Reasons to abort affected by country's economic circumstance

I was watching a documentary about a man in Africa who had been born with a severely deformed leg and was flown to Canada to undergo surgery and be fitted with a prosthetic. It was one of those inspiring shows about how the boy grew up and how the prosthetic leg changed his life. But there was something in the documentary that struck out at me. During the interview with the mother the woman was saying how several of her friends told her she should poison the baby. That the baby would not be able to have a decent life in this very impoverished part of Africa.

Missing a leg doesn't sound that bad to us, but in a terribly poor country where the people struggle to eek out a living and survive, it might as well be a death sentence. This man could have never afforded surgery and a prosthetic leg on his own. (No one would hire him so he shined shoes by the roadside)

But this got me thinking. I keep reading how pro-choicers advocate abortion for any of the slightest reasons. Because the world is a difficult place, and many of these children would struggle too much, if born. But I came to the realization that this is relative. In a wealthier country with a higher standard of living, some of these defects or situational circumstances are not as bad, not enough to justify infanticide at least. There are surgeries, money to help make life's difficulties easier, people there to help provide for the child. But in a poor country, life is difficult enough even without any physical disability or less than optimal family circumstances. To the point that poisoning your baby may seem like a perfectly rational course of action. It's very sad and it's a devaluation of life, but that's how it is in certain parts of the world. Life is simply cheaper in some countries.

So I'm wondering, will there be an ever expanding list of reasons to justify abortion? If not earlier in the pregnancy, maybe in the second trimester? Some of these new genetic tests being developed can't practically be done until the second trimester. You might not know your child is predisposed to developing ADHD and learning difficulties until it has already reached 14 weeks. Could spot a deformed left hand or a missing leg. There might not be money for the lifetime of problems and those medical expenses. Better abort. Since the list of reasons to terminate is relative, will that list begin changing as the average standard of living goes down? (or alternatively maybe increases in the future)

 

24 weeks is the cut off point....and women do NOT need a signed note from you to have an abortion.

 

False. Pro choicers advocate for CHOICE. Rest of long winded post irrelevant.

 

In Arkansas they do


It's called the Bill Clinton rule.



.


.

 

Yup the choice to murder their child...


.

 

Yup good OP, the leftys are now bragging they are getting rid of down syndrome baby..

By killing all of them in the womb

.

 

In China (especially during the 80s and 90s) they killed/aborted female babies because the parents needed male offspring to take care of them in old age.
The reasoning sounds absurd to us, but it apparently in made sense to those people in China considering their circumstances.

https://web.archive.org/web/2004060...yn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/c-wnhol.html

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
24 weeks is the cut off point....and women do NOT need a signed note from you to have an abortion.

Duh, really! In Arkansas they need a note from you to get an abortion????!!! I don't think so.......it may be your wet dream but it isn't happening....

 

No, pro-choicers advocate choice for women & parents. That's always been the point of PP & what M. Sanger envisioned - putting the information about reproductive planning into the hands of the individuals &/or families directly involved. Of course, people may choose not to have children @ all, but that is their choice. Sanger herself didn't like abortion as a solution to family planning.

 

Not up on current events?


.

 

Not the one that says women in Arkansas need a note from you before they can get an abortion.....gosh, it wasn't in the news even in Arkansas....

 

Say what? Now you just remembered...

.

 

There's nothing to remember... there was never a law that said YOU had to give women permission to have an abortion......I don't know why you keep going on about something so ridiculous and unprovable. Was there a news story with your name specifying you as the "Note Writer for Women Wanting an Abortion" ???

 

Strong words. I suppose you feel that their lives are just as valuable as born children. Does your level of caring go beyond the written word? If so, please post what you do are doing for the precious children living without loving parents. Thank you.

 

Telling falsehoods will not help your cause.

 

What falsehoods

Justify murder all you want it's still murder and the courts agree when a person kills a woman with child in her womb..

It's double homicide.


.

 

As they should any time someone denies a woman her right to choose. No one is arguing that one should be allowed to end a woman's pregnancy against her will.

I noticed you skipped my question:

Does your level of caring go beyond the written word? If so, please post what you do are doing for the precious children living without loving parents. Thank you.

 

No, the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade explicitly carves out an exception - the fetus is not a person, & therefore abortion is not murder. This is a legal description, mouthing definitions from a dictionary isn't going to do any good - if the court doesn't recognize the authority of a dictionary in a court of law, that argument died aborning.

& then comes a cite of a court ruling - from some states - that have agreed to try murder/assault cases involving the death of a fetus as if the fetus were a person. First of all, that's a non sequitur - the first statement was the Supreme Court's decision in Roe is wrong, or can be ignored, or something similar. Then, when it's convenient, the rulings of some legislatures & duly upheld by the competent courts, can be cited as proof of the correctness of the position. It won't do.

 

It's a UTERUS and abortion is not murder. Saying it is is telling falsehoods.

 

It's a baby and justify it all you want, only the left denies science and thinks a fetus can become a grape fruit..

And once again if someone kills a mother with a baby in her womb it's double homicide

And here is a spelling definition for you

womb
wo͞om/
noun

1. the organ in the lower body of a woman or female mammal where offspring are conceived and in which they gestate before birth; the uterus.

.

 

A uterus is a baby??? On what planet????

No, anti choicers deny science.

Show me one person here saying a fetus can become a grapefruit (note that is one word, not two). Failure to do so will prove you are not being honest.

Not in my country.

Show me where I misspelled anything.

 

Prove it's not a double homicide in your country since you don't post where you live?


.

 

Just noticing you are ignoring my question. Post #14 What are you afraid of?

 

Canada.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how some anti aborts continue to repeat the same fallacy over and over - even after this obvious fallacy has been pointed out to them.

One of the main parts of the abortion debated is centered around whether or not a single cell, or clump of cells known as a fetus (especially in the early stages) is a living human/Person/Child.

You "assuming" this premise is then fallacy since you have not proven that your assumed premise is true.

Did you have an actual argument or is repeating a fallacy that has already been pointed out to you the limit of your capability ?