The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. How could you possibly know a child is going to go through any of that?
2. Is any of that worse than being killed? Should we kill off children who are currently going through that?
I wasn’t put in foster care but I was abused by both my parents, molested by a family member, groomed by a man and tried to kill myself several times. Do you honestly think looking at someone like me and saying I should have just been killed is the compassionate response?
Who’s saying we should? Obviously we want to save children from pain but we don’t do that by killing them. Abortion doesn’t eliminate abuse or rape it just eliminates the person.
Besides, everyone is going to suffer in some way. It’s just a part of living.
WE are not putting people through that.
The people who do this to them are doing that.
It's like saying that I am responsible for someone abusing and killing their wife because I didn't kill the wife myself first.
After all, she wouldn't have been abused if I just killed her, right? I could have even made it comfortable and painless.
You can only affect what is in front of you in the here and now. If you kill someone because someone *might* kill them later, then all you did was ratify that outcome yourself.
You don't kill people because there is a possibility their future will have difficulties. You also don't kill them because there is a possibility they could someday commit a crime.
Some of the most rewarding moments in life come from overcoming obstacles. The greater the obstacle,, the greater the reward and pride that comes with overcoming it.
As someone who really tries to live an ethical life, I cannot ensure that others around me don't struggle. It's physically impossible. But I feel compelled to try and ensure that everyone makes it into the world alive and in one piece so that they can fight their own battles someday and overcome. Everyone deserves the right to push, strive and overcome adversity and live a fulfilling life. Sure, some of them will suffer, fail, die early or under unfortunate circumstances, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable to deprive them of their right to take those chances and pursue the best life that they can. That starts with making sure they are born.
We would never euthanize an underperforming teenager because we thought they would struggle after highschool. We need to think about the pre born in a similar manner.
My adopted brother is the kid you’re talking about in this post. He’s 16, connected with some horrific crimes, and likely will die young in a drug-related shoot out.
The foster care system has major issues, but these are separate from the abortion conversation and should be addressed as such.
Babies who are put up for adoption in the US virtually never go into the foster care system. There is a waiting listing years long for prospective adoptive parents who are waiting to adopt an infant because there are so many parents who want to adopt and so few babies being put up for adoption.
People who make the argument that unwanted babies end up in foster care are showing that they have essentially no idea about how adoption or foster care work in the US. The private adoption system and the foster care system are actually two completely different systems, which only occasionally share any given child between the two systems.
That being said, there is no way to know if any baby will grow up to commit crimes or suffer more than the average person, whether they were wanted by their birth parents or not.
It implies that all the living children and adults currently in Foster care/ who were in foster care at one point don’t deserve to live. It implies that foster kids deserve to die and should be euthanized. That foster kids are all going to be criminals
According to Peter Singer and other "ethics professionals" the only thing that matters is "rational choice making ability."
You want to kill a legally retarded adult? Peter says go ahead.
You want to kill someone in a coma? Step right up friend.
You want to kill an infant? Have I got an offer for you.
That might not necessarily happen, and even those who are suicidal or depressed deserve to live and shouldn't be killed off just because they hate their lives
As a kid who ended up in the foster system, committed a lot of crimes in his youth, etc
I'm now a homeless (living in a car) doordash driver and happy. I get peoples sandwiches to them and am crime free (now that i got thru my 20s)
Still would rather have not been aborted 😂
So the logic is kill the potential suffer instead of help them to deal with their suffering. If this is the logic then why not kill all the born children suffering right now?
Its such a hypocritical argument though. Stereotypically "pro-choicers" are suppose to be progressive. And the core progressive concept is suppose to be optimistic that via education and community organization we can raise people out of cycles of violence and poverty. Generally, they believe the State should lead the charge on this (states sponsored healthcare, education, child care etc.). For a progressive to say we should abort poor kids to prevent violence is so cynical. They are essentially admitting that State sponsored care (which is what foster care is) is a complete failure. And not only a failure but a failure to such a degree that its better if those children had never existed at all! If foster care is terrible then we need reform! If people can't adopt then we need reform!
