Christy Wisdom

United States

Hello people! What to say? I'm a Christian girl. I like to write. I write tons of poetry, some short stories, and other things.
God bless you!
Shouganai
-I wish I could speak every single language, wouldn't that be cool ?

Message from Writer

You can be nostalgic for a place you've never been if you've been there in your imagination.

strokes of paint on canvas/those are my words on a page/watch as the ink blots drawn from the depths of my mind/stain papers as they grow yellow with age/wonder if they will live forever/in the imagination and thoughts of someone/for sometimes you'll find if the words are important/blotting them out is not easily done

Thank you to all who have supported me, and feedback is always welcome!
Also, if you comment on a piece of mine, I will generally respond to it at some point.

Pro-Lifer's Views on Abortion Essay (Pt. 2)

November 30, 2018

FREE WRITING

7
Hi all! In this one, I'm going to answer some questions I got from CatherinelyMe.
(I am assuming that these are all referring to whether or not it's okay to have an abortion)
1. What if the woman was raped? I've already answered this on Pt. 1, but long story short I think that the woman in this case was an innocent who got hurt. It would be better for only one innocent to get hurt by the rape rather than two (The other is the unborn baby). Why multiply it? 
2. What if the fetus was a result of incest (there was a 12 year old incest rape victim that I heard about and there were to lawyers fighting to deny her an abortion) Again, I think that abortion is not right. Same thing with the whole "don't hurt two innocents" thing, but also why should you? Because the child is illegitimate? Because the girl is so young? If she can get pregnant, she should be capable of giving birth to the baby, right? I would say that she should maybe give the child up for adoption or find someone to parent it afterwards though, because at that point it would be hard for someone so young to take care of a baby. 
3. What if the fetus is not developed? Is it okay to abort it? And if you think so, what is the most developed the fetus can be for it to be aborted? No, I don't think that it's alright to abort the baby even when it's at the "clump of cells" stage. It's still distinctly human; it has human DNA and has a soul. It is not the same as killing an animal or a plant because neither of those have souls or are human.
4. What if the mother is a drug/alcohol addict, and knows that she either won't be able to take care of the baby, or knows that she will not be able to quit for the nine months and would relapse? The baby still shouldn't be aborted. If she can't take care of the baby, she could consider giving it up for adoption. Despite everyone saying that the foster system or adoption system could result in a life of misery or would contribute to overpopulation, every person born into this world contributes to the population. You do. I do. On the thing about the foster system and adoption system, there are really loving couples who just want to parent the child. As for the thing about the relapse, I do know that if they drank alcohol or did drugs while pregnant, the baby could get hurt. However, that is no excuse for killing it. In that case I would say that the woman should get all the help she can get with not relapsing, and if she does, try to get the baby medical help if it needs medical help.
5. What if the father was extremely abusive, and the mother knew she couldn't leave, but still didn't want her child to suffer through that? Again, I would consider adoption. Or calling the police. Or if there's a hotline for that situation, I would suggest that she calls that and then maybe goes to stay with families or relatives. Obviously, this may be difficult and/or an impossible situation for the mother to get out of, but she should still keep the baby.

Okay, we'll see if I get any more questions done today. If not, I'll try to post tomorrow. Questions are welcome (just go to my questions for Pro-Life Only post), and debates are fine as well as long as they're civil.
 
 
As always, no offense is meant by what I post.

Print

See History
  • November 30, 2018 - 4:08pm (Now Viewing)

Login or Signup to provide a comment.

