Runner in college knocks up girlfriend. What would you do?

ya..... wrote:

Agreed. after seeing my son respond to the OB poking my wife's belly, waving his arms and kicking his legs at 8 weeks, it makes you wonder how someone could call that a "ball of cells." Very misinformed.

Troll. I said heartbeat.

PalmettoBluff wrote:

I am a woman and I have supported abortion rights for most of my life. It wasn't until I had my first child that I even had questions about my stance. Now that I have had two kids, I am against it. I am not a very brave soul, so I tend to keep my opinions to myself. I know that many of my friends went through the same change that I did and I think that we will see a more active voice coming from the new moms who have been through the process of seeing their baby at 4/5 weeks, which is what some of us have to do when complications arise early in the pregnancy. You can already hear/see a true heartbeat and it is quite an experience. It has an effect on your views of what is life and what isn't life.

You're making a false equivalency. It's not pro-life vs. pro-abortion. It's pro-life vs. pro-choice. The choice to have an abortion.

You can be pro-choice but personally anti-abortion. Many women I know share this mindset. Abortion may not be something they would choose, but they believe the option of abortion should be available and safe for all women.

SilverStar wrote:

You're making a false equivalency. It's not pro-life vs. pro-abortion. It's pro-life vs. pro-choice. The choice to have an abortion.

You can be pro-choice but personally anti-abortion. Many women I know share this mindset. Abortion may not be something they would choose, but they believe the option of abortion should be available and safe for all women.

I understand. I am saying that I went from pro-choice to pro-life after having my children. I believe this was a point brought up earlier in the thread, which I was addressing (in a way). A lot of people that I know who might have been okay with abortions for others are beginning to change their minds after having kids of their own. I agree that this is an effect of science and technology showing us what is going on at an early stage of pregnancy. My comments are just anecdotal, but they seem to resonate with many of my friends. That is why I commented. I do not plan to post anymore because I am not cut out to be an activist :)

The problem with the pro-life crowd is they utterly ignore what kind of life an unwanted child might have when the abortion of a fetus could save many people a lot of pain and suffering.

Most of the people who oppose abortion are either religious types or people with kids who NOW can't imagine what life would be like had they aborted their own fetus early in the pregnancy. Fair feelings from both sets of people, but hardly objective. (Not to attack the religious folks, but I often find it amusing that they presume to know what God wants with regard to the future "life" of a fetus. If they truly believe God is guiding their lives, then who's to say God didn't influence a person's decision to abort a fetus in the best interests of what could have become the miserable life of an unwanted child.)

At the very least, people who are pro-life should stand behind their conviction by adopting unwanted children. I'm acquainted with a pro-life Catholic couple who pooped out 12 kids, but they would NEVER consider adoption. "Oh, never! Do you realize how screwed up a adoptive child can be?" WWJD, indeed.

That's kind of funny, because science actually shows us the fetus doesn't have the basic neural equipment to be a person, let alone have consciousness, til 24-28 weeks.

I'm pro-abortion to the fullest. A lot of poor people would be dramatically better off, and a lot of kids wouldn't be leading miserable, abused lives, if more people would abort when they're not ready to parent.

PalmettoBluff wrote:

I understand. I am saying that I went from pro-choice to pro-life after having my children.

Nice of you to make YOUR choice, now let other women make theirs. Yes, nice of you to be pro-life, probably at least solidly middle class, in a long term relationship to raise the children, and lots of other soccer Mom's to agree with you.

Now project your belief to the inner city of Chicago, NY LA or any other big city, where the family unit has collapsed, people survive on entitlement programs and crime. How is it working out there?

Maybe you can move to Camden and spread your beliefs there.

I think you bring up a lot of good points, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that if you're pro-life that you have to also adopt kids. I do think your 12-child family is pretty awful, though. I know plenty of Catholics who have adopted, too. In fact, Catholic Charities is one of the biggest adoption facilitators if I am not mistaken.

but let's take this away from religion for a second - no religious discussions are objective. That is a waste of time.

I think your point about saving a lot of pain and suffering could be said for all kinds of things: sick babies, sick kids, sick parents, sick grandparents. I think as a general rule, we pretty much all agree that killing someone (else) to avoid suffering is off the table. I cannot kill my neighbor because he is making my life hell. I cannot kill my boss because he had a problem with me, fired me and now I have to go to the homeless shelter. So the question becomes, when it is okay to kill someone? Some think it is before they are born. Some think it is never right. Obviously, some think it is okay to kill whenever (murderers), and many believe it is okay to kill for political reasons (war). These are not cut-and-dry questions.

I think the pro-life crowd understands your side of the coin; I just think they do not think it is right to abort (end a life) for those reasons.

Ho Hum wrote:

I'm pro-abortion to the fullest. A lot of poor people would be dramatically better off, and a lot of kids wouldn't be leading miserable, abused lives, if more people would abort when they're not ready to parent.

Okay but who are you to make that decision? What if I said that kids with acne and learning problems were going to lead miserable lives full of bullying and they should be killed? Who am I to say that? Maya Angelou grew up in a poor, abusive household. She was forced into prostitution. I think she would have argued that her life was worth living.

I want to be clear. I understand your point, and I believe many pro-lifers do as well. The issue is that pro-lifers likely do not agree that your points warrant the killing of someone.