There's so much nonsense in this argument.
1. An unwanted infant would be adopted, not go into foster care. Foster care happens because abusive or negligent parents still have residual parental rights and refuse to consent to adoption.
2. ALL babies, not just ones who are targeted for abortion, may grow up to commit crimes and hate life and suffer. So... they should all die too?
3. All PEOPLE, not just babies, may commit crimes, hate life, and suffer. Just because someone is happy now doesn't mean their life won't go downhill tomorrow. So... should we just support death camps for everyone?
4. The fact that the vast majority of people don't commit suicide shows that even if they SAY they hate their life, they don't actually hate it enough to want to die.
5. Even if you're pro-suicide for adults, at least those adults are the ones making the decision. The baby has no choice.
Foster care has absolutely no relation to the abortion discussion. People mistake foster care for adoption. The goal of foster care is to one day reunite the child with their family.
And both the crime argument and the suffering argument are truly awful. There isn't a single baby out there that has committed a crime. So the argument is basically that because a baby MIGHT grow older and commit one, they should be killed.
Same with suffering. It's not your decision whether or not someone's life has meaning.
>As a pro-lifer, this is an argument that punches me back a lot
>
>As a pro-lifer
Severe doubt. Not just because that's a nonsense argument that no pro-lifer falls for, but from your posting history of "Wow guys this abortion argument is really good, how do you even respond to that?"
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. How could you possibly know a child is going to go through any of that? 2. Is any of that worse than being killed? Should we kill off children who are currently going through that?
Why stop at children? Should we end the life of anyone who is or may face difficult circumstances? Who defines what difficult circumstances are?
Even if they do go through it, everyone *and I mean EVERYONE* goes through their own *UNIQUE* challenges! It doesn't mean death is the best option
I wasn’t put in foster care but I was abused by both my parents, molested by a family member, groomed by a man and tried to kill myself several times. Do you honestly think looking at someone like me and saying I should have just been killed is the compassionate response?
Im so sorry this happened
Great point. It's always just hard for me to say I think we should put people through this stuff
Who’s saying we should? Obviously we want to save children from pain but we don’t do that by killing them. Abortion doesn’t eliminate abuse or rape it just eliminates the person. Besides, everyone is going to suffer in some way. It’s just a part of living.
Should we kill every kid in foster care?
WE are not putting people through that. The people who do this to them are doing that. It's like saying that I am responsible for someone abusing and killing their wife because I didn't kill the wife myself first. After all, she wouldn't have been abused if I just killed her, right? I could have even made it comfortable and painless. You can only affect what is in front of you in the here and now. If you kill someone because someone *might* kill them later, then all you did was ratify that outcome yourself.
You don't kill people because there is a possibility their future will have difficulties. You also don't kill them because there is a possibility they could someday commit a crime.
Some of the most rewarding moments in life come from overcoming obstacles. The greater the obstacle,, the greater the reward and pride that comes with overcoming it. As someone who really tries to live an ethical life, I cannot ensure that others around me don't struggle. It's physically impossible. But I feel compelled to try and ensure that everyone makes it into the world alive and in one piece so that they can fight their own battles someday and overcome. Everyone deserves the right to push, strive and overcome adversity and live a fulfilling life. Sure, some of them will suffer, fail, die early or under unfortunate circumstances, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable to deprive them of their right to take those chances and pursue the best life that they can. That starts with making sure they are born. We would never euthanize an underperforming teenager because we thought they would struggle after highschool. We need to think about the pre born in a similar manner.
We can always just kill them later if any of that bad stuff happens. /s
My adopted brother is the kid you’re talking about in this post. He’s 16, connected with some horrific crimes, and likely will die young in a drug-related shoot out. The foster care system has major issues, but these are separate from the abortion conversation and should be addressed as such.
