Pro-Life Buddhist Gives Baby with Down Syndrome a Loving Home

By now you have probably heard the story of baby Gammy, a child with Down Syndrome and other serious health issues (including a hole in the heart). Gammy’s biological parents are Australian, but he’s spent his entire life in Thailand. The Telegraph explains why:

A Thai surrogate mother has received donations from across the world to provide medical treatment for her six-month-old boy, after an Australian couple refused to take the baby on learning he had Down syndrome.

Pattharamon Janbua, 21, was left to care for her critically ill son after the Australian couple who could not have a baby paid her about £6,400 to be a surrogate mother. 

The son, named Gammy, was separated from his twin sister, who is healthy and was taken by the Australians.

Pro-lifers are furious with the Australians (who remain anonymous at the time of this writing), pointing out that their behavior treats children as commodities; take the one you “ordered,” reject the “defective” one. Of course, that wasn’t their first choice; initially, when they learned that Gammy had Down Syndrome, they urged Ms. Janbua to have an abortion. Gammy survived because she bravely refused.

This case also raises all the same ethical issues that are raised in surrogate arrangements that don’t go awry, especially the concern for exploitation of impoverished women in the developing world.

As I said, you’ve probably heard this story already, and all the obvious condemnations have already been sounded. I’m writing only to point out two things:

1) Janbua rejected abortion because she’s a pro-life Buddhist. They don’t get much press, so I was happy to see such an admirable example in the news. Secular Pro-Life approves.

2) Janbua is caring for Gammy, and says: “I felt sorry for the boy. This is the adults’ fault, why does he have to endure this when it’s not his fault? Why does he have to be abandoned while the other baby has it easy? I feel sorry for him.”

I’m going to say something that might be controversial, but that’s never stopped me before, so: I don’t feel sorry for Gammy. At least, not for the reason Janbua does. Obviously I feel bad whenever a baby is sick, I do feel sorry for him on that count. But I don’t feel sorry for him because he didn’t go with his biological parents to Australia. I actually feel sorry for his sister.

A child needs love more than money. Gammy, clearly, is very much loved. He is loved by Janbua, and by the international community raising money for his medical treatment.

His sister may have a more privileged life when it comes to material things. I assume that’s what Janbua meant by “having it easy.” But she will grow up with parents who separated her from her brother, after trying to kill him didn’t work. That’s not unconditional love. Any love she receives from her parents is conditional: conditioned on her health, on the ease of raising her, and on who knows what else.

What do you think? Once the biological parents sought to abort Gammy and failed, would it have made sense for them to take him home? Or is he better off without them?

164 thoughts on “Pro-Life Buddhist Gives Baby with Down Syndrome a Loving Home”

  1. Ugh. There are probably hundreds of thousands of children whose siblings were killed because they had Down's Syndrome. Can you image the trauma? I do feel sorry for them. I think that counseling will be inundated with people soon who don't know how to process these emotions – knowing that their siblings were killed because they were sick. Ugh.

    Reply
  2. I agree with you 100%. I believe many don't think of the future repercussions of abortion on the dynamic of the rest of the family the rest of their lives. Wouldn't you think that, typically, if one child is aborted, parents (or worse, just their mother if she keeps the abortion(s) to herself) would be very negatively affected in how they treat the remaining children, given the burden of what they have done? Wouldn't you have to be rather hard-hearted to dispose of one or some of your children and keep others? Might you not feel guilty allowing some of them to live and killing others? Makes me sad thinking about it.

    Reply
  3. In this case, Gammy is better off without his biological parents. They have proved themselves unfit and should be investigated into their ability to parent his sister. BTW – it turns out his dad is a convicted pedophile, jailed twice for sexually assaulting girls under 13. Further reason to seek to protect Gammy's sister.

    But, not all parents who initially seek to abort then fail make bad parents. Have you heard this story about the dad who wanted his wife to abort their DS baby, but now is thankful for his precious daughter: espn.go.com/video/clip?id=8450488

    Reply
  4. "I think that counseling will be inundated with people soon who don't know how to process these emotions – knowing that their siblings were killed because they were sick."

    If that's the case, I just hope the counselors/therapists they see will be better equipped to deal with people's negative feelings about abortion than some of the therapists I've seen. I saw two different ones who thought the appropriate response to "Sometimes I feel really isolated and alone because I'm pro-life and it seems like everyone I go to school with is pro-choice" was to lecture me about how I should be pro-choice. One told me I was "moralistic," after literally all I'd told her was that I was pro-life. (I mentioned that to a subsequent therapist and he said it was unprofessional on her part and "borderline reportable behavior.") I hate to think of how they might have responded to someone trying to deal with pain from having an aborted sibling – probably lectured them about how the abortion was their mother's right and they weren't entitled to their own feelings about someone else's abortion. When you're feeling depressed and have a lot of emotions you don't know how to deal with, sometimes it takes a lot of effort just to find a therapist and go in for a visit, and it feels awful when the person who's supposed to help you actually contributes to your feelings of depression. It gives you another reason to believe that you really are all alone and there really is no one who cares or who can help you.

    My current therapist is pro-choice, but she understands where I'm coming from even if she doesn't agree with me and we get along well.

    Reply
  5. Docs in the U.S. pressure mother's to "explore their options" when finding out their is or probably is DS or trisomy baby in the way. Lived it myself then turned out my baby does not have DS. Can't imagine how it is in other countries. Pro secular life should check out the saving downs FB page. My baby is 3 years old and I still have anxiety issues about her pregnancy and delivery. This is deep. Many moms on FB fighting to get their all ready born children health care when docs refuse treat & insist baby is best to let die. Sorry guys awful subject for me. It is worse in England!

    Reply
  6. I must say hat I am very sorry to hear that. It is shocking that many therapists seem to put their political leanings ahead of what is best for their patients. Still, I'm glad to hear that you're in a better situation with your current therapist.

    Reply
  7. I wonder if the biological mother would have had an abortion if she was the one carrying the babies… And if she opted not to, after giving birth would she have left her son at the hospital? I think her not carrying these babies made it easier for her to disassociate herself from her own child. N sadly, no offense to anyone, but in this specific case, I see there was a reason why the mother was not able to carry her own children. There is nothing good about surrogacy or ivf or any of that " I'm gonna play the creator" stuff, it hurts people more than helps.

    Reply
  8. ** That's not unconditional love. Any love she receives from her parents is conditional: conditioned on her health, on the ease of raising her, and on who knows what else.**

    I hate to be the one to break this to you, but pretty much ALL love is conditional. The conditions vary from person to person. Most people, for instance, would not feel much love for a molar pregnancy or a flatworm. Jeffrey Dahmer's parents no longer felt much love for him after his crimes were discovered.

    You also haven't stated what the plan is for the Down's syndrome babies that you seem to want parents obligated to carry to term after the parents become so old they are unable to provide for it. Do the siblings have a 'duty' to care for it? On what grounds, since they were not the ones who had sex and therefore 'created' it? Do the taxpayers have to care for it? Let me guess, anyone but Myintx is probably potentially 'responsible'?

    Oh, and your insinuation that children are not a 'commodity' is a sheer fantasy. Try comparing how much it will cost in time and 'fees' to adopt a healthy white infant compared to a 9 year old mentally handicapped black child.

    Reply
  9. My mother has had an induced abortion, and she is a loving, wonderful person who cares deeply for me and for my siblings.

    Reply
  10. The mother of a friend of mine aborted a rubella pregnancy. The baby would have been born severely disabled. My friend is not bothered one bit by this.

