will be tough, but it'll be worth it in the end. Go on, have a fifth, you'll love them".
But when someone is pregnant, apparently "everyone will be better off" (eventuallY) if they go through with the pregnancy. It's a point of view that is demonstrably wrong.

Joy, or lack thereof, at the prospect of giving birth is of no relevance to whether or not we as a society should allow child destruction

I agree entirely. My point was in relation to thee glitz's assertion that every child brings joy, which he was apparently using as an understandable but irrelevant reason to disallow abortion.

I really wish the Pro Choice movement would get it into their heads that all adults thus far have been allowed to vote in Ireland's abortion referendums, not just "old men". Yet again we see feminists exploiting the abortion debate just so they can play the martyrs.

They haven't though. And that's pretty disingenuous overall.

The vote in 2002 was to further restrict abortion rights. It was defeated, but no counter-action was taken to loosen rights*
Even then, anyone aged between 4 and 17 in 2002 is now an adult and has never had an opportunity to vote on an abortion referendum.

Nevertheless any adult under the age of 42 has never been presented any opportunity to relax the state's position on abortion. That's just slightly more than half of all adults in the country (according to the 2011 census).

And that's the simple fact. Ireland's current position on abortion was defined by a minority of those alive today, who now sit on the question and refuse to let the majority have a vote on it.

thee glitz wrote: »

Yes - so it's selfish.

If you can't get happiness from raising a child, it's probably because you still resent it for ruining your life.

If you get happiness from raising a child, is that not selfishness too?

Having children is a selfish act. Don't allow yourself to pretend you're a martyr. Everything we do is selfish. Whether it is choosing to have or not have a child, what you choose is a selfish act.

And yes, I am a parent.

* To be fair, there is no obligation when a referendum is defeated, to legislate for the "No"

Caliden

Not looking for an argument but I've read the most recent pages and I'm failing to see what benefit 'forcing' someone to have a child has?

I use the term 'forcing' because you're not really giving them an alternative. Adoption is an option when the child is already born but childbirth (not speaking from my own experience) seems like one of the more traumatic experiences one can experience in your lifetime, especially if the mother doesn't intend on keeping the child to begin with.

We hear from the children who were almost aborted by their mothers and I'm sure there are mothers who changed their minds once the child was born but I'm just failing to see why can't women be given a choice.

There's very little we can control in this world but our body and what we do with it should be one of those very few choices.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And your inability to give up a failed analogy is at this point lacking in interest for me any more.

You're still saying it failed even though it took you six days to realise that the analogy was about the intent behind abortion legislation.... and even then instead of apologizing you laughably accused me of moving goalposts.

I am not going to bore the readers any further

Glad.to.hear.it.

Actually the only thing I "know" is that you are not being coherent here. You are producing links to studies, at least 2 at this point, showing responses in the fetus to stimulus.

I linked to different studies at different times for different reasons and so any chance of a little specificity? One of those studies I cited was merely to show that the following statement from you was, and is, absurd:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

mere response to stimulus tells us NOTHING about the consciousness and capacity for awareness the subject in question possesses.

Some response studies tell us very little, that's true, but some tell us a whole damn lot. For example: 8-week stimulus response studies might not be sufficient to show all that much but 30+ weeks stimulus response studies can tell researchers huge amounts.... and so try try and throw all stimulus response studies under the one umbrella, as you have repeatedly tried to do, is absurd.

Then on one hand you are saying that this shows "someone is home".... but on the other hand denying you are saying anything about sentience.

This is why I accuse you of playing to the gallery, as you know that I do not suggest anything regarding sentience. I know you know as you quoted where I had said to another user that this was because there are so many differing definitions and arguments regarding it. So please stop suggesting there is a contradiction, there is none. If the statement that there is 'someone home' means sentience to you... great, no bother... but that has nothing to do with me, I am merely using phraseology that you brought into the thread in an attempt to retort things you have said regarding fetuses and your lack of moral concern for them at certain stages of gestation.

I admit I only read the study in it's entirety twice. And I remember they discussed Mouthing and Tongue expulsion multiple times. But I recall no point at which they added the value judgement "as if trying to speak".

Is that from them? Could you quote it for me, as I genuinely do not recall it and do not wish to read the study a third time. It is a startling unprofessional conjecture if it is there.

Or did you invent this bit yourself perhaps in order to make what was observed more emotive than it actually is?

Any chance you give that kind of nonsense a rest? Asking someone did they "invent" something they have said is tantamount to asking them if they have lied. A simple request for the source would suffice:

Lead researcher of the study Dr Marisa Lopez Teijon revealed that music broadcast vaginally encouraged unborn babies to move their mouth and tongue “as if they were trying to speak”.