I think there are lots of ways life would be easier if we could just kill people. Hell, it would make things a lot easier to just nuke the shit out of the Middle East right now, but is that right? Can we do that?

sdefr wrote:

Now project your belief to the inner city of Chicago, NY LA or any other big city, where the family unit has collapsed, people survive on entitlement programs and crime. How is it working out there?

Maybe you can move to Camden and spread your beliefs there.

Again, why not kill all of these people?

Personally, I think the answer is contraception and adoption. That puts me in an odd position with both sides.

One of the few advantages to being a letsrun poster. No sex EVER means never having to worry about such things.

Of course it's possible, it just takes time management.After WWII many former soldiers worked full time, went to college on the GI Bill, and father kids, sometimes 5 or 6 (my grandad).People are too used to "free time" these days.

Preggo wrote:

A lot of people have their fair share of pregnancy scares and what not. So I was thinking: what if someone knocked their girlfriend up and had to father a child while running for a school? Would it be possible, or would you focus on one thing? Anyone have any stories? Jared Ward comes to mind

Ho Hum wrote:

That's kind of funny, because science actually shows us the fetus doesn't have the basic neural equipment to be a person, let alone have consciousness, til 24-28 weeks.

I'm pro-abortion to the fullest. A lot of poor people would be dramatically better off, and a lot of kids wouldn't be leading miserable, abused lives, if more people would abort when they're not ready to parent.

Science only hurts the pro-abortion movement. As stated before, when people can see what is supposedly "a ball of cells" reacting in real time to external forces, people start to realize that the "ball of cells" (which is what you and I are too, so that's a weak argument in itself) is a living, breather organism. Your comment concerning consciousness is kind of ridiculous. When people are unconscious and in a coma, is it ok to kill them? Do they stop being humans for those few days after they get in an accident and aren't conscious? Obviously consciousness is certainly no measure of whether or not one is a human.

Your second comment might even be worse. Yeah, there would be less kids in poverty if we just killed them all. Can you just imagine what dropping a nuclear bomb on Africa would do to world poverty rates? We could eradicate poverty!! *facepalm*

The debate surrounding abortion shouldn't be about the societal implications--about whether or not it's good for fighting poverty, etc. it should be about the science--is what inside the mother a human being? Obviously then that starts the question "what is a human?" Maybe there are some legitimate arguments that at conception the fused egg and sperm aren't yet human. However, when you have a being that has complete human DNA, has a beating heart, hands, feet, reacts to external force, then there is very little argument that that is not a human. Yes, it lives off its mother. But so do 1 and 2 year olds. If left alone to feed themselves, 1 and 2 year olds would die, just as the baby inside the mother would die if the mother didn't eat for several days.

Science has only hurt the abortion movement, and in the years to come will continue to do more damage. And the pro abortion "science" of the Stone Age will be left behind.

I got my girlfriend pregnant after my sophomore year in college. I redshirted indoor and outdoor to add to the pressure of school and our child being born. My senior year I ended as an all-american in outdoor track. It's definitely doable. Sure, it added a lot more stress than i would have liked during college. And yes, my running suffered. But, it was my fault, and I love my wife and daughter more than i ever thought i was capable of loving, so it was worth it.

If the male doesn't accept responsibility, take one testicle. If it happens again, take the other. If the woman chooses life without the ferril male, full government support for number one to have a chance at some form of normalcy. If it happens again, cut the assistance for both by 2/3/and tie her off so it can't happen again. This is my choice as a responsible tax payer.

I would have just accepted being a father and went from there.

I am sure the running would have been adjusted.

Or maybe I would have quit to work. Don't know.

I had a teammate that knocked up a girl and I saw how it really weighed on him through the season. It was his junior year.

He didn't run too well his senior year either.

If the girl is pregnant and you decide not to abort you might as well have a second because in this country single mothers of two get their tuition paid for, housing paid for, food stamps and the whole nine yards.

See Christy Cazzola of UW-Sloshkosh

anapaix wrote:

Science only hurts the pro-abortion movement. As stated before, when people can see what is supposedly "a ball of cells" reacting in real time to external forces, people start to realize that the "ball of cells" (which is what you and I are too, so that's a weak argument in itself) is a living, breather organism.

...

However, when you have a being that has complete human DNA, has a beating heart, hands, feet, reacts to external force, then there is very little argument that that is not a human. Yes, it lives off its mother. But so do 1 and 2 year olds. If left alone to feed themselves, 1 and 2 year olds would die, just as the baby inside the mother would die if the mother didn't eat for several days.

Not only this, but the growing field of epigenetics shows us that the fetus also controls the blood pressure and sugar levels of the mother, meaning that the fetus actually has more control of its own life prior to being born. It is far from a passive lump of cells. Just an interesting aside.

Do you guys understand that I (and most other pro-choice people) don't consider a fetus to be a kid? I don't think you should kill a kid with acne or all the kids in Africa because those are conscious human beings. I do think you should be able to abort a fetus BEFORE it becomes a kid.

Ho Hum wrote:

Do you guys understand that I (and most other pro-choice people) don't consider a fetus to be a kid? I don't think you should kill a kid with acne or all the kids in Africa because those are conscious human beings. I do think you should be able to abort a fetus BEFORE it becomes a kid.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

So your definition of life is consciousness, even in a scenario where being unconscious is only temporary?