Abortion

[Dinru]

Casual sex is more or less a comfort, and before indulging in comforts, consequences should be considered first. Most other comforts with bad consequences don't have a magical bail out button, so why is this comfort so much more special?

Food as we eat it in first-word countries is more or less a comfort, and before indulging in comforts, consequences like chocking risk should be considered first. Most other comforts with bad consequences don't have a magical bail out button like the Heimlich, so why is this comfort so much more special?

Cars are more or less a comfort, and before indulging in comforts, consequences like getting into an accident should be considered first. Most other comforts with bad consequences don't have a magical bail out button like seatbelts, so why is this comfort so much more special?

Taking baths is more or less a comfort, and before indulging in comforts, consequences like drowning should be considered first. Most other comforts with bad consequences don't have a magical bail out button like 911, so why is this comfort so much more special?

I could go on.

Is sex really the most emotional thing you can think to do with someone?

Does it really have to be the most emotional thing to be able to have a profound effect?

 

[Dinru]

Functional debating can only be achieved by reading what the other person has to say. I'll reprint what you didn't read to account for your idiosyncracies:







So will you care to address your non-able-bodied persons prejudice or my perception there of?

...

A) I wasn't the person who said those horrible ableist things, and yet you are quoting my post... B) I really don't understand what exactly the point of this post is and C) subtle there with the italics.

But if you're asking for my opinion on the aborting children who will definitely be be disabled thing, personally I think that, while obviously the whole point of being pro-choice is to let the pregant person choose, I think if a child is going to have a miserable life because of the disability and/or if the parent is not in a position to care for a differently abled child, abortion would be a better alternative to adoption unless it's a closed adoption and the adoptive parents could easily be loving and trustworthy and whatnot (especially as a child with say, down syndrome or autism would be much less likely to be adopted, which is... unfortunate, to say the least..

EDIT: I mean the "tl;dr" quote at the top wasn't the person the rest of the post refers to, it was me.

 

[Rose]

Does it really have to be the most emotional thing to be able to have a profound effect?

Hmm, good point, but to be honest. I would think that what you find the most profound is what you react to the most emotionally. For me the most emotionally thing is not only silent, but can require no body contact at all. Emotional is not something you can touch, so why does what is most profound have to be? Why should sex really be either?

 

[Harlequin]

Everything I want to say has already been said. :(

 

[Eloi]

...

A) I wasn't the person who said those horrible ableist things, and yet you are quoting my post...

Sorry, I figured you were them because you replied to the post as opposed to them.

B) I really don't understand what exactly the point of this post is

Well, if you were them, that post would've been blowing me off and ignoring the ableist things that they said.

and C) subtle there with the italics.

I was just going to write them out, and I think I'm just going to cut the post completely seeing as you aren't them.

But if you're asking for my opinion on the aborting children who will definitely be be disabled thing, personally I think that, while obviously the whole point of being pro-choice is to let the pregant person choose, I think if a child is going to have a miserable life because of the disability and/or if the parent is not in a position to care for a differently abled child, abortion would be a better alternative to adoption unless it's a closed adoption and the adoptive parents could easily be loving and trustworthy and whatnot (especially as a child with say, down syndrome or autism would be much less likely to be adopted, which is... unfortunate, to say the least..

I don't know, I just feel if that is an option, a bunch of people won't be able to see the light of day due to being differently abled.

 

[Dinru]

Sorry, I figured you were them because you replied to the post as opposed to them.

Well, if you were them, that post would've been blowing me off and ignoring the ableist things that they said.

I was just going to write them out, and I think I'm just going to cut the post completely seeing as you aren't them.

Ah, okay. I was just a bit confused, no hard feelings.

I don't know, I just feel if that is an option, a bunch of people won't be able to see the light of day due to being differently abled.

I know. There should really be more resources available for parents of differently-abled people, especially those that conceived unintentionally and especially for those who are economically disadvantaged, but... it's just one of those really messed up grey areas that could easily lend itself to a whole other debate.

 

[Zoltea]

Food as we eat it in first-word countries is more or less a comfort, and before indulging in comforts, consequences like chocking risk should be considered first. Most other comforts with bad consequences don't have a magical bail out button like the Heimlich, so why is this comfort so much more special?