Not one aspect of my position on abortion takes viability..... natural viability or artificial viability under the ministrations of our medical technology......... as a foundation. So comments about viability are not a rebuttal or reference to anything I have thus far espoused.

You never answered the question with respect. Okay, you don't take viability into account, gotcha... but what do you take in account then if you think "we are safe" to abort 21-to-24-week old fetuses at? What are you "iffy" about is what I am asking you.

thee glitz wrote: »

Telling your child you'd rather they were aborted isn't cool - not good for their esteem. It makes you the worst parent and a drain on humanity.

I think you're confusing poor parenting with being pro choice. I know people whose mothers have let them know all through their childhood that they didn't want them and would have preferred not to have had them, and at least one of those mothers is strongly pro-life. Because she's very religious. Still a sh1te parent all the same.

seamus wrote: »

You could have another child already with a life-limiting condition or a disability, and you feel wrong about bringing a second child into that situation.

I grew up with a severely autistic sibling (five years my junior) and so I know all about family struggles in that regard. I'm still their part time carer in fact (and happy to be). However, I fail to see how such circumstances (or similar) could, or should, justify the second trimester abortion of a healthy unborn child.

Or two parents who have developed crippling alcholism, or a heroin habit, or whatever.

Tubal ligation has a 99% success rate.

My point is that the old trope of "every child brings joy to your" life is naive and short-sighted.

Why do people "stop" at a certain amount of children? Because they know that more children will be a burden on themselves and their existing children.

Oh I agree but I just don't see why a defenseless developing unborn child should pay the price for not being wanted. Give them a shot. Lots of people have led very happy lives despite their very existence being resented. Indeed, many a person has led a miserable existence despite being shown nothing but love and affection.

My point was in relation to thee glitz's assertion that every child brings joy, which he was apparently using as an understandable but irrelevant reason to disallow abortion.

I think every child can bring joy but I agree that there is no guarantee of that, of course, but I feel the user's point was more that a lot of women who feel that a child will destroy their lives, are wrong. Not all the time, granted, but mostly any woman that has been on the fence and decided not to go ahead with an abortion, is generally happy about not doing so in the end. Phil Lynott's mother a prime example.

I have known women that have had abortions in the 90's, long before the information super highway existed, who absolutely believed that a 16-24 week old fetus was just a clump of cells and also, that regret was rare... who now very much regret their decision and feel misled. Abortion regret is not as rare as some would have us believe.

http://womenhurt.ie/

They haven't though. And that's pretty disingenuous overall.

The vote in 2002 was to further restrict abortion rights. It was defeated, but no counter-action was taken to loosen rights*
Even then, anyone aged between 4 and 17 in 2002 is now an adult and has never had an opportunity to vote on an abortion referendum.

Nevertheless any adult under the age of 42 has never been presented any opportunity to relax the state's position on abortion. That's just slightly more than half of all adults in the country (according to the 2011 census).

And that's the simple fact. Ireland's current position on abortion was defined by a minority of those alive today, who now sit on the question and refuse to let the majority have a vote on it.
If you get happiness from raising a child, is that not selfishness too?

Again: that is why I feel there should be another referendum and in fact abortion law reform overall but how does any of the above excuse blaming "old men" for the 8th or framing the abortion debate as being solely about women's bodies and what they do with them. Women voted in all those referendums too and so there was nothing disingenuous about what I said at all.

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Tubal ligation has a 99% success rate.

If I were to walk into the doctor tomorrow and ask for this, I would be refused. It is very very difficult to get permission to have this done.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have known women that have had abortions in the 90's, long before the information super highway existed, who absolutely believed that a 16-24 week old fetus was just a clump of cells and also, that regret was rare... who now very much regret their decision and feel misled. Abortion regret is not as rare as some would have us believe.

http://www.womenhurt.ie

couldn't be the same one surely ?

domain: womenhurt.ie
descr: Caitriona Cummins
descr: Sole Trader
descr: Registered Business
Name admin-c: AMI378-IEDR

CAITRIONA CUMMINS,
Pro-Life Campaign,
Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2.

http://bit.ly/2cIeLHB

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you're confusing poor parenting with being pro choice.
I know people whose mothers have let them know all through their childhood that they didn't want them and would have preferred not to have had them, and at least one of those mothers is strongly pro-life.

I don't think so. There's a difference between wishing you hadn't had a child and wishing you had aborted them.

Because she's very religious. Still a sh1te parent all the same.

Awful parent, ye.

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think so. There's a difference between wishing you hadn't had a child and wishing you had aborted them.

Awful parent, ye.

You're assuming that something like that can only be said in a hurtful way. I disagree. Being truthful, even about a complex situation like a crisis pregnancy, may be part of being a good parent. Lying, less so IMO. Though lying is often the easy way out of course.

So unless you're claiming that it's impossible to ever love a child if you had originally thought of ending that pregnancy, you're not making any sense.

