"James Midolo" <jmidolo@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:<4076519a$0$16583$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au>...
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0404082039.73275642@posting.google.com...
james_354@hotmail.com (James Midolo) wrote in message
news:<abee0dee.0404072041.6b1e9318@posting.google.com>...
===========================================================================
James Midolo wrote:
I think that it would be better for a child to be killed
before it is born than having it lead a terrible life. If
the mother is say, a drug-addict or a criminal, it is surely
better to have the baby aborted so that it won't become a
drug-addict or a criminal itself. If there will be no sup-
port for the baby, and the mother doesn't think that she
wants it, then she should be able to choose to have the
abortion. It is better than having the baby lead a terrible
life!
===========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a research organization
supported by Planned Parenthood. Thus they are very
"pro-choice," Their study indicated:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
* 2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.
* On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing
abortion:
-> 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere
with work, school or other responsibilities;
-> about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and
-> 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or
are having problems with their husband or partner.
Therefore, it's clear that the great majority of abortions
are done because the pregnant woman simply doesn't want to
face the inconvenience of a pregnancy and then a child which]
could force her into a "lifestyle" change.
===========================================================================
James Midolo wrote:
I agree that the mother doesn't want to face the inconvience.
However, if this is the mothers attitude, then *why* should
the baby be born and raised with a parent who really doesn't
want to raise the child? It would be far better to have the
child die than lead a terrible life.
===========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Is that the only choice? Are you aware that AGI states:
"49% of pregnancies among American women are
unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by
abortion."
Do you expect us to believe all 50% of the "unintended"
pregnancies which are NOT aborted lead to children who
lead lives so terrible they would be better off dead?
Remember, you're talking about 25% of the entire U.S.
population [50% of 49%].
Go to:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php
"False Dilemma: A limited number of options (usually two)
is given, while in reality there are more options. A
false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is
a common instance of this fallacy.
"Examples:
1. Either you're for me or against me.
2. America: love it or leave it.
You're trying to assert ALL unintended children will be
hated by their mothers and therefore lead terrible
lives. However, that's not how it works in real life.
Many women who hate the idea of getting pregnant when it
happens come to "bond" with the child when it arrives and
she holds it a few times.
Of course, there's always the option of putting the child
up for adoption. One of my sons and one of my granddaughters
are adopted -- and are deeply loved and valued by the entire
family. In addition, my son has met his birth mother, and
she is very proud of him and the grandchildren he brought her.
===========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Forget the "hearts and flowers sob stories." Yes, they
happen -- but those are small numbers. The real concern
are the millions of unborn children slaughtered for the
convenience of their parents.
===========================================================================
James Midolo wrote:
I thank those parents for being honest enough to make sure
that the child that they might have had won't have been
raised badly.
===========================================================================
Papa Jack responded:
Have you ever studied eugenics -- i.e., the selective
breeding of human beings? Margert Sanger, the founder
of Planned Parenthood was a major leader in the early
eugenics movement in America.
Of course, these were the same concepts the Nazis took
took to their logical conclusion -- racial cleansing.
James, would you prefer that only blond, blue-eyed parents
be allowed to have children?
===========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
BTW, the old "we have to kill them to keep them from being
unhappy" routine is old, stale, and totally unconvincing.
===========================================================================
James Midolo wrote:
Yes it is old. It has stood the test of time and no one can
argue against it
;)
===========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Of course you're clearly wrong. All sorts of folks can
and do argue against such a heartless, inhumane philosophy.
BTW, are you aware that one of the key arguments of the
Pro-Aborts prior to Roe v. Wade was similar to yours.
They reasoned that by allowing pregant women to kill their
unborn children this would reduce child abuse in the nation.
But the last 30 years have proven the opposite is true.
Child abuss stats are higher than ever -- and growing.
.