Cars are more or less a comfort, and before indulging in comforts, consequences like getting into an accident should be considered first. Most other comforts with bad consequences don't have a magical bail out button like seatbelts, so why is this comfort so much more special?

Taking baths is more or less a comfort, and before indulging in comforts, consequences like drowning should be considered first. Most other comforts with bad consequences don't have a magical bail out button like 911, so why is this comfort so much more special?

I could go on.

I suppose I should say pleasures with bad consequences, things that people usually do just for that endorphin rush. However with your analogies. Food comforts are usually junk food or overeating, which have consequences of sickness or obesity, there's no bail-out to those, there's only fixing the problem after a while, but you still have to deal with it. Cars are more things which increase efficiency rather than a comfort. Furthermore if a seatbelt were compared with the casual sex, it'd be a protection, not a bail-out. If you crash, and get hurt, there is no bailing out of the injury or death. Baths involve more than just you and one other person getting the comfort, it involves everyone within your vicinity. (Though tbh, it'd be hard to call 911 if you manage to actually drown in a bathtub.)

---

On a random note, this topic is popular.

 

[Eloi]

I know. There should really be more resources available for parents of differently-abled people, especially those that conceived unintentionally and especially for those who are economically disadvantaged, but... it's just one of those really messed up grey areas that could easily lend itself to a whole other debate.

I am just not sure why we can't do abortion by a case-by-case basis (perhaps by some sort of abortion council and a psychologist paid for by most insurance policies to talk with the mother-wanting-an-abortion) instead of a "its banned" vs "its legal" approach.

"You accidentally conceived due to not taking a birth control and your partner was reckless by not using a condom, and you wish to have an abortion despite not having tokophobia but because your child was determined to have a physical defect that will impact its health late-term? Your abortion is denied, however your child will be found people to adopt during your pregnancy."

"Your psychologist determined you were raped by your former husband (although you never reported it, we still go on what the psychologist says as a lot of victims don't report martial rape) and have tokophobia? Go ahead and have an abortion."

"It was consensual sex but an accident happened, and you have tokophobia? We are allowing a risky early voluntary Ceasurian section, and then let you determine whether you want the child after your anxiety is cleared, so you can make a more informed choice. If your psychologist believes your tokophobia is more extreme than reported, we will make abortion available to you."

 

[Harlequin]

I suppose I should say pleasures with bad consequences, things that people usually do just for that endorphin rush. However with your analogies. Food comforts are usually junk food or overeating, which have consequences of sickness or obesity, there's no bail-out to those, there's only fixing the problem after a while, but you still have to deal with it. Cars are more things which increase efficiency rather than a comfort. Furthermore if a seatbelt were compared with the casual sex, it'd be a protection, not a bail-out. If you crash, and get hurt, there is no bailing out of the injury or death. Baths involve more than just you and one other person getting the comfort, it involves everyone within your vicinity. (Though tbh, it'd be hard to call 911 if you manage to actually drown in a bathtub.)

---

On a random note, this topic is popular.

fat people can have liposuction
if you crash and get hurt you go to a hospital
if you bathe and nearly drown and someone finds you they phone an ambulance instead of letting you die (for example, you can shower instead of bathe, thus using less water! and you're probably not as likely to drown)

also, so the fuck what if sex is a comfort? Why do you think people (well, women) should be punished for getting enjoyment out of something? It's an incredibly douchey thing to suggest that a woman should have to carry a life-sucking parasite inside her body for nine months just because she dared to have sex. It's not your body, it's not your life-sucking parasite, so butt out.

 

[H-land]

As well, so long as the victim isn't kidnapped as well, I'm sure they could quickly manage to get medication to prevent pregnancy from occurring

A woman in Saudi Arabia is raped by her husband (who is ten years older than her, by the way). Under Saudi law, she may not drive a car to the pharmacy to get medication.

A woman is raped in Somalia. Even with a car to get around, she has a hard time getting around with the civil war going on, and pharmacies are uncommon due to the implausibility of running businesses in anarchist states. Unless she can find a relief camp and make it there in time, this woman will not get medication.

A woman is raped by her husband in a small town in Alabama. Everybody knows everybody, and gossip spreads like wildfire. The woman could go to the pharmacy and buy the pills, but if she did, her husband would hear about it, and beat her. She does not get the medication.

A homeless woman is raped in Detroit. There's plenty of pharmacies around, but with no job, no home, and no money, this woman can only rely on charity. If the free clinic and the homeless shelter are both out of stock, this woman won't get medication.

