24 Nov 07
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkAnd?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice call ...[text shortened]... gain, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
What's your point?
Where's the debate?
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkPeople who don't want children shouldn't have them. That just seems really simple to me. In light of that, she made a decision to ensure that she didn't accidentally get pregnant. Her reasons don't match anything I'd think or even anything that would ever occur to me, but that's beside the point. She accepted responsibility for her reproductive abilities and made a choice that matched her beliefs.
You're first clue was in the thread title. That little thingy at the end there is what's called a question mark.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI'd be in agreement there, both couples took responsibility for their decisions, as soon as the first woman became pregnant despite contraception, she was making the right decision to sterilize herself rather than risk having to have a second or third abortion. If these people were suggesting that others family choices be limited, then there'd be a problem here, but they're keeping it at a personal choice.
People who don't want children shouldn't have them. That just seems really simple to me. In light of that, she made a decision to ensure that she didn't accidentally get pregnant. Her reasons don't match anything I'd think or even anything that would ever occur to me, but that's beside the point. She accepted responsibility for her reproductive abilities and made a choice that matched her beliefs.
I also found the constant thread throughout the article that this was somehow against nature that a woman should not want babies a little disturbing, but then that's the Daily Mail for you! There's lots of women you choose not to have children due to their career or just not wanting children, that these parents have different reasons to them is beside teh point.
They made a choice, stuck by it, and aren't forcing it on others.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonYou're both wrong. Given her desire to "save the planet" didn't balance with the "increased carbon footprint" that would result from her new baby, she took the selfish way out.
I'd be in agreement there, both couples took responsibility for their decisions, as soon as the first woman became pregnant despite contraception, she was making the right decision to sterilize herself rather than risk having to have a second or third abortion. If these people were suggesting that others family choices be limited, then there'd be a problem h ...[text shortened]... m is beside teh point.
They made a choice, stuck by it, and aren't forcing it on others.
Instead of taking her own life, she had the baby aborted. Which tells us how selfish she really is. "Mommies use of energy is just fine, but you have to die before you'll use some" "I hope you understand. I love you". "Bye-Bye now".
Soooo..... What we have here is your ordinary nutroot, world crusader using global warming as an excuse to justify her abortion. Nothing more, nothing less.
I've heard global warming used to explain a lot of things, but this one my friends, is a little far.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkI think your issue is with abortion, not greenies. besides, I said...
You're both wrong. Given her desire to "save the planet" didn't balance with the "increased carbon footprint" that would result from her new baby, she took the selfish way out.
Instead of taking her own life, she had the baby aborted. Which tells us how selfish she really is. "Mommies use of energy is just fine, but you have to die before you'll use some" "I ...[text shortened]... warming used to explain a lot of things, but this one my friends, is a little far.
"that these parents have different reasons to them is beside [the] point".
I stand by that, why flap your arms about these two couples when there are thousands of couples who make the same decision based on things like career opportunities or their wage. Also, saying "You're both wrong." is a little rich, given that you asked for everyones opinion, it was given and suddenly we're categorically wrong? Wow, very high opinion of yourself, don't you?
24 Nov 07
3 edits
Originally posted by agrysonYou misread me. I have nothing against abortion. You presume I'm pro-life, I'm not. I have no problem at all with her abortion. I'm just calling here on her bs about it being because of the "carbon footprint"
I think your issue is with abortion, not greenies. besides, I said...
"that these parents have different reasons to them is beside [the] point".
I stand by that, why flap your arms about these two couples when there are thousands of couples who make the same decision based on things like career opportunities or their wage. Also, saying "You're both wrong. en and suddenly we're categorically wrong? Wow, very high opinion of yourself, don't you?
Also, saying "You're both wrong." is a little rich,
I know, but it's hard to get any sort of debate going here without adding a little heat.
Edit: And I do have something against greenies. It's that they can come up with crap like this. They can genuinely believe that their life justifies their carbon footprint, yet someone else needs to die before it can have one of those evil carbon footprints.
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkLook, we all know that the carbon footprint justification is either BS or hippies are walking amongst us, but that the real reason is more likely to be much more conventional. My point being that whatever the real reason, it's not our place to question. She had taken steps not to get pregnant, for whatever reason, they failed, so she aborted. If she had not been on the pill and then gotten pregnant and aborted for similar reasons, there'd be a point of contention, but as it stands, she did everything humanly possible to avoid having kids in the first place, it's not like she wanted to have an abortion, she was trying to avoid that eventuality with a hysterectomy and was bieng discouraged by doctors.
