Murder Without Conscience

[manker]

Even if that is your opinion, I would have thought you of all lounge folk would have worded your statement with a little more sensibility.

Abortion isn't the easiest thing to consider doing, but it doesn't make someone a monster for thinking of the wellbeing of their unborn child.

Having a child through being dominated into thinking it's evil to terminate then being a dreadful mother is a far worse crime, in my opinion.

And I doubt you have ever been through pregnancy and labour, but the longer you carry a child for, the more attached you grow to it. Giving it up for adoption wouldn't be a feasible option for most mothers, I imagine.

I can see where you're coming from, I can also see that my initial statement was a bit stark.

I still won't agree that adoption isn't a feasible option even tho' the mother gets more attached to the child the longer she carries it. The same can be said of fathers too, if they see the mother everyday, albeit to a different extent.

To my mind, the heartwrenching decision to give up a child for adoption pales when compared with the heartwrenching decision to deprive the child of a chance to live.

Adoption of a baby my partner was carrying for 9 months might make me miserable and potentially give me a burden I might not be able to cope with for the forseeable future - but it would at least give the child a chance of being happy (that is, if I ((we)) felt truly unable to provide proper care for the child).

That, however, is a personal thing.


I know, it's impossible for me to speak from the point of view of a woman who has carried a child and it is very difficult for me to word these posts countering what you're saying, knowing the bits you've posted over the years about your situation. I feel uncomfortable doing so. Sorry if that sounds in the least bit condescending, or makes me sound like a complete tit - I really don't mean it to.

[manker]

For those of you who don't know, The Onion is a satire site.

I thought I mentioned that

This article is great if you're a big fan of sarcasm - but it has little other value.

[B.Helto]

Killing unborn babies because they're inconvenient is wrong.

If that's what actually happened in the article I posted, I might agree with you.

This article is great if you're a big fan of sarcasm - but it has little other value.

Actually it's satire - and there's a really good a point behind it. The fictitious woman who wrote the fictitious article is a typical straw dog that pro-lifers always conjure up to reinforce their points. She doesn't exist.

The fact that this story was so easily embraced and accepted as truth proves the point. In the end, nobody even seems to be bothered much whether the story is true or not, only if it agrees with their particular viewpoint. The religious right seems to fall for it most of all.

Another example:

from Wired News

And it seems that one reason many people fall for Onion stories is that they're too close to the subject matter to see humor in it.

"Some people are so desperate for proof of their point of view, they'll seize upon any old e-mail forward that floats by," Chris Taylor, the San Francisco bureau chief for Time magazine, said.

As an example, Carol Kolb, the editor of The Onion, points to a 2000 story titled, "Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children," which prompted some Christian groups to go nuts.

Indeed, an e-mail blasting Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling moved at light speed through fundamentalist groups online, decrying the books' satanic influence on children and Rowling's supposed pride at being behind it.

The e-mail further tried to whip up anti-Potter fury with the inclusion of an inflammatory Rowling quote from The Onion story.

"I think it's absolute rubbish to protest children's books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan," Rowling was said to have told a London Times reporter. "People should be praising them for that! These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son of God is a living hoax who will be humiliated when the rain of fire comes, and will suck the greasy cock of the Dark Lord while we, his faithful servants, laugh and cavort in victory."

Kolb, of course, chuckles at the notion that anyone took the story seriously.

...the fact that they do speaks volumes.

[manker]

If that's what actually happened in the article I posted, I might agree with you.

This article is great if you're a big fan of sarcasm - but it has little other value.

Actually it's satire - and there's a really good a point behind it. The fictitious woman who wrote the fictitious article is a typical straw dog that pro-lifers always conjure up to reinforce their points. She doesn't exist.

The fact that this story was so easily embraced and accepted as truth proves the point. In the end, nobody even seems to be bothered much whether the story is true or not, only if it agrees with their particular viewpoint. The religious right seems to fall for it most of all.

Another example:

from Wired News

And it seems that one reason many people fall for Onion stories is that they're too close to the subject matter to see humor in it.

"Some people are so desperate for proof of their point of view, they'll seize upon any old e-mail forward that floats by," Chris Taylor, the San Francisco bureau chief for Time magazine, said.

As an example, Carol Kolb, the editor of The Onion, points to a 2000 story titled, "Harry Potter Books Spark Rise in Satanism Among Children," which prompted some Christian groups to go nuts.

Indeed, an e-mail blasting Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling moved at light speed through fundamentalist groups online, decrying the books' satanic influence on children and Rowling's supposed pride at being behind it.

The e-mail further tried to whip up anti-Potter fury with the inclusion of an inflammatory Rowling quote from The Onion story.

"I think it's absolute rubbish to protest children's books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan," Rowling was said to have told a London Times reporter. "People should be praising them for that! These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son of God is a living hoax who will be humiliated when the rain of fire comes, and will suck the greasy cock of the Dark Lord while we, his faithful servants, laugh and cavort in victory."

Kolb, of course, chuckles at the notion that anyone took the story seriously.

...the fact that they do speaks volumes.

I really did get that you were highlighting the ludicrous article on the pro-lifers site countering the made up article.

I wanted to point out that there were faults on both sides. Both the protesters with their methods and babies being thought of by some as inconvenient.

My point really was that you don't have to be some kind of screaming sensationalist to believe that abortion is, essentially, wrong.

[Lilmiss]

To my mind, the heartwrenching decision to give up a child for adoption pales when compared with the heartwrenching decision to deprive the child of a chance to live.

I do believe abortion is wrong in the later stages of pregnancy and also as a quick way out option. But if you wanted the child so badly, yet knew you couldn't finacially or emotionally support it? It would break my heart having to give away something I'd grown so attached to.

You've no need to feel uncomfortable telling me your views as I've heard it all before, so you can't upset or shock me with them. I'm just feeling a bit high at the mo, and the first comment you posted made me pish myself laughing.

[manker]

Yeah, that's my point really. Knowing it would break MY heart would be a price I'd be willing to pay to give the child a chance to live and be happy with a different family.

Glad yer cool with my clumsy words, anyhow

[JPaul]

But if you wanted the child so badly, yet knew you couldn't finacially or emotionally support it? It would break my heart having to give away something I'd grown so attached to.

The options being to give him / her away or to take their life.

My opinions on this matter are well discussed here, the child's right to life outweighs your feeling of loss having to give it up.

[Lilmiss]

Are you saying that all terminations are morally wrong or is the morning after pill allowed? When exactly, does it become the childs right to live?

[Skweeky1]

Or when exactly is it a child?

I had an abortion myself about 1.5 years ago. I had no money, no job, my boyfriend at the time was emotionally blackmailing to give up the baby, I had no place to go at all.

No, I didn't want to give up the baby, but at that point in time what other option did I have?

You're all entitled to your opinions but don't judge other people on it if you've not been in the situation yourself.

[manker]

No-one is judging anyone.

All I'm saying is that if I was in that situation, I feel I'd do things differently and have posted reasons why I would do so.

Obviously, I can't be in that situation but I don't think it makes my opinion invalid, does it?