What I mean to say is: Even if you're not kidnapped, that doesn't mean you can (and will) get the pill in time.

 

[Rose]

I am just not sure why we can't do abortion by a case-by-case basis (perhaps by some sort of abortion council and a psychologist paid for by most insurance policies to talk with the mother-wanting-an-abortion) instead of a "its banned" vs "its legal" approach.

I really like this idea, but even then. You would be looking at a freedom of (insert word of choice here) movement. I mean, also that would just open back up for the dangerous back alley abortions.

In reality I think everyone needs to face something. Either way someone is going to lose. I mean it can be seen as amazingly irresponsible, but some people just down right don't care. As long as they can continue with there life. For now I think abortion is one of those things that should to be marked "agree to disagree".

 

[Zoltea]

fat people can have liposuction
if you crash and get hurt you go to a hospital
if you bathe and nearly drown and someone finds you they phone an ambulance instead of letting you die (for example, you can shower instead of bathe, thus using less water! and you're probably not as likely to drown)

also, so the fuck what if sex is a comfort? Why do you think people (well, women) should be punished for getting enjoyment out of something? It's an incredibly douchey thing to suggest that a woman should have to carry a life-sucking parasite inside her body for nine months just because she dared to have sex. It's not your body, it's not your life-sucking parasite, so butt out.

Except all three of what you mentioned are solutions after the fact, similar to how adoption is a solution to pregnancy after the child is born.

What I'm saying is sex is meant for reproduction and increasing the bond between two loved ones. If a married couple have sex to increase their bond, they can also use birth control.

Interesting way to view an unborn child, as a life-sucking parasite. A huge difference is parasites don't have potential to further society, an unborn baby does. Though if you're pro-choice, why doesn't the baby get a choice?

Finally, as for "adopted children usually have horrible lives, so it's better to abort them." Would it also be better than to just kill anyone who lives in depression? If your goal is to just put people out of misery.


EDIT: @ H-Land: For all of those situations, if they can't get medication, how are they supposed to get an abortion?

 

[Hiikaru]

Right, so, I've been asked to enter Serious Business for the first time. It's pretty intimidating! Especially in a thread moving so fast and this heated... Eep.

I'm addressing Zoltea only at the moment - Zoltea, there are a lot of things you're misunderstanding, please try to understand them.

As for rape cases which everyone brings up when this topic is brought up, if I remember correctly, there's only like a few days per month a women can get pregnant. So figure those chances in with the relatively low amount of rapes, and there's very few children that would be produced from it.

This is inaccurate. The few days per month are for her period, not for her to have a baby in. This is pretty easy to clear up, just remember it for the future.

I see no reason why they can't be put for adoption. People try to argue then "oh the child will have a sucky life." There's probably more non-adopted children with a sucky life than adopted ones.

Because the girl shouldn't have to go through pregnancy just because someone might want her baby. Pregnancy is kind of awful even when it's exactly what you intended - can you imagine being miserable for nine months when it's not even a baby you want to keep and love? If it's a living reminder of the trauma you suffered?

There are a lot of orphans already who don't have homes. There are people who have babies on purpose just to give them away (surrogate mothers). Why is it so important to you to put more into the world when there are enough?

Try to understand - this is almost an entire painful year to give up to something that isn't even really human yet. When do you think it counts as human? Why do you think so?

Incredibly traumatic, having a baby or not isn't going to change the trauma. Furthermore if the women does end up finding out she's pregnant, she'll still get the trauma from the abortion too.

Nine months of having to carry a baby inside of you from such a traumatic experience is definitely more traumatic than aborting it (in most cases? There might be some people who feel differently). Abortion can be traumatic too, yes, but you don't get to decide for her which would make her feel worse. She's the one with the feelings.

Now then, you could of course take measures if possible within the next 24-48 hours to insure the pregnancy doesn't occur. I'm rather sure medication would be more cost-efficient in this case.

If she's able to take measures against pregnancy, then she can do that, but it's possible that she's traumatized enough not to even consider that, that she isn't aware that there are measures she can take, that she's unable to obtain the medication, that she's terrified of going out to get it, or that it doesn't work. If any of these happen, will you deny her the right to get an abortion even though carrying the baby to term will be a painful and traumatic experience?