19 Comments
  • Christy Wisdom

    I'm not saying that it will be always, but having a baby can be very rewarding. Of course they would have to put great thought into it, don't get me wrong. About the tattoo thing, I feel this is different because a tattoo is not human, is not alive, and does not have a soul. Yes, there are choices that a person can make that increase or decrease their likelihood of getting pregnant, but they can't actually control it. I mean, a couple could try to get pregnant but never have a child and on the other hand a random rape could result in a pregnancy. And yes, it will certainly change your life in some way. I really don't mean to offend anyone, but why isn't it selfish to say that you want to get rid of your kid just because you don't want it and it will change your life? We're called selfish for something as small as not sharing; why isn't it more so to not want to share your life with someone because it's inconvenient? And besides, they don't have to keep the baby afterwards, they can give it up for adoption, right? Seriously, I really hope I didn't just offend anyone. I don't mean to.


    almost 3 years ago
  • rainandsonder

    @Christy Wisdom But an abortion is something that the mother would have had to put great thought into. Nobody wants to get an abortion, nobody thinks that abortions are good things. Obviously the mother has thought this through and has decided that she doesn't want/is not ready for/cannot care for a kid. And a kid can change your life. It's like asking a person that doesn't want to get a tattoo "but why can't you just be happy with the tattoo? maybe you'll like it!" Obviously, a kid is much more important than a tattoo, but both are choices that are really up to the person that is or is not having one, and both are permanent (well, you can remove tattoos, but it's difficult and painful, and I think you get my point).
    @nezi_nes Hm, I'm not sure. Some babies are born prematurely, and some survive, but prematurely born babies are always born closer to the nine-month mark, so at the more developed end of the spectrum. In almost all cases, a baby born extremely early will have serious problems and will almost certainly not survive, and there have been absolutely none born earlier than five months that have survived as far as I know. However, nearly all abortions take place in the early stages of development, when it would be impossible for the fetus to survive outside the womb.


    almost 3 years ago
  • Christy Wisdom

    No problem! I actually don't know if a fetus could develop outside of the womb without the mother's help. I know that babies are viable before the 9 months, and I think that prematurely born babies generally live, but they have to spend longer in the hospital, maybe. Here's something from the World Health Organization
    "An estimated 15 million babies are born too early every year. That is more than 1 in 10 babies. Approximately 1 million children die each year due to complications of preterm birth (1). Many survivors face a lifetime of disability, including learning disabilities and visual and hearing problems." So maybe about a 14 out of 15 chance in living for preemies?
    I do wonder now, though, if they could like you said develop outside of the womb. Thanks for adding that to the conversation!


    almost 3 years ago
  • nezi_nes

    Also thank you to Christy Wisdom and RainandSonder for providing something to think/talk about. There's immense courage involved in discussing sticky topics like these.


    almost 3 years ago
  • nezi_nes

    I'm just reading everyone's conversation, and am still in the process of discovering my beliefs on pro-life or pro-abortion. I have a question (mostly scientific): technically, could a foetus, given the right conditions, develop outside the womb without the mother's help? If so, wouldn't that remove the claim that a foetus is entirely dependent on the mother, whereas a "born" baby is independent? Just something to think about that's not really related to the debate.


    almost 3 years ago
  • Christy Wisdom

    But why can't the mother be happy with her baby? Just because you have a baby doesn't mean that it ruins your life. What if it's the greatest thing that's ever happened to her? She won't ever know.


    almost 3 years ago
  • rainandsonder

    I don't really know how to explain why. It's just that a mother has already been alive for years and years. She can feel and think, she's gone through hard and good times, and she wants to keep living and be happy for years to come. A fetus hasn't done any of those things.


    almost 3 years ago
  • Christy Wisdom

    Why don't you think that they have the same rights? Also, to rehash with the whole "when does a fetus become a baby" thing, fetuses are technically viable before the 9 months are up. I know you've already answered that you have the opinion that the later you wait for the abortion, the more unethical it is, I'm just pointing it out and wondering if you have a distinction.


    almost 3 years ago
  • rainandsonder

    @Mary Wall But it’s not. The fetus is growing inside of the mother’s body, a baby isn’t. A fetus could not ever survive outside of the mother, while a baby that is removed from its mother has the possibility of surviving.
    @stripedfly1001 I never compared a cell to a human. I was simply saying that just because something has human DNA doesn’t make it human. Also, I disagree. A fetus is guaranteed to become a person, yes, but frankly I don’t think that something that will become a person is as important as the rights of something that is already a person.