    Reply
  11. I actually said on a FB page that those people are not real parents. Real parents have what you say-unconditional love- for their children. I am not saying its bad by itself to not be parent material, but then you should NOT conceive a child in any way shape or form. This couple is bizarre for acting like they want kids , going out of their way to have them -I'm assuming they were having problems conceiving (unless the woman just didn't want to deal with pregnancy and she's rich so she doesn't have to <_< ) then wanting to abort one of them. I actually fear for the other child as well. I hope that girl in time finds out she has a brother and that her parents tried to kill him, and goes on to be pro life. She deserves to know the situation, especially for her own safety.

    Reply
  12. Hate to break it to you, but your hatred for people who don't fit into your perfect little world does not dictate their worth. Actually taxes do go to help the disabled because they are still citizens and have rights. We have medicaid as well as various charities , and special education programs in schools also. And I bet they won't stop.

    Maybe YOUR love is conditional, (therefor I hope to all that is good you do not have children, you'd probably kill them if they ever needed braces, glasses, or turned out to have dyslexia), but even when someone has done wrong , deep down you can still love them . It may be a sad kind of love, like you wish you didn't, but it's still there.

    People who actually claim they want children should appreciate whatever child they are given. Children are NOT commodities, they take investing in both emotionally and financially sure- but it does not make them a commodity or an object. They are flesh and blood just like you and me. And they don't deserve to be hated on or killed when they didn't do anything to anyone that would justify it.

    As for who takes care of them- hopefully they will have people in their lives who LOVE them and want to help, that's what family is supposed to be about. Don't want to risk having a disabled kid? Don't conceive children cuz it can happen.

    Reply
  13. *grumbles* Some people just want to try and control all aspects of nature and it's
    getting more and more disturbing. The lack of love and compassion at times is staggering. Someone should DEFINITELY not have kids if they can't actually appreciate whatever child nature/what have you gives them.

    Reply
  14. Hey, didn't you say that you would force an 8yo victim of rape to give birth? And that if little girls don't want to get pregnant from rape, they should just get pre-emptive hysterectomies?

    How compassionate of you.

    Reply
  15. What I say is true. Stop accusing people of trolling just because you are too dimwitted to come up with an actual argument

    Reply
  16. Children are not commodities? Uh huh. Hatred has nothing to do with it. Tell me, hypothetically, lets say you (if you are a woman) or your wife (if you are a man) for whatever reason needs to have IVF done. The doctor manages to create 2 embryos, one is normal, the other has Down's syndrome. He says that for various reasons having to do with your (or your wife's) health, he can only implant one embryo. Do you specifically choose the one with Down's syndrome? Do you flip a coin to be 'fair'? Or do you choose the normal embryo and then gerrymander your situation to somehow be 'different' than that of other people who hear they have a Down's syndrome embryo.

    And, btw, my hatred most certainly does NOT dictate the 'worth' or lack thereof, of any person or objects, but it doesn't change facts. Severely deformed embryos and infants are a very bad investment, genetic and evolutionarywise, and until very recently, were a danger to those around them. I didn't create those facts, nature did so go take your sad little bitch up with Charles Darwin. But the opposite is also true, your sad feelies about Down's syndrome infants does not dictate that parents must take on such a child if they don't want to.

    And another thing, sweetcheeks. Don't even fucking TRY out-holy ME or to accuse ME of being the sort to 'evade responsibility' or 'kill a child because it needed braces or glasses'. I happen to have a mentally handicapped younger brother and have willingly taken on the responsibility of being the one who will care for him when my mother passes away, which will probably happen in about 10-15 years. My taking on that responsibility, or the fact that I love my brother still does not change the facts that severely handicapped people are a bad genetic and evolutionary investment, a danger to those around them (until very recently), nor does it give me the right to require others to take on such a responsibility against their will.

    Reply
  17. Pro-lifers are furious with the Australians (who remain anonymous at the
    time of this writing), pointing out that their behavior treats children
    as commodities; take the one you "ordered," reject the "defective" one.

    The main thing that this case proves is that adoption is not the panacea so many anti-choicers would have you believe.

    Reply
  18. When a parent is unable to provide the good life a future child deserves, termination is the most responsible and loving thing they can do for the zef. Spitting them out into substandard life is neither loving nor responsible.

    Reply
  19. Well, it seems that it should be fairly evident; anti-choicers are always yelling about how "somebody out there wants your baby" (when there is no baby in evidence) … and these people paid (although they have not paid in full) a surrogate to have twins for them, only taking the perfectly healthy one.

    It looks like it is not true that "somebody out there wants your baby" in 100 percent of the cases, now, doesn't it? And, in this case, the "somebody out there" were the actual parents of the Downs infant … and they dumped him on the surrogate.

    Reply
  20. I am working on the assumption that I am unlikely to actually convince you that criminalizing abortion is immoral, just as you are unlikely to convince me that inducing abortion is immoral. Therefore, I am mostly arguing specific subissues and side issues.

    The issue at hand is whether Gammy's sister is in a bad position because she's being raised by parents who wanted to abort her brother, or (more generally) whether an abortion leads to the parents raising the aborted z/e/f's siblings badly due to guilt. This issue is about the siblings, not the aborted z/e/f.

    Your objection may be relevant to the overarching debate, but it is not relevant to this particular subissue.

    Reply
  21. I not only read this article, but the other articles in legitimate media about the matter. The woman is caring for him because she has no choice. She has been abandoned, with payment still due. She is an impoverished woman who will now struggle to care for a special needs child because that child's actual parents just dumped him on her.

    Reply
  22. No, but I don't think an unhappy childhood is worse than non-existence, and besides who are you to make that decision on another s behalf?

    Reply
  23. She could have aborted him then but she didn't did she, and the article above shows people have been sending in money to help. Anyway this point doesn't address the fact that there are thousands out there who want to adopt but can't, and thousands of aborted children they could have given a loving home to. Do the maths, or 'math' as you say in America

    Reply
  24. The parents are ultimately responsible. Its their choice.

    Though I do consider it to be abusive to bring a child into the world as mere slave labour, which some fundies do.

    Many people have children not for the child's sake, but out of narcissism.

    Reply
  25. She could have aborted him

    No, she couldn't … because she was being paid to be a surrogate.

    Anyway this point doesn't address the fact that there are thousands out
    there who want to adopt but can't, and thousands of aborted children
    they could have given a loving home to. Do the maths, or 'math' as you
    say in America

    YOU do the maths, jerkwad. There are more than 100K children available for adoption in the US *right now,* most of whom will age out of the system without ever having permanent homes. acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-20

    So, why aren't those "hundreds of thousands of couples" bothering with the children who are already available?

    Looks like the maths don't quite add up, eh, Billy-boy?

    Reply
  26. 'No, she couldn't … because she was being paid to be a surrogate.'

    Oh for god's sake – read the article, they wanted her to abort the child with Down's syndrome.

    'YOU do the maths, jerkwad. There are more than 100K children available for adoption in the US *right now,* most of whom will age out of the system without ever having permanent homes.,

    I can only comment on the UK but I can say our adoption service is very poorly run and t wouldn't surprise me if the same weren't true here. The one thing you have singularly failed to demonstrate is that growing up even in care is worse than never existing at all. You are in effect saying that every single child currently in care would better off dead and no hope of happiness or fulfillment, which is rubbish and encourages an uncaring attitude to those in need or help onr in some kind of distress. And 'Jerkwad' really? You do realise resorting to insults indicates a lack of sound arguments to back up a point, don't you?