I personally am against abortion in its entirety. Truth be told, if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. It's a very simple solution.

and

Keep this in mind: I also don't give a crap about peoples' "desperate need" for sexual pleasures.

It's really difficult to understand why people would want to have sex when you're unfamiliar with it, but it isn't just for babies. People who are biologically female have a part that exists solely for pleasure. It has no other purpose.

It isn't a "desperate need". It's something intimate and special you can share with your partner, and it isn't fair to punish people for enjoying it, or to swear at them. Why is it a bad thing? It isn't.

I know this is a difficult subject, and it's hard for you to understand the views of others, but try to, because it's a really important subject as well. And remember that a lot of people here are having some trouble understanding you, too. That's the ideal purpose of a discussion like this; to try and understand how everyone else feels, even if you disagree in the end.

Sorry if something here doesn't make sense to you, or if something seems abrasive - I'd really like to help you understand this.

 

[Tailsy]

Interesting way to view an unborn child, as a life-sucking parasite. A huge difference is parasites don't have potential to further society, an unborn baby does. Though if you're pro-choice, why doesn't the baby get a choice?

BBL, talking to the foetus in-utero with no brain or pain receptors to find out if it wants aborted or not

That's not even an argument. It's just... ludicrous.

 

[Butterfree]

To play devil's advocate here, these reasons could justify euthanising a severely mentally disabled person. As long as they a) felt no pain, b) wouldn't be missed, and c) didn't have the capacity to plan, dream and so on, by this criteria, it would be morally permissable to humanely kill people with conditions ranging from alzheimers to autism, as long as it was severe enough that they didn't realize what was going on, and there was nobody to grieve.

Honestly? If they truly have no capacity to plan or love or wish or anticipate the future - which amounts to barely being able to think or feel at all, really - then yeah, I think it is morally justifiable to euthanize them humanely. Obviously you wouldn't do so just for the hell of it, but if (as is the case with abortion) they were having a serious negative impact on the lives of other people and that were the only way to end it, yes. This sounds horrible, but logically I truly believe the three reasons I named are the reasons murder is wrong and that situations where they don't apply are therefore not murder.

A bullet to the back of the head from a high powered rifle is virtually painless, and you'll die so quick you never knew what happened. This is still tried as murder. On the other hand, there are many excruciatingly painful methods of torture that aren't penalized nearly as highly. And also I can't really think of many people who think of "oh my gosh he must hae undergone so much pain" when they hear someone has been murdered (at least not physical pain) so I think this point is pretty much moot.

If this is true, then why are miscarriages so emotionally stressing? Not just a mother is attached to a zygote, in most cases, an entire family is. Either way, I don't believe this is the reason murder is bad either, at least for the most part.

It has potential though. It may not think to realize it has potential (But do we know this? Late term it may) but every human life has infinite potential, and it's wrong to remove it from the world. What if you had been aborted? You say you don't believe in the afterlife. If you died right now, instantly, painlessly, with no time to realize it, how would that be very different from an abortion (in your own perspective.) You would say it wouldn't be fair, that you had so much potential. But how is it fair for the fetus?

If I say there are three reasons murder is bad, you can't proceed to list situations where one of the reasons doesn't apply and say that disproves it. If somebody is murdered painlessly, you are still causing grief to those who knew them and cutting off their ability to continue to do things they anticipated doing with their lives; therefore it is still wrong. Like I said, I think the most important thing about killing someone is robbing them of the rest of their lives, but causing people pain is also wrong and therefore murder where you also cause pain is worse than murder where no pain is involved. This ought to be extremely simple to grasp. And, for the record, I believe torture should be penalized more harshly, but that is not in any way relevant.

Miscarriages can be traumatic when people were actually planning to have a child. Somebody else's abortion should not traumatize anyone, however, if they had no plans to have a child.

If I had been aborted, I wouldn't care because I would never have existed. This is different from me dying painlessly right now because, as I already explained, then there would be people left grieving for me and I would have been robbed of my ability to do the many things that I am currently planning to do with the rest of my life. This is exactly what I said in the post you were responding to. And no, I do not think there would have been anything "unfair" about me being aborted as a fetus. I didn't exist, in any meaningful sense; I was a blob of cells growing inside my mom. I don't think there is any such thing as being "unfair" to a blob of cells unable to feel pain or anticipate anything and years away from having any sort of a sense of justice.