You misread me. I have nothing against abortion. You presume I'm pro-life, I'm not. I have no problem at all with her abortion. I'm just calling here on her bs about it being because of the "carbon footprint"
[b]Also, saying "You're both wrong." is a little rich,
I know, but it's hard to get any sort of debate going here without adding a little heat. ...[text shortened]... yet someone else needs to die before it can have one of those evil carbon footprints.[/b]
24 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonI'm not questioning her having an abortion. I'm saying she's taking that carbon footprint thingy a little too far and abusing it as a convenient excuse for aborting an "inconvenient child"
Look, we all know that the carbon footprint justification is either BS or hippies are walking amongst us, but that the real reason is more likely to be much more conventional. My point being that whatever the real reason, it's not our place to question. She had taken steps not to get pregnant, for whatever reason, they failed, so she aborted. If she had not ...[text shortened]... as trying to avoid that eventuality with a hysterectomy and was bieng discouraged by doctors.
Okay, that AlGore reference was a little uncalled for.
Again, let me be clear on this point. If she had gotten an abortion and said her reason was, "I don't want a child", I would give half a rats ass about it.
My question to you is, did she take the "carbon footprint" meme a little too far when she used it as her justification?
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkIt's quite possible that she actually believes that. After all, there are a lot of vegans in the world and their beliefs make no sense to me, but that doesn't mean that they aren't fervent and being genuine in their motivations. The fact that you believe the woman's philosophy is flawed may or may not suggest that she's too dippy to think things clearly through but it doesn't mean that she's pretending to have one motivation when she really has another. And yeah, if this is a game where you're right and we're wrong then it's not a debate; it's ... never mind.
I'm not questioning her having an abortion. I'm saying she's taking that carbon footprint thingy a little too far and abusing it as a convenient excuse for aborting an "inconvenient child"
Okay, that AlGore reference was a little uncalled for.
Again, let me be clear on this point. If she had gotten an abortion and said her reason was, "I don't want a chil ...[text shortened]... ke the "carbon footprint" meme a little too far when she used it as her justification?
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkNo, I don't. It's something I'd never use myself, but then, the term "inconvenient child" is a term I wouldn't use either. She has a wacky belief, that belief dictates that to have children would be wrong. She took measures to avoid that eventuallity, as a personal decision. Now, you say that if she simply said she hadn't wanted a child you wouldn't give a rats ass.
I'm not questioning her having an abortion. I'm saying she's taking that carbon footprint thingy a little too far and abusing it as a convenient excuse for aborting an "inconvenient child"
Okay, that AlGore reference was a little uncalled for.
Again, let me be clear on this point. If she had gotten an abortion and said her reason was, "I don't want a chil ...[text shortened]... ke the "carbon footprint" meme a little too far when she used it as her justification?
The point is, she did say she didn't want a child.
What you disagree with is the why bit.
Many don't want kids because the lifestyle they have would be too economically stretched by having a child to be fair to anyone. These two couples are taking the exact same logic, but expanding it in a kind of super version of the "think globally, act locally" philosophy, but the reasonings are the exact same.
I don't agree with her logic, but I don't see it as going too far, its analogues are perfectly acceptable, so why not this?
25 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkA) This article is from the Daily Mail
I'm not questioning her having an abortion. I'm saying she's taking that carbon footprint thingy a little too far and abusing it as a convenient excuse for aborting an "inconvenient child"
B) There are wackos in all walks of life.
C) She didn't want to have an abortion. She tried to take proactive steps to prevent the need for an abortion, but the medical fraternity wouldn't help her out.
D) It really does seem as though your biggest problem with the women is the act of abortion.
E) Which of the woman's freedoms would you like to curtail?
F) Why do you think she needs to justify to you why she wanted an abortion?
G) In all walks of life and on a daily basis, people justify things in the most ridiculous ways, ie: needing to have 500 guns because you wouldn't be safe without them, etc, etc. Nothing new here.
D
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by MerkThis is where all this "global warming" hoo-hah is heading: The government controlling all aspects of your life, even decisions about reproduction. So any time these big phonies or neo-hippies point their self-righteous fingers of indignation at me, I just tell them all to shut the hell up because I ain't giving up my lifestyle because I'm the one who's right and they're wrong.
You're both wrong. Given her desire to "save the planet" didn't balance with the "increased carbon footprint" that would result from her new baby, she took the selfish way out.
Instead of taking her own life, she had the baby aborted. Which tells us how selfish she really is. "Mommies use of energy is just fine, but you have to die before you'll use some" "I ...[text shortened]... warming used to explain a lot of things, but this one my friends, is a little far.