    Reply
  27. "The one thing you have singularly failed to demonstrate is that growing up even in care is worse than never existing at all"

    Only your opinion. The huge numbers of suicides, attempted suicides, crime, mental illness and non-productive lives of children who had horrible childhoods show they are NOT as attached to their lives as you are to yours.

    It's not YOUR decision to force someone else to a horrible life without their consent. Every child should have the right NOT to be put in undue misery, and only their parent should make the decision for them. Not you, me or the government.

    Reply
  28. Total BS, every word. No one's denying lives like these can and do end up in tragedy, but you are saying that is an inevitability, and that anyone who is heading in that direction is beyond hope of saving. Logically then we should just humanely euthanise every baby or indeed child that ends up in care.

    And why should it be the parent's decision? What right do they have to pronounce whether their child, another independent human being, lives or dies? This isn't like deciding what school to send them to or when to let them start dating you know. And of course your assuming that the decision is always being made with the child's best interest in mind, and not for selfish reasons by the parents.

    Reply
  29. The fact that FEW may somehow beat the odds does not justify knowingly condemning many to certain misery. Condemning even one person to misery is still wrong, even if there was a chance many would beat the odds.

    It's the parent's decision because they are the ones RESPONSIBLE for providing for the child. Only the pregnant woman knows whether she is able/willing to provide the love and resources the future child needs & deserves. If she is unable to provide those, she should have the right to NOT subject a child to life of misery.

    Reply
  30. 'The fact that FEW may somehow beat the odds does not justify knowingly condemning many to certain misery. Condemning even one person to misery is still wrong, even if there was a chance many would beat the odds.'

    You don't know the figures, and you don't knwo who will make it and who won't. It's not set in stone for anyone. The point they are all individuals and you don't know what decisions they will make what experiences they will have, so you can't make any prediction about for them.

    'It's the parent's decision because they are the ones RESPONSIBLE for providing for the child. Only the pregnant woman knows whether she is able/willing to provide the love and resources the future child needs & deserves. If she is unable to provide those, she should have the right to NOT subject a child to life of misery.'

    Again you're talking about these things as if set in stone when they are not (presumably to try tenuously to justify the inherent selfishness of selective abortion, otherwise you do just have a irretrievably dark view of existence). You haven't addressed my other point. By your logic surely we should just humanely euthanise all children in care?

    'It's the parent's decision because they are the ones RESPONSIBLE for providing for the child. Only the pregnant woman knows whether she is able/willing to provide the love and resources the future child needs & deserves. If she is unable to provide those, she should have the right to NOT subject a child to life of misery.'

    Then she can seek to have parents ready to adopt in advance.

    Reply
  31. No, dumbass, that's not what I said at all. What I said was that the "hundreds of thousands couples who want to adopt" must not want to adopt that badly, or there would be NO children aging out of the system.

    Reply
  32. You are doing a fabulous job of demonstrating how easy it is to be an anti-choice male, Billy-boy. After all, you can just wave your big dumb paw and demand that women risk life and health with gestation (which is not a state of wellness), knowing that you will NEVER be affected by that which you support. Pretty damned convenient, isn't it?

    Reply
  33. All figures (from everywhere) show that the numbers of children needing care are FAR GREATER than the numbers of responsible caring adults available to provide care, and as a result, there's a huge epidemic of child neglect and abuse. Here in the US a child is abused every 10 seconds, 4 or more children die from abuse every day, over 100K children languish in the system, hundreds die in the system each year and thousands age out never getting adopted. The numbers are dismal (and far worse in some other countries where the children are just thrown out into the streets), and adding more unwanted children only makes things worse for ALL children.

    "you don't knwo who will make it and who won't. It's not set in stone for anyone."

    Doesn't matter. We DO know with certainty that the system cannot handle all unwanted children, and that many WILL suffer and some WILL die. We just don't know which ones. So what? You are proposing throwing all of them into the ring for the slim chance that some would make it. What about the ones that don't? Why should they pay with a lifetime of suffering just for the off chance a few others may get a reasonable life?

    "The point they are all individuals and you don't know what decisions they will make what experiences they will have, so you can't make any prediction about for them."

    The mere fact that they were UNWANTED is enough to predict their life is highly unlikely to be good. The fact that SOME may somehow "like" their miserable life, does not justify condemning others who DON'T want that kind of life to the same fate.

    "Again you're talking about these things as if set in stone when they are not"

    Again, the numbers of children needing care are far greater than the numbers of responsible caring adults available to provide care. Change those numbers first and THEN you may have a point. Not now.

    "You haven't addressed my other point. By your logic surely we should just humanely euthanize all children in care?"

    -When a woman chooses to give birth while abortion was available, she makes a voluntary COMMITMENT to the future child, to always protect & care for that child for as long as necessary. I think that commitment should be tantamount to a legal contract, and people who chose to breed should be held RESPONSIBLE for the well-being of their children. In other words, children currently alive should be protected & cared for, and if the parents shirked their responsibility they should be held liable for it.

    -That said, IF there is no responsible caring adult available to protect & care for a particular child, such a child is better off being euthanized now than being abandoned in a hostile word at the mercy of predators to be raped tortured & slowly killed.

    Reply
  34. The parents are the ones who will be tasked with raising the child and providing it with a quality, or lack of quality, of life. It's up to them. And adoption is not the panacea you think it is.

    Reply
  35. Once forced into life, it's too late for those children who would rather have been aborted than live a miserable life. THEY have no say in it, and are forced to shut up & take whatever abuse dished upon them.

    For those who would rather have any life than non-existence, it wouldn't really matter. Once aborted they AREN'T THERE to tell the difference, and they never know they were aborted either.

    So who gets the really raw deal here? The ones deprived of a life, or the ones forced into a life they didn't want?

    Reply
  36. Again, who are you to decide whether a life is worth living or not? You are denying agency to those children, implying that they are completely helpless and unable to escape, well they're not. The point is they are all individuals who should be treated as such, not as an homogeneous mass to be written off as you are so keen to do. and what is more you are dodging the fact that our responsibility is to improve the childcare system so as to improve their life chances. (though of course being a pro-choicer I imagine taking responsibility rather than the easy way out is a foreign concept to you)

    Reply
  37. 'That said, IF there is no responsible caring adult available to protect & care for a particular child, such a child is better off being euthanized now than being abandoned in a hostile word at the mercy of predators to be raped tortured & slowly killed.'

    So who makes that decision? Don't you think if there really was a scenario where the ony option was a care home full of paedophiles it might be incumbent on the individual deciding whether the child lives or dies to, I don't know, DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PAEDOPHILES, rather than kill the child? Don't you think that would be the sane, responsible, non-cowardly thing to do? Don't you think that would be a better way to fuflfil their responsibilities to said child? Again, easy way out, that's what the pro-choice movement is all about.

    'When a woman chooses to give birth while abortion was available, she makes a voluntary COMMITMENT to the future child, to always protect & care for that child for as long as necessary. I think that commitment should be tantamount to a legal contract, and people who chose to breed should be held RESPONSIBLE for the well-being of their children. In other words, children currently alive should be protected & cared for, and if the parents shirked their responsibility they should be held financially liable for it.'

    Yeah, a child is 'currently alive' the second the sperm and the egg merge, so from that moment they have inherent rights and their parents and society have inherent responsibilites towards thrm, not some random point afterwards.

    Are there problems with the way we care for homeless childreen? Yeah, so deal with the problems, don't discard the children because it's easier.