Yes, it would have resulted in me never existing or getting to create a website and write fanfics and have the cuddliest boyfriend in the world. But so would my parents using contraception that night, or either of them not being in the mood, or some other sperm cell of my dad's happening to beat this one to the egg; logically, if aborting me would somehow have been unfair to the potential future me that never existed, so is any sperm cell not being combined with any egg in the world because of the potential future people that would have resulted in. You can wax poetic about the difference between the statistic potential of a zygote and individual sperm and egg cells all you like, but it makes no difference to the potential people who were or were not born as a result.

I personally am against abortion in its entirety. Truth be told, if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. It's a very simple solution.

The thing about this argument (and similar ones in the same vein) is that humans engage in a whole host of such very low-risk behaviours all the time, simply because the steady benefits outweigh the very, very low risk. By your logic, then you should respond to...

...a car accident victim with, "If you don't want to get into a car accident, don't drive cars."
...a murder victim with, "If you don't want to get murdered, don't do things that might upset someone."
...an old woman who slips on ice and breaks her hip, "If you don't want to break your hip, don't go outside."

And so on and so on. Thing is, people like sex. Yes, they could get pregnant, but by using contraceptives that risk can be made extremely low, to the point where sex is simply well worth that small risk, the same way that the convenience of driving cars is worth the risk of having a car accident.

Furthermore, yes, sometimes people have sex in a genuinely irresponsible manner, but forcing them to have a kid as a punishment? Is just all kinds of skeevy. Even though having unsafe sex is irresponsible behaviour, it does not hurt anyone else, and having your body hijacked for nine months for it when it can be avoided is extremely disproportionate retribution, kind of like denying a lung cancer patient treatment because they smoked. (Also, why is only the woman receiving this horribly disproportionate retribution, whereas the man gets off mostly scot-free unless the woman invites more punishment onto herself by keeping the child and making him pay child support?) And, as I mentioned in my first post, using a living, thinking child to punish other people for having sex (or anything at all, for that matter), no matter how irresponsibly, is a pretty revolting idea.

 

[Zoltea]

Right, so, I've been asked to enter Serious Business for the first time. It's pretty intimidating! Especially in a thread moving so fast and this heated... Eep.

I'm addressing Zoltea only at the moment - Zoltea, there are a lot of things you're misunderstanding, please try to understand them.



This is inaccurate. The few days per month are for her period, not for her to have a baby in. This is pretty easy to clear up, just remember it for the future.

I was already told of this earlier. It's been over 3 years since I heard and couldn't fully remember. Thus is why I said "if I'm correct".

Because the girl shouldn't have to go through pregnancy just because someone might want her baby. Pregnancy is kind of awful even when it's exactly what you intended - can you imagine being miserable for nine months when it's not even a baby you want to keep and love? If it's a living reminder of the trauma you suffered?

There are a lot of orphans already who don't have homes. There are people who have babies on purpose just to give them away (surrogate mothers). Why is it so important to you to put more into the world when there are enough?

Try to understand - this is almost an entire painful year to give up to something that isn't even really human yet. When do you think it counts as human? Why do you think so?

I believe it is considered human at inception.

Nine months of having to carry a baby inside of you from such a traumatic experience is definitely more traumatic than aborting it (in most cases? There might be some people who feel differently). Abortion can be traumatic too, yes, but you don't get to decide for her which would make her feel worse. She's the one with the feelings.



If she's able to take measures against pregnancy, then she can do that, but it's possible that she's traumatized enough not to even consider that, that she isn't aware that there are measures she can take, that she's unable to obtain the medication, that she's terrified of going out to get it, or that it doesn't work. If any of these happen, will you deny her the right to get an abortion even though carrying the baby to term will be a painful and traumatic experience?



and



It's really difficult to understand why people would want to have sex when you're unfamiliar with it, but it isn't just for babies. People who are biologically female have a part that exists solely for pleasure. It has no other purpose.

It isn't a "desperate need". It's something intimate and special you can share with your partner, and it isn't fair to punish people for enjoying it, or to swear at them. Why is it a bad thing? It isn't.

When I mention desperate need, I talk about people who have sex solely to get an endorphin rush. If the sex is for the bonding of a relation (though if a baby is not desired, do be responsible. Irresponsibility usually takes something big to fix.) or for reproduction, then I'll encourage it. If it is being used for other purposes then I say it shouldn't be done at all.