    almost 3 years ago
  • Christy Wisdom

    ok! Well, I do too :)


    almost 3 years ago
  • janice

    @Christy I believe that fetuses are human before birth. This is why I said "assume you're correct." Sorry if that was unclear :)


    almost 3 years ago
  • Mary Wall

    @RainAndSonder, if your using the argument that the fetus or the still developing fetus is still dependent on the mother and therefore not a baby, than would you say that to kill a born baby is fine too, since the born baby is still just as dependent on it's mother as it was in the womb?


    almost 3 years ago
  • Christy Wisdom

    I'm totally not against you, I'm pro-life too! I would just like to point out that you might get the counterargument that if you count fetuses as becoming human after birth, then the ones that die before birth should not be considered human. Do you have an answer for that one as well? It might help your case.


    almost 3 years ago
  • Silver Pen

    THANK YOU STRIPEDFLY1001! This is what I had in my head but couldn't say! An egg is not garunteed to bring life, but a fetus is.
    I am only using the term fetus so that it is clear what I'm saying.
    And no disrespect.:)


    almost 3 years ago
  • janice

    Woof this is late. I'm so sorry
    @RainAndSonder I've said this a million times by now, but I'll say it again. Let's say you're right and the undeveloped fetus is not yet a human being with all the rights of one. The fetus, though not human yet, is GUARANTEED (this is important) to become human. Therefore it deserves protection because it will become into a human being. What's the difference between the fetus and a woman's eggs, though? The eggs, while it it true that they have the possibility of becoming human, ARE NOT GUARANTEED to do so. They hold a possibility but not a guarantee.
    Also, how could you compare a human to a cell? How could you? The cell cannot think for itself, cannot reason, cannot speak, move, interact like humans do. It's not a good example for something like this.


    almost 3 years ago
  • rainandsonder

    A comatose patient is different because they weren't always that way. They were once conscious and there's a chance that they'll become conscious in the future. And they are still a developed human. A disabled person is completely different; they're not relying on something to keep them alive, they're relying on something to give them mobility. Also, you and I depend on food and water, true, but I guess the point I was trying to make was less about the dependency on the mother and more about development. A fetus is not a person, in my opinion, but rather a clump of cells growing into a person. And yes, those cells are human, but as I stated, so is each individual human cell, but that doesn't make each cell a person. I hope that kinda makes sense? And of course I don't mean you any disrespect either.


    almost 3 years ago
  • Christy Wisdom

    Thank you, Abigail Sauble! RainAndSonder, I'll do my best to try to explain it to you, but it really is much harder when my religion has to be unincluded. Well, how about a comatose patient, one who has to use an inhaler and all that other medical apparatus to simply live? if you are entirely dependent on something, does that make you not human? I am entirely dependent on food, drink, and air to keep me alive. If I don't have it, I'll die. Does this make me inhuman? If your argument is that it's not developed enough to live outside the womb and is entirely dependent on the mother, consider some of the disabled. Let's say that you know someone whose legs can't work properly, and they are entirely dependent on a wheelchair to help them get around. They are still human, but they are very dependent on something else giving them mobility, right? I don't mean to be disrespectful at all or to twist your words around to mean something you didn't.


    almost 3 years ago
  • rainandsonder

    "It's still distinctly human; it has human DNA and has a soul." I don't exactly believe in souls, so I'm going to focus on the DNA argument. Yes, a fetus has human DNA. However, so does every cell in the human body. Every single cell that makes up a human contains human DNA. Does that make each individual cell human? No. A fetus is a clump of these cells, but in my opinion it's still not human because, again, it isn't developed enough to live outside the womb and is entirely dependent on the mother.


    almost 3 years ago
  • AbigailSauble

    Great answers! (Again). :) And I respect you for standing up for the unborn! Few of us do...


    almost 3 years ago