    Reply
  38. Chaotic: Do not even fucking TRY to outholy me or accuse me of 'lack of compassion'. Given that I have voluntarily taken on the responsibility of caring for a mentally handicapped brother once my mother dies, I demonstrably have about a million times the 'responsibility' and compassion of you or Myintx, who do nothing but gerrymander out of responsibility yourselves but tr to impose it on others because of your sad feelies. I also have about a million times the integrity, because having – unlike you or Myintx – taken on such responsibility rather than gerrymandering out of it, if ANYONE has the right to demand that others be 'responsible', I do. But guess what? I don't demand that others take on such a burden, because I'm not a fucking spoiled holier-than-thou brat who presumes to think people should be punished for having sex, or have what is an incredibly heavy burden put on them because of my sad feelies.

    Reply
  39. Of course something should be done about pedophiles and whatever other predators. But what about the children who suffer at their hands in the meantime, until whatever future time when that problem gets fixed?

    Your solution is to keep adding more & more NEW children to the system, and let them (and the existing children) suffer relentlessly at the hands of abusive/neglectful adults until some day, perhaps, maybe, the system just might get fixed.

    I see something GLARINGLY wrong with that. Namely, you are knowingly condemning innocent vulnerable individuals to certain suffering right now.

    As I said, fix the system first. THEN you just might have an argument. Right now, you are just promoting more suffering.

    Reply
  40. Let it be known – I've taken on the responsibility for my mentally handicapped brother and love him dearly, but am a psychopath because I don't try to impose responsibilities on others.

    Reply
  41. Being abused/neglected/starved/raped, and being subjected to a miserable life and slow painful death, are certainly far worse than being aborted before you could ever feel anything.

    Reply
  42. Frankly, you're trying to argue with nature. It would be extremely unusual in any species, other than human beings (or even in our own species until fairly recently) for a mother to NOT abandon or kill a severely deformed infant. Stop babbling about 'responsibility' unless YOU have either taken 'responsibility' for a handicapped person yourself, or are willing to do so. I've seen the government funded institutions where such people are warehoused because people with sad feelies like you prevented their parents from getting an abortion, and an abortion would have been preferable. Be grateful our species has come up with something like abortion rather than the abandonment or infanticide that is the norm in nature, and if you don't like it, rather than whining, study medicine and find a way to prevent birth defects.

    Reply
  43. Once again, the decision is NOT mine or yours, but that of the woman carrying the fetus.

    I am not in the business of deciding this for other women. Neither should YOU.

    Also as I said before, improve the system FIRST and then you may have a point. Right now, you got nothing.

    Reply
  44. William Cable is overcome with existential angst. Better that a thousand children should suffer just so one might have a good life.

    Reply
  45. Remember, existence is always wonderful, even if you are sitting in your own shit and piss all day, being abused by your caretakers:

    youtube.com/watch?v=0ah_W9tS-8c

    Reply
  46. You have a very warped view.

    1. Not everyone who who hasn't an unwanted pregnancy then makes terrible parents, some of them in fact become grateful for their children

    2. Many unwanted children will be adopted by loving families

    3. Not every child who grows up in care will be damaged.

    These children all have a right to live and they do not owe anything to anyone else and no one else has the right to take away their lives on behalf of others who might hypothetically not want to be born.

    4. Not everyone who does have an unhappy childhood will end up having an irrevocably miserable life because of it, many will move on or at least bring good things into their lives

    5. It is wrong to ever assume that someone life is irrevocably miserable as you do. Indeed presumably logically you must be against suicide hotlines and other such measures as by your logic these people are all better off ending their miserable lives.

    Your world view would dictate that we euthanise any child who has been abused, because of the trauma they will face, and suicide pills should be available on prescription. Your whole twisted world view is nothing more than a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

    Reply
  47. You have no right to assume any of those things on behalf of anyone. Anyone could end up experiencing misery in their life, shall just sterilise all of humanity now and have done with it?

    Reply
  48. Civilisation is contrary to human nature, deal with it. Again, improve their care facilities don't kill them. Abortion is exactly the same thing as infanticide, as it's acceptance represents a step backwards in civilisation.

    'Stop babbling about 'responsibility' unless YOU have either taken 'responsibility' for a handicapped person yourself, or are willing to do so.'

    Yawn, this is such a tired pathetic argument. You are responsible for your own children, end of. My pointing that out to you doesn't place anymore responsibility on me. You would justify the euthanising of an older child or person who was suddenly disabled or brain damaged would you, even though it would put a strain on their loved ones? Life is unfair, society helps where it can but the fact is difficulties will still strike different individuals at different times, deal with it.

    Reply
  49. 'No, dumbass, that's not what I said at all (which you know). What I said was that the "hundreds of thousands couples who want to adopt" must not want to adopt that badly, or there would be NO children aging out of the system.'

    There are various difficulties, bureaucratic etc, that hold up the process, and whilst it will never be perfect it can be improved, and I say again, it is not for you or I to decide on begalf of someone else that their life will not be worth living, however inauspicious they're beginnings.

    'Your existential angst is duly noted, though. Most people outgrow that at about age 12.'

    They also usually outgrow insults and passive aggressive jibes by 12 as well. Let me know when you reach that age and I'll send you a birthday card.

    Reply
  50. And now we're on to the male bashing, are you going to use every discredited pro-choice cliche today? It isn't even relevant to the issue we're discussing which is whether the parents have the right to judge the value of the life the child is going to lead, not bodily autonomy.

    In response to that though, if a woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy, abortion should be an option. Is pregnancy a potentially unpleasant and inconvenient experience I will never go through? Yes. Is that unfair? Yes. Is that the baby's fault? No. The only thing worse than dumping most of the responsibility on someone who only deserves some of the responsibility is dumping all of the responsibility on the one person who is completely blameless for the situation.

    Reply
  51. Selfishness or lack of resources when it comes to disabled children. Sad but true. Doesn't mean we as a society don't have a responsibility to those children to give them best start in life we can. As for black children, well that's a hangover of the racial divisions in your country. In mine the problem is actually uber-pc social workers being unwilling to place black kids with white families in case the black child feels uneasy about it.

    Reply
  52. Why werent those 100k children adopted as babies? If there is such a demand, they should not be in a situation where they are even close to aging out of the system

    Reply
  53. Why should lack of resources be a problem? Pro life is for forcing impoverished women to give birth even if the infant will require millions of dollars of care for the rest of its life.

    Reply
  54. The system will never be perfect, but it is the case it is considerably less perfect than it could be. Besides don't just write off of all of those 100,000 children. Will some of them have unhappy lives, yes, probably, but it is not inevitable for any of them, and there are other things that could be done to help them. Euthanising them is not the answer and denies their inherent personhood.

    Reply
  55. There is no guarantee, however. Doctors can't predict with absolute certainty whether or not the pregnancy and birth will kill maim and injure the pregnant person.

    And birth itself is torturous.

    Reply
  56. Because it wouldn't be fair on them when they don't have an automatic connection to said child, obviously. I said society, dudebro. Individually ideally but collectively as well. Again, presumably you would advocate the compulsory euthanising of those severely disabled later in life?

    Reply
  57. 'Doctors can't predict with absolute certainty whether or not the pregnancy and birth will kill maim and injure the pregnant person.'

    Pro-choicers say stuff like this yet still act as excited and supportive of the rest of us when a woman has a wanted pregnancy. Don't seem too concerned about then do you? Don't feel the need to warn them of the terrible risks they're taking, do you? Kill and maiming can almost always be predicted in advance and then an abortion or Cesarean can be initiated. Compare that to the certain death of the child in abortion, your argument just doesn't work.