I know this is a difficult subject, and it's hard for you to understand the views of others, but try to, because it's a really important subject as well. And remember that a lot of people here are having some trouble understanding you, too. That's the ideal purpose of a discussion like this; to try and understand how everyone else feels, even if you disagree in the end.

Sorry if something here doesn't make sense to you, or if something seems abrasive - I'd really like to help you understand this.

I do expect disagreements. Most of this forum takes a more liberal standpoint while I have conservative views.

EDIT: There are people who when pregnant aren't bothered by any pain. Specifically one women I know is still instructing a dance class, in fact doing even the dance steps with the class, and is pregnant.

 

[Butterfree]

EDIT: There are people who when pregnant aren't bothered by any pain. Specifically one women I know is still instructing a dance class, in fact doing even the dance steps with the class, and is pregnant.

Good for them! How exactly does this help people who are bothered by it?

Also, the pain part is the birth, not the pregnancy. The pregnancy itself mostly just puts your hormones out of whack, reshapes your body (in part permanently), forces you to avoid various foods and activities, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I do expect disagreements. Most of this forum takes a more liberal standpoint while I have conservative views.

EDIT: There are people who when pregnant aren't bothered by any pain. Specifically one women I know is still instructing a dance class, in fact doing even the dance steps with the class, and is pregnant.

You are not conservative, you are a social authoritarian.

MEMO TO THE WORLD

Start using political terms according to their actual meaning.

 

[Eloi]

I really like this idea, but even then. You would be looking at a freedom of (insert word of choice here) movement. I mean, also that would just open back up for the dangerous back alley abortions.

In reality I think everyone needs to face something. Either way someone is going to lose. I mean it can be seen as amazingly irresponsible, but some people just down right don't care. As long as they can continue with there life. For now I think abortion is one of those things that should to be marked "agree to disagree".

Hmm, how about if the Abortion Council conferring with your insurance-paid psychologist disapproves of your abortion, you have to pay for it out of your pocket, but if approved, you get your abortion covered completely by insurance. This would give financial incentive to give your case to the Abortion Council, because if they approve it, you get your abortion free! And if it is denied, it isn't illegal for you to abort, just costly.

 

[Harlequin]

Except all three of what you mentioned are solutions after the fact, similar to how adoption is a solution to pregnancy after the child is born.

Liposuction allows you eat as much as you want without dealing with the consequences (fatness). Life is full of "magical bail-out buttons". It's what humans do. Don't want to hunt for food? Go to the supermarket. Don't want to spend hours and hours a day crafting something? Make a robot do it. Don't want to think about things for yourself? Listen to Glenn Beck. So what?

What I'm saying is sex is meant for reproduction and increasing the bond between two loved ones. If a married couple have sex to increase their bond, they can also use birth control.

Biologically sex is for one thing: reproduction. However, humans have evolved a very strange and unique sex life. We're actually the aberration in many regards, but sex, for humans, is intrinsically pleasing. We do it because it feels nice. We do it to reinforce social bonds. We do it because we're programmed to want it. Right. Okay. So? Why should we have to deal with the 'consequences' of sex when we don't have to? Why should women be punished for wanting to have sex when wanting sex is a perfectly natural thing? Why should sex be confined to married couples?

Interesting way to view an unborn child, as a life-sucking parasite. A huge difference is parasites don't have potential to further society, an unborn baby does. Though if you're pro-choice, why doesn't the baby get a choice?

That's what it is. It can't live on its own, it feeds on the nutrients of its host and it makes the host weaker. What part of that doesn't sound like a parasite? Yes, it has the potential to become a human, but so do the millions of sperms swimming around me right now.

It's not a baby. It can't decide anything. It doesn't really have a brain. It can't feel any pain. It can't make decisions. It's not conscious.

Finally, as for "adopted children usually have horrible lives, so it's better to abort them." Would it also be better than to just kill anyone who lives in depression? If your goal is to just put people out of misery.

This goes back to what Butterfree/Bachuru said earlier. Depressed people are already alive. They have wants, dreams and desires, people who will miss them and people who want to see them stay alive. Someone who is already alive is infinitely more important than a cluster of cells that nobody wants anyway.

There are already hundreds and hundreds of unwanted children in the system anyway. Do we really want to add more?