Your argument requires that any woman who wanted to terminate a pregnancy but didn't either becomes strongly anti choice (why?) or else doesn't love the resulting child. I don't see why you're connecting those two issues.

eviltwin

Outlaw Pete Women Hurt is an off shoot of Rachel's Vineyard, a religious post abortion 'healing' camp that profiteers from women and men who may be experiencing regret. There are women who regret abortion but many more who don't, who have no adverse effects. But you won't hear about them because that doesn't help bring in the money. Don't kid yourself that this service is altruistic, someone is making a decent living off this.

volchitsa wrote: »

You're assuming that something like that can only be said in a hurtful way. I disagree. Being truthful, even about a complex situation like a crisis pregnancy, may be part of being a good parent. Lying, less so IMO. Though lying is often the easy way out of course.

There is a lot to be said for being honest. Telling your child that they may have been aborted had 'services' been available to you, while advocating the availability of same is implying indifference at best to that child's continued existence. If a mother is pro abortion availability, it's pretty awful to tell a child that.

So unless you're claiming that it's impossible to ever love a child if you had originally thought of ending that pregnancy you're not making any sense.

I'm not saying that. If someone does love their child, they shouldn't be telling them it's only 'by force' that they're here and should acknowledge that the law benefitted them.

Your argument requires that any woman who wanted to terminate a pregnancy but didn't either becomes strongly anti choice (why?) or else doesn't love the resulting child. I don't see why you're connecting those two issues.

It doesn't require that. In the case of a pro abortion availability mother (as any), it's horrible to tell a child that they may have been aborted. So they shouldn't do it if they're to be a good parent. Its saying 'you're here bacause of this law, and I want to ensure no-one else has to go through what you've done to me'.

PucaMama

a disturbing read on the realities of late term abortion. whatever about the abortions up to 12 weeks, what is allowed to happen in europe to babies born alive after abortion is horrific.

http://9afb0ee4c2ca3737b892-e804076442d956681ee1e5a58d07b27b.r59.cf2.rackcdn.com/ECLJ%20Docs/Late%20Term%20Abortions%20and%20Neonatal%20Infanticide%20in%20Europe%2C%20ECLJ%2C%2018%20June%202015.pdf

thee glitz wrote: »

There is a lot to be said for being honest. Telling your child that they may have been aborted had 'services' been available to you, while advocating the availability of same is implying indifference at best to that child's continued existence. If a mother is pro abortion availability, it's pretty awful to tell a child that.

No, that's just you applying your reading of the situation to everyone else.
I know a real life example which disproves that entirely.

I'm not saying that. If someone does love their child, they shouldn't be telling them it's only 'by force' that they're here and should acknowledge that the law benefitted them.

And yet if the law has any effect, there must be a heck of a lot of people who wouldn't exist otherwise, right? So do you think all those woman are all now anti-choice, or that they don't love their children? Or are you just insisting on making a connection that is meaningless?

It doesn't require that. In the case of a pro abortion availability mother (as any), it's horrible to tell a child that they may have been aborted. So they shouldn't do it if they're to be a good parent. Its saying 'you're here bacause of this law, and I want to ensure no-one else has to go through what you've done to me'.

Again, your opinion only, and one that apparently applies to a lot of women in the country - given the ban on abortion. Do you really think that all those women should lie to their children about the circumstances of their birth all their lives?

volchitsa wrote: »

No, that's just you applying your reading of the situation to everyone else.
I know a real life example which disproves that entirely.

And yet if the law has any effect, there must be a heck of a lot of people who wouldn't exist otherwise, right? So do you think all those woman are all now anti-choice, or that they don't love their children? Or are you just insisting on making a connection that is meaningless?

Again, your opinion only, and one that apparently applies to a lot of women in the country - given the ban on abortion. Do you really think that all those women should lie to their children about the circumstances of their birth all their lives?

I think you're missing my point. If I tell a friend I thought they were an asshole the first time I met them, that's one thing. If I then say I wish I wasn't forced to be in that place I first met them at that time, that's close to saying I wish I'd never met them. There is a difference between honesty and voluntary disclosure.

thee glitz wrote: »

I think you're missing my point. If I tell a friend I thought they were an asshole the first time I met them, that's one thing. If I then say I wish I wasn't forced to be in that place I first met them at that time, that's close to saying I wish I'd never met them. There is a difference between honesty and voluntary disclosure.

No, I just think your point is nonsensical. How is your comparison anything like a parent-child relationship? It's completely different. (It's also kind of stupid, TBH. Even if I hadnt wanted to meet someone at the time, that doesn't mean I wish I'd never met them. But that's still entirely different to a decision about having a child that has major implications for the whole of the rest of your life, and maybe other people's lives too.)