    Reply
  58. How do you know most of them won't? What qualifies as a life not worth living? You can't make blanket descriptions like that. And again, you are encouraging people to assume people in unfortunate circumstances are doomed. You are making despair amongst them more likely, as well as indifference amongst the more fortunate. Yours is the world view that whould rightly be confined to antiquity by now.

    Reply
  59. People like you usually want to emphasise the lack of connection between the parents and unborn child. Flip-flopping much. You are continuing to assert there is an assumption to be made here. No one, repeat no one, has the right to make that decision on someone else's behalf, end of.

    Reply
  60. Post partum hemorrhage cannot be predicted. Neither can an obstertric fistula and other birth injuries. And then there is eclampsia, which can go from a healthy looking pregnancy to bleeding from every orifice overnight. Then there is birth PTSD and auto immune disorders brought about by the pregnancy. Permanent diabetes and posy partum psychosis and depression.

    And all women should know the risks. And if a woman wants to take the risk it is her choice and ONLY she can decide how much risk she will expose herself to. Not you and not the government.

    Reply
  61. The connection is the very reason that the parents should be the only ones to make the decision
    patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/08/katlyn-river-loved-and-grieved-a-story-of-late-term-abortion.html

    Reply
  62. Your chances of getting eaten by a shark are tiny. That doesn't give anyone the right to throw you into shark infested water to save a life!

    Reply
  63. Reality and facts are hard, aren't they, Billy?

    Let me know when I can send that card to you. I'll also arrange to have someone read it to you.

    Reply
  64. Thanks for doing a fab job of proving my point. You're very blase about the risks you expect others to assume. My wanted pregnancy nearly killed me 28 years ago, and I will NOT go through that again. You don't get to decide how much risk anyone other than yourself will take. End of report.

    Reply
  65. I will address your post point by point, and would appreciate it if you
    would address my points that you'd been ignoring.

    " Not everyone who who hasn't an unwanted pregnancy then makes terrible parents, some of them in fact become grateful for their children"

    Sure some do. What about those who don't, and take their frustration out on the children? Why is it ok for those children to suffer?

    " Many unwanted children will be adopted by loving families"

    And many don't. Some never get adopted, some die in foster care, others get
    adopted by neglectful/abusive families and end up raped/tortured/killed. It's ALWAYS a gamble. Why is it ok for those children to suffer?

    " Not every child who grows up in care will be damaged."

    But many do. The same for the rest of your examples. SOME may beat the odds but many don't. Where's your concern for those that DON'T make it?

    "These children all have a right to live and they do not owe anything to anyone else and no one else has the right to take away their lives on behalf of others who might hypothetically not want to be born."

    Every child has a right NOT to be abused, neglected or tortured. If the only life available is a horrible one,
    they should have the right NOT to be subjected to such a life. If I were the unwanted child, I would NOT appreciate being forced into a substandard life. If I were the mother, I would NOT appreciate my child being forced into a substandard life against my will.

    You have no right to make life decisions for other people and their children. The only occasion you might remotely have a say in it is IF you yourself are prepared to adopt and care for that unwanted child and provide
    them with all resources & love they deserve. If not, you have no business forcing them into a miserable life.

    Reply
  66. And YOU have no right to assume everyone has the same unhealthy attachment to life (and unhealthy fear of death) that you seem to have, and everyone would prefer a crappy life to no life. Many would beg to differ.

    Once again, *I* am not making decisions for others, YOU are. I say leave the decision upto the party responsible for raising the child, i.e. the pregnant woman. You propose to take the choice away from her and force all children to life whether they like it or not. So it's you who's imposing your views on others here.

    Sterilizing all humanity is a GREAT idea! Unfortunately the collective greed & stupidity of humankind won't allow that. So we have to go with the next best thing, which is to try and protect the more vulnerable members of our society (children, animals, mentally disabled) from abuse & exploitation. As long as there aren't enough responsible adults to care for them, euthanasia IS a viable option to protect them.

    IF one day you can magically provide enough responsible caring adults to care for ALL our unwanted children, that would be the day you have an ethical argument against abortion. Not today. Even then, you still won't have a LEGAL argument, since there's the little matter of bodily autonomy.

    Reply
  67. **Civilisation is contrary to human nature, deal with it. Again, improve their care facilities don't kill them.**

    In other words, you babble about 'responsibility, but you shuffle it off onto 3rd parties, rather than taking any yourself, then congratulate yourself on your sad feelies and how holy you are.

    **You are responsible for your own children, end of.**

    Uh huh. You would not BELIEVE how many times people who talk the talk but haven't got the grit to walk the walk babble this, too, and count on the odds that THEY will never become pregnant with a severely handicapped child, but when they do, then they do a complete 180, and suddenly want an abortion rather than sacrificing their other children's college education and be cleaning up after a 40 year old man goes to the toilet when they are in their 70's.

    You do not have the right to tell other people to be 'responsible' for a severely disabled child unless you are living that responsibility yourself. Which I am, and you're not, and I say that that is not a responsibility to be imposed on anyone because of your sad feelies. End of.

    Reply
  68. Not a valid analogy. Your chances of getting eaten by a shark in shark infested waters would be considerably higher than normal. Even in pregnancy the chances of pregnancy related death or injury are small, and besides, remember in your analogy you are responsible for putting the person in shark infested waters.

    Reply
  69. 'It's up to the parents to decide whether or not they want that responsibility'

    No it isn't. The minute they consented to activity they knew could lead to conception they accepted the responsibility.

    Reply
  70. You were unlucky. You were also rare. If you don't want to go through it again, get yourself sterilised, otherwise enter a convent. If you intend to keep having sex otherwise, you accept the responsibility, end of.

    Reply
  71. 'Once again, *I* am not making decisions for others, YOU are. I say leave the decision upto the party responsible for raising the child, i.e. the pregnant woman.'

    NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT!! The mother has no right to decide whether the child's life will be worth living, not does any other human being other than the child itself.

    'You propose to take the choice away from her and force all children to life whether they like it or not. So it's you who's imposing your views on others here.'

    'Whether they like it or not' They don't know yet, how can they make that choice yet? They have the right to an opportunity at life and make something of it. Might that not happen? Yes, but that's the same for every child.

    'Sterilizing all humanity is a GREAT idea! Unfortunately the collective greed & stupidity of humankind won't allow that.'

    And so you're true colours are revealed. A nihilistic misanthrope. Well guess what, some of us choose to actually make something of life and humanity, no matter how hard or imperfect we may be. You would take the coward's way out.

    'Even then, you still won't have a LEGAL argument, since there's the little matter of bodily autonomy.'

    When you do something which you could make someone's life dependent on your body for a temporary period, in a way your body has evolved to accomodate, you waive the right to bodily autonomy in that regard.

    Given your clear misanthropy, nihilism and determination to assume the worst for unwanted children (no doubt to assuage your guilt for killing them) there's clearly no point continuing the conversation beyond this point.

    Reply
  72. 'In other words, you babble about 'responsibility, but you shuffle it off onto 3rd parties, rather than taking any yourself, then congratulate yourself on your sad feelies and how holy you are.'

    I'm not shifting on to third parties though, that's where the responsibility belongs.