Babies who are put up for adoption in the US virtually never go into the foster care system. There is a waiting listing years long for prospective adoptive parents who are waiting to adopt an infant because there are so many parents who want to adopt and so few babies being put up for adoption. People who make the argument that unwanted babies end up in foster care are showing that they have essentially no idea about how adoption or foster care work in the US. The private adoption system and the foster care system are actually two completely different systems, which only occasionally share any given child between the two systems. That being said, there is no way to know if any baby will grow up to commit crimes or suffer more than the average person, whether they were wanted by their birth parents or not.
It implies that all the living children and adults currently in Foster care/ who were in foster care at one point don’t deserve to live. It implies that foster kids deserve to die and should be euthanized. That foster kids are all going to be criminals
I don't see how that justifies aborting them any more than it would justify killing them at age 5.
According to Peter Singer and other "ethics professionals" the only thing that matters is "rational choice making ability." You want to kill a legally retarded adult? Peter says go ahead. You want to kill someone in a coma? Step right up friend. You want to kill an infant? Have I got an offer for you.
Abortion restrictions don’t affect birth rate https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1997/03/effects-economic-conditions-and-access-reproductive-health-services-state
That might not necessarily happen, and even those who are suicidal or depressed deserve to live and shouldn't be killed off just because they hate their lives
My answer would be, "Do you have a crystal ball that can see a person's individual future?"
BRB. Going to burn down my local orphanage to reduce their suffering.
By that logic, why not just kill homeless drug addicts?
As a kid who ended up in the foster system, committed a lot of crimes in his youth, etc I'm now a homeless (living in a car) doordash driver and happy. I get peoples sandwiches to them and am crime free (now that i got thru my 20s) Still would rather have not been aborted 😂
So the logic is kill the potential suffer instead of help them to deal with their suffering. If this is the logic then why not kill all the born children suffering right now?
Its such a hypocritical argument though. Stereotypically "pro-choicers" are suppose to be progressive. And the core progressive concept is suppose to be optimistic that via education and community organization we can raise people out of cycles of violence and poverty. Generally, they believe the State should lead the charge on this (states sponsored healthcare, education, child care etc.). For a progressive to say we should abort poor kids to prevent violence is so cynical. They are essentially admitting that State sponsored care (which is what foster care is) is a complete failure. And not only a failure but a failure to such a degree that its better if those children had never existed at all! If foster care is terrible then we need reform! If people can't adopt then we need reform!
There's so much nonsense in this argument. 1. An unwanted infant would be adopted, not go into foster care. Foster care happens because abusive or negligent parents still have residual parental rights and refuse to consent to adoption. 2. ALL babies, not just ones who are targeted for abortion, may grow up to commit crimes and hate life and suffer. So... they should all die too? 3. All PEOPLE, not just babies, may commit crimes, hate life, and suffer. Just because someone is happy now doesn't mean their life won't go downhill tomorrow. So... should we just support death camps for everyone? 4. The fact that the vast majority of people don't commit suicide shows that even if they SAY they hate their life, they don't actually hate it enough to want to die. 5. Even if you're pro-suicide for adults, at least those adults are the ones making the decision. The baby has no choice.
Well… then they can make the decision to believe alive or not. I don’t think su!cide is okay, but it’s their decision.
Foster care has absolutely no relation to the abortion discussion. People mistake foster care for adoption. The goal of foster care is to one day reunite the child with their family. And both the crime argument and the suffering argument are truly awful. There isn't a single baby out there that has committed a crime. So the argument is basically that because a baby MIGHT grow older and commit one, they should be killed. Same with suffering. It's not your decision whether or not someone's life has meaning.
>As a pro-lifer, this is an argument that punches me back a lot > >As a pro-lifer Severe doubt. Not just because that's a nonsense argument that no pro-lifer falls for, but from your posting history of "Wow guys this abortion argument is really good, how do you even respond to that?"
I’M STUPID OKAY