08-20-2015, 03:37 PM
(08-20-2015, 03:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I can't remember the third, but roughly 3/4ths of respondents to the survey I remember bfine posting cited interference with work/school/other responsibilities and lack of ability to afford a child. Both reasons can be seen as concern for the unborn as they would not be able to devote the time a child would really need to foster a good environment and the same for resources.
I'm not sure how anyone can make an argument that it's more compassionate to kill a child than to keep it alive.
Now if a child were shown to have some serious disease or defect where they would spend their entire life suffering, okay. Same can be said for people already born I believe.
I had a dog for 16 years that came down with cancer. Got to the point where he couldn't eat and could barely move without being in pain. I put off putting him to sleep because I was selfish, but it didn't take long before I realized that he was just better off.
I'll say that in situations like that we treat dogs with more humanity than people IMO.
That being said, in most normal situations, I don't see any compassion in killing a baby because it's more or less an inconvenience. Sorry about your luck. Carry it to term and take care of it or give it up for adoption. Perhaps some personal responsibility might decrease the number of "accidental pregnancies".