    'Uh huh. You would not BELIEVE how many times people who talk the talk but haven't got the grit to walk the walk babble this, too, and count on the odds that THEY will never become pregnant with a severely handicapped child, but when they do, then they do a complete 180, and suddenly want an abortion rather than sacrificing their other children's college education and be cleaning up after a 40 year old man goes to the toilet when they are in their 70's.'

    So people can hypocrites, this is an argument how? Improve state help for disabled people, that is the answer, and anyway it isn't like that with Down's Syndrome which is what we're discussing here.

    'You do not have the right to tell other people to be 'responsible' for a severely disabled child unless you are living that responsibility yourself. Which I am, and you're not, and I say that that is not a responsibility to be imposed on anyone because of your sad feelies. End of.'

    Again, pointing out the responsibility of others puts no further responsibility on me. What about people who become disabled or brain damaged later in life and need to be cared for by their loved ones? Is it ok to euthanise them if their loved ones don't feel up to it?

    Reply
  73. No actual argument there, is there? Just assertion. Clearly you are psychologically dependent on getting the last word, so I'll quit flogging this dead horse and let you have it and get on with something worthwhile.

    Reply
  74. Consent is not a one time thing. It can be withdrawn.

    And from reading your other posts here, it would appear that your opposition to abortion is based on a desire to control female sexuality.

    Reply
  75. 1.2 million women are permanently injured from pregnancy per year in the USA alone.

    The fact remains, pregnancy is not a state of health, and we do not force people to risk life and limb to preserve life. No one can claim your body as life support without your explicit, ongoing consent.

    Reply
  76. Nope. If the parents want to take on the responsibility and offer as high a quality of life and love for their child then good for them. But to bring a child into this world just to impose suffering is not noble, it is downright cruel. And embryos don't suffer, they don't even have a self, lacking a functional brain and all. Abortion prevents future suffering

    Reply
  77. You were unlucky. You were also rare.

    Nope. Pregnancy-related complications kill women all over the world, every single day — including in the developed world. The US is #50 in maternal mortality, and getting worse every day.

    If you don't want to go through it again, get yourself sterilised

    I obtained a tubal ligation. Should it fail, there will be an abortion so fast your ugly head will spin right off.

    I'm not Catholic, and I'm married. The rest of your ignorant rant merely demonstrates your feeble-mindedness.

    Reply
  78. Dumbass, when a woman wants to be pregnant, we're happy for her. When she doesn't want to be pregnant, we're happy that she doesn't have to be.

    The difference between me and thee is that I support ALL choices: use of contraception or not, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing alone or with the partner of one's choice. You are a NO-CHOICER: gestation, period.

    Kill and maiming can almost always be predicted in advance

    Nope. Every pregnancy as the potential for complications, and in the majority of pregnancies those complications actually arise. Many of them are life-threatening … and not one of them will ever affect YOU, which brings me back to my original point.

    It's very easy to be an anti-choice male.

    Reply
  79. The maternal death rate is tiny, is constantly getting lower through medical advances,

    Nope. washingtonpost.com/local/maternal-deaths-in-childbirth-rise-in-the-us/2014/05/02/abf7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

    Quote: Maternal deaths related to childbirth in the United States are nearly at
    the highest rate in a quarter century, and a woman giving birth in
    America is now more likely to die than a woman giving birth in China,
    according to a new study.

    Reply
  80. Consent is not ongoing, William. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. By your logic, consenting to get into an automobile means you have consented to being in an accident on the M6 and thus should not seek medical treatment for your injuries. After all, you got into the car of your own free will and now you should pay the consequences.

    Reply
  81. Now you are going round & round. All you did was repeat your original points without addressing mine.

    Here’s your argument in a nutshell: The slim chance that a few would beat the
    odds is enough to force all unwanted children to life, KNOWING that many
    would end up neglected/abused/tortured/killed. Horrible suffering of
    many is worthwhile just so a few can appreciate life (or just to have ANY life). What about those who are abused/neglected/killed along the way? They don’t matter. Only the ones who make it matter, and the ones
    who DON’T, should shut up & take it.

    And you are calling ME selfish? Hilarious! Sounds like you are just another bitter man who can’t stand to see women having sex, and don’t mind punishing children in your desire to punish women.

    BTW who are you to say “no one has that right”? Who are you to force so many new people into life without providing for them? Creating
    children and abandoning them in a hostile world is willful premeditated child
    abuse, and you call others selfish? If you cannot feed & provide for children, you have no business breeding, OR forcing other people’s
    children to life. It’s that simple.

    The rest your response is an emotional rant without any logical rebuttal to what I said.

    You keep repeating “right to life” as if it is an established legal fact. NO. Zefs have no right to life. As long as they live inside another person, their life or death is upto the person whose body they
    are using.

    Reply
  82. I responded in detail to your other response, where you said "this discussion is over". All forced-birthers tend to say that when faced with logic. If you are worth your salt, and actually believe the crap you spew, you might want to try & defend it.

    It's also amusing how, once you run out of rebuttals you tend to accuse others of "being selfish & sleeping around" when it's YOU who keeps poking your nose into other people's business and perpetuate child abuse in the process.

    Reply
  83. Such a basic fallacy. No one else's life is dependent on you not getting treatment is it in your scenario. And crashing is not the point or objective of driving. Pregnancy is an inherent purpose of sex. Not the only one, not an inevitable one, contraception is fine, but you can't moan when you do something which is design to result in a certain outcome results in that outcome.

    Reply
  84. See my reply above. And please don't ttry to smear me because your getting desperate. I have no desire to control anyone's sexuality. I'm all for contraception and improving contraception. I just don't believe in killing people for the sake of convenience.

    Reply
  85. '1.2 million women are permanently injured from pregnancy per year in the USA alone.'

    What does 'permanently injured' mean? That's a very vague term. If does happen it's the result of something going wrong, it's not the intention, nor is it inevitable, it may be treatable and increasingly preventable as time goes on. And guess what, in the UK 180,000 are deliberately killed in abortions, for which there is no treatment or recovery.

    'pregnancy is not a state of health'

    It's something the female body has specifically evolved to do, so yes it is.

    'No one can claim your body as life support without your explicit, ongoing consent.'

    They can when you've put them in that situation and are the only one who can keep them alive, especially when it is only a temporary matter.

    Reply
  86. You are pretty blase about the fact that Fiona nearly died. And you had to make a snarky comment about how she should keep her legs closed.

    And yes, avoiding death and injury is pretty convenient, isn't it? This is why we don't force people to risk their health and life to save others. We value bodily autonomy and freedom more than we value the right to life itself.

    Reply
  87. Nothing but naturalistic fallacies. Evolved to do does not = safe.

    Injuries range from permanent paralyzing disability to incontinence and vaginal tearing.

    And no, even if you injure someone in say a car accident you are not required to donate even a drop if blood to preserve their life. We don't even take body parts from violent criminals to make their victims whole again.

    So what's with the special pleading for fetuses and the discrimination against women?

    Reply
  88. 'But to bring a child into this world just to impose suffering is not noble, it is downright cruel.'

    You're assuming they no in advance for a fact they are going to suffer. They should then take steps to prevent it.

    ' And embryos don't suffer, they don't even have a self, lacking a functional brain and all. Abortion prevents future suffering'

    Someone in a coma or dreamless sleep is in effectively the same state, but killing them would result in them suffering, as they would lose their life, as does the embryo.

    All of us will suffer in our lives, some more than others, that does not give us the right to make decisions of life and death on their behalf.

    'If the parents want to take on the responsibility'

    They chose the moment they had sex. They can if they feel incapable, see that that responsibility is taken by a responsible second party when the first nine months are up, but they have no right to choose to kill their child.

    Reply
  89. Sex also evolved for the purpose of social bonding. If sex was just for procreation in humans, our females would go into heat like animals and get pregnant relatively easily. This is not the case with humans. Sex is for social bonding as well and it is totally acceptable to have non procreative sex

    Reply
  90. 'Nope. Pregnancy-related complications kill women all over the world, every single day — including in the developed world. The US is #50 in maternal mortality, and getting worse every day.'

    In poor countries and the USA which has terrible healthcare system.

    'I obtained a tubal ligation. Should it fail, there will be an abortion so fast your ugly head will spin right off.'

    You continue with the insults, yet you call me feeble minded. As you can probably guess I believe it would be immoral for you to obtain the murder of your child. Use extra precautions if you're worried, and if that fails, get a caesarean next time to avoid the same complications.

    Reply
  91. Coma patients do not lose their capacity for sentience. A zef has never been sentient and might never be.

    And sometimes suffering cannot be prevented except by refusing to force existence on a person. Not every baby has to be born, you know.

    Reply
  92. A c section is more dangerous than a vaginal birth. Takes longer to recover and can lead to some very bad side effects – for mom and baby

    Reply
  93. 'The difference between me and thee is that I support ALL choices: use of contraception or not, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing alone or with the partner of one's choice. You are a NO-CHOICER: gestation, period.'

    I am fine with contraception. I am against killing innocent people. If that makes me a no-choicer in your eyes, fine.

    'Nope. Every pregnancy as the potential for complications, and in the majority of pregnancies those complications actually arise. Many of them are life-threatening … and not one of them will ever affect YOU, which brings me back to my original point.'

    Clearly they're only a small minority and the rest are not that severe, or else it would be much bigger issue.

    Reply
  94. You ignore the point that many of these deaths are due to other conditions such as diabetes, which is a reflection on other problems in amaerican society, and the fact that world wide maternal deaths have fallen by a third since the nineties.

    Reply
  95. It does not matter how small or big the risk is. As long as it is nonzero you cannot force people to take on that risk.

    Bone marrow and blood donation are very low risk and could save lives. But we do not force people into either because bodily autonomy trumps life

    Reply
  96. 'And you are calling ME selfish? Hilarious! Sounds like you are just another bitter man who can’t stand to see women having sex, and don’t mind punishing children in your desire to punish women.'

    Typical hysterical pro choicer screaming mysogyny when you run out of arguments. Sex is great. Women enjoying safe sex is great. Killing people is not. Why is that so hard to understand?

    'The slim chance that a few would beat the
    odds is enough to force all unwanted children to life, KNOWING that many
    would end up neglected/abused/tortured/killed. Horrible suffering of many is worthwhile just so a few can appreciate life (or just have ANY life). What about those who are abused/neglected/killed along the way? They don’t matter. Only the ones who make it matter, and the ones
    who DON’T, should shut up & take it.'

    So many stupid assumptions. You don't knwo any of this, you don't whether they have a slim chance or not and you have given no means of measuring whether a life is worht living. You are simply making hysterical claims and not backing them up.

    If someone is likely to have a bad life (if that can be predicted) Improve things, don't kill them.

    'Horrible suffering of many is worthwhile just so a few can appreciate life (or just have ANY life).'

    You assume horrible sufferiing, which any of us may encounter, preculdes any chance of appreciating life at pther points. Things are more complicated than that, which you seem unable to appreciate.

    This really is the last one now because I'm bored. I'll leave to rant and tell yourself you've won in peace.

    Reply
  97. If you don't have the resources or physical/mental strength to provide all necessities & care necessary for a child, then you DO know in advance they would suffer. Only an idiot wouldn't know.

    Losing life per se is not suffering, unless you are attached to your life and fully aware of losing your life. Neither applies to a zef.

    Non-sentience per se is not a REASON to kill. Once killing is justified for whatever other reason, sentience (or lack thereof) is important only in determining the METHOD of killing.

    Reply
  98. The answer, which is obvious if you think about it, is that if injure someone in an accident, that doesn't make you the only person in the world who can save them, but it does with pregnancy.

    Reply
  99. Killing people is not.

    Whether or not a zef is a person is irrelevent. No thing has the right to the body of a person, period. Even if the life of that thing depends upon it.

    And you haven't even bothered to make a case for zef personhood, you are just asserting it.

    Reply
  100. 'This is why we don't force people to risk their health and life to save others. We value bodily autonomy and freedom more than we value the right to life itself.'

    When they have put someone in that situation and they are the only one who can save them, forgive I feel that changes the equation a bit.

    I realise Fiona nearly died, and that's terrible. In abortion the child will die, and there is the rub. You cannot kill someone you are responsible for because there is a smaller risk to yourself.

    Reply
  101. 'If you don't have the resources or physical/mental strength to provide all necessities & care necessary for a child, then you DO know in advance they would suffer. Only an idiot wouldn't know.'

    You can't know for sure and you can still give up for adoption.

    'Losing life per se is not suffering, unless you are attached to your life and fully aware of losing your life. Neither applies to a zef.'

    A 'ZEF' will be attatched to his or her life, and that fact alone gives them right to it and means they suffer if they lose it. The amount of it already used does not alter that.

    Reply
  102. Oh, so if you injure someone in an accident and they need a portion of your liver to survive, you would rather have a liver taken from SOMEONE ELSE so that you won't have to donate to make the victim whole again?

    How convenient for you!

    Reply
  103. Nope, doesn't change the formula at all. Even if someone needs you, and only you to survive, this does NOT give them a claim on your body parts.

    Reply
  104. You can't know for sure and you can still give up for adoption

    You can know for sure, especially if you have no money, have existing children who need resources, and are in an abusive relationship, or even abusive yourself.

    And adoption is not a panacea. Black babies go for 20k less because white people don't want them. Adopters also don't want disabled children, and a life stuck in the foster care system is indeed a life of misery and abuse.

    A 'ZEF' will be attatched to his or her life, and that fact alone gives them right to it and means they suffer if they lose it.

    Simply being alive does not mean that any 'thing' has a right to that life, sorry. By that logic, an amoeba is attached to it's life, and therefore, can't be killed, even if it's in your brain, eating your brain cells.

    And yes, the 'amount' does matter, because only persons have functional brains, and zef's don't qualify. They are merely animals.

    Reply
  105. For the record, these are the points you have repeatedly failed to address (among others).

    -You assume zefs have "right to life" when they DON'T. As long as they live inside a juridical person, their life or death is upto the person whose body they occupy.

    -The mere fact that the number of children needing care is FAR GREATER than the number of responsible caring adults available to provide care, is more than enough to predict many of those children will suffer. (You can scream till you are blue in the face "you don't know they will suffer". That doesn't change the child abuse stats which only keep going UP).

    -You also operate under the huge (wrong) assumption that killing is wrong and unacceptable under any circumstance, when it's not.

    By all means, leave in a huff, as all forced-birthers do when faced with logic. That only shows you have no rebuttal.

    Reply
  106. Pregnancy is an inherent purpose of sex.

    Not in H.sapiens, it isn't. Otherwise, women would only be receptive when in estrus.

    You need to re-take biology class, sweetie.

    Reply
  107. No, you ignore the fact that gestational diabetes is a thing, and that pre-eclampsia is a thing, and hyperemesis gravidarum (which nearly killed me) is a thing .. .and that pregnancy is not a state of wellness. No pregnancy complication can be accurately predicted until it actually arises in a given case. But they are numerous and known. Because you are not affected one iota, so you don't give a damn.

    Sucks to you be you, as I said.

    Reply
  108. This really is the last one now

    That tends to happen when anti-choicers can't handle the facts. Don't forget your pail and shovel, dearie; you'll want them on your next Brighton holiday.

    Reply
  109. Adoption is a solution to parenting, not an unwanted pregnancy. And we've already established that an infant put up for adoption is not guaranteed a home. Oops.

    Reply
  110. It's something the female body has specifically evolved to do, so yes it is.

    No, dumbfuck, it is NOT. Just a few examples of how pregnancy is FAR from being a state of health/wellness: womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/pregnancy-complications.html#b

    Reply
  111. I have a family who happens to find me more valuable than a zygote. So, there you have it. Again, sucks to be you. Any pregnancy that occurs within my body will be terminated with extreme prejudice, whether you approve or not. You are very blase about how much risk other people should take, just like I said.

    Reply
  112. -Seeking adoption does not magically guarantee a good life for every unwanted child, considering, as I already said a hundred times, the number of responsible caring adults available to provide care is FAR FEWER than the number of children needing care. Some never get adopted; some die while waiting for a home; some do get adopted into horribly abusive situations. So "adoption" is not the cure-all you try to make it out to be.

    -The "resources or physical/mental strength" I mentioned INCLUDES seeking and ensuring a good adoptive home if you cannot/won't care for the child yourself. if you are not upto that task, and plan to just abandon the baby at the mercy of the world, you have no business breeding and that baby is better off dead.

    "A 'ZEF' will be attatched to his or her life"

    Wrong! A zef has no mental capacity to think or feel anything, and has no knowledge or awareness of life. Thus it has no "attachment" to life as you seem to have.

    BTW, if wanting to live is enough to give an individual "right to life", then ALL animals should have right to life. What right do you have to kill animals to sustain your life, the lives of your children and those of all humans you like to force into life against their mothers' will? What right do you have to kill ANY animal for any reason, period?

    Reply
  113. **I'm not shifting on to third parties though, that's where the responsibility belongs.**

    So, you're trying to tell me that YOU, personally, are willing to take an unlimitted number of severely handicapped people into your home and care for them, rather than their either being aborted, or put into institutions paid for by taxpayers?

    **So people can hypocrites, this is an argument how?**

    It is an argument because people who 'talk the talk' and demand all sorts of 'responsibility' from everyone else when those people are unlucky enough to be pregnant with a severely disabled child, but are unwilling to 'walk the walk' when put to the test of being pregnant themselves with such a child, and then suddenly want an abortion, are not fit to demand that others 'walk the walk'. And this constitutes the majority of those who 'talk the talk' when it is safe, and they aren't the unlucky ones.

    ** Improve state help for disabled people, that is the answer,**

    'State help' does not get funded by magic fairies. In other words, you are a liar, and, contrary to your previous claim, into shifting responsibility onto 3rd parties, onto anyone but yourself, while indulging your sad feelies.

    **What about people who become disabled or brain damaged later in life and need to be cared for by their loved ones?**

    What about them? Their 'need' does not constitute a right, regardless of how many sad feelies you have.

    **Is it ok to euthanise them if their loved ones don't feel up to it?**

    My guess is that they would probably starve to death. I'm sure you have sad feelies about that. So do I. That still doesn't constitute a claim. If you want to care for such people, or start a VOLUNTARY charity to care for such people, I would not dream of stopping you, but my guess is that you will try to forcibly shift responsibility onto 3rd party taxpayers.

    Reply
  114. >> Abortion is exactly the same thing as infanticide, as it's acceptance represents a step backwards in civilisation.

    Um, no. I think it represents progress, parents thinking ahead. Instead of giving birth and realizing afterwards they can't raise it, aborting an non-sentient blank slate is infinitely more humane.

    Reply
  115. She is no part of him, biologically. His parents are the oafs who left him behind, sticking a stranger with their sick kid. And the Australian couple aren't fit to tie this woman's shoes. They are lower than dirt.

    Reply
  116. They do not want to adopt children. Like the greedy barren Australian vultures, they want 'accessories.' Otherwise there wouldn't be children aging out of the foster care system. And a woman with an unwanted pregnancy owes nothing to a would-be adoptive couple. S

    Reply
  117. Your deafness is not her issue. When did she say anything about forced abortion? That's every bit as evil as forced gestation. Both deny the human dignity of women in a huge way.

    Reply
  118. What on EARTH makes you believe that a pregnant woman who doesn't want to be pregnant owes someone a child to adopt? What makes you think she owes anyone ANYTHING?

    Reply
  119. Abortion is not a dumping of responsibility upon the blameless. It is correcting an accident of biology. It's not a situation of pointing the finger of blame.

    Reply
  120. Nope, she's not so rare. My second pregnancy nearly killed me (for different reasons) over 30 years ago, and the condition remains just as deadly today. I would never go through that again. If my third pregnancy had been as risky, I would have aborted as soon as I found out, so fast it would make your pointy head spin. YOU be abstinent, I will save France. (Tip of the hat to Plum Dumpling.) How dare you instruct a stranger on how to conduct their sex life? Who the hell do you think you are? I don't "have to" accept a deadly condition without fighting for my life, any more than YOU do, simply because I had sex. Get over yourself.

    Reply
  121. A C-section would not have solved Fiona's issues. And YOUR MORALS = YOUR PROBLEM. I don't give you permission to make your moral beliefs MY problem. Learn to live with the disappointment.

    Reply
  122. Who the hell DIED and made you the arbiter of what is "legitimate" for a stranger's health? Careful dear, your male privilege is showing.

    Reply
  123. The loss of the potential human life is unfortunate. The loss of the woman (who actually HAS a life) is a tragedy to everyone who knows her.

    Reply
  124. Pregnancy CAUSES diabetes, Einstein. Therefore you cannot call the risks the result of "other problems." You ought to shut up while you're still ahead.

    Reply
  125. And your chances of a pregnancy complication are considerably higher when you're pregnant. Which you will never be. You have no right to hand-wave ANY chance of catastrophe for another human being. You mind your own health and stay the hell out of mine.

    Reply
  126. Permanent injury is permanent injury. A C-section scar is permanent injury. The very thing that you seem to be so fond of prescribing without a license to practice medicine. It simply doesn't matter what the nature of the injury is. The point is that YOU have no right to insist that a stranger undergo permanent injury to satisfy your moral requirements.

    Reply
  127. "They can when you've put them in that situation and are the only one who can keep them alive, especially when it is only a temporary matter." First of all NO, not under any circumstances. You cannot compel a person to bodily donation, EVER. Not for a relative, and not for a stranger. Not for nine months, or nine minutes. Second of all, are you really going to try to argue that "conception" = "the intentional infliction of harm?" Because whether you realize it or not, that's your argument.

    Reply
  128. So conception is the infliction of harm upon the conceptus? I don't THINK so, Bluto. But I'll go along with your fantasy for a moment and turn the argument against you. Legally speaking, if you negligently cause harm to someone, your obligation is to return them to the state they were in prior to the damage. Your victim is never entitled to unjust enrichment at your expense. So what is the state of the conceptus prior to being conceived? Non-existence. That's your legal obligation, to return it to non-existence. Not to gestate it. That would legally be unjust enrichment.

    Reply
  129. End of NOTHING! Parents are empowered to make decisions on behalf of their children. Who ELSE would make those decisions?

    Reply

Leave a Comment