# What do people think of this video "Reason not to abort"



## Cnote11

Sorry for making you watch this extremely boring video, but I'm curious what people's opinions on this topic would be.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I think it's propaganda for brainless people who can be manipulated by seeing a baby being nursed to uplifting music.


----------



## Cnote11

I agree with you. People are mass insulting someone who posted a positive comment but also said that the baby wouldn't have a normal life. People  They see something "inspirational" and they jump into holier-than-thou action mode.


----------



## Polednice

I find this terribly saddening. More than anything else, I think this is fundamentally selfish. The parents get to feel good about themselves for doting over their little disabled sweetheart, and friends and family get to feel inspired by his giggles, but the kind thing to do would have been to have an abortion - instead, for their quaint, precious happiness, this poor little boy is going to go on to have a life of immense sadness and hardship.

**** that woman. And **** anyone who thinks they can fall back on optimism, thinking everything will turn out for the best.


----------



## Guest

I think the three of you, with the comments you have posted here, have provided an excellent example of just what is wrong with humanity. I have cousins who are living wonderful, happy, and fulfilling lives despite having been born with disabilities that guaranteed they would never achieve what most people can. Nobody kept them alive because they wanted to pat themselves on the back - they kept them alive because of love. My wife and I were told that our first child would be born with Down's Syndrome - we made the decision long ago that abortion would not be an option. We were blessed with a healthy boy with no problems - the test was a false positive.

I know other people, as well, who have children born with various disabilities. They don't fall back on optimism. They know just how harsh reality can be. You think they are being fundamentally selfish - you clearly have NO idea just how much time and self-sacrifice it takes to raise a special needs child. How much time is spent in doctors' offices. How much money is spent on medical procedures. How much agony comes when you are told all the pessimistic prognoses that you hear CONSTANTLY. And in spite of that, you still love that little child. And then you get confronted with comments like:
"**** that woman. And **** anyone who thinks they can fall back on optimism, thinking everything will turn out for the best." No, they don't necessarily think everything will turn out for the best. They hope and pray that the best will happen, but don't fool yourself - they are expecting the worst. They live in fear that this child that they love so completely can be taken from them at any time. And they have to put up with some sanctimonious piece of **** with absolutely no knowledge of their situation, no attachment to them or their child, telling them how horrible they are that they would allow a child to live.

I find these posts terribly saddening. It never ceases to shock me, and I supposes that is a good thing.


----------



## starthrower

I'm with Dr Mike on this one! I'm glad Helen Keller wasn't aborted. And Poley, aren't you the one always stressing that life is a one shot deal, and that it shouldn't unnecessarily be snuffed out?


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> I'm with Dr Mike on this one! I'm glad Helen Keller wasn't aborted. And Poley, aren't you the one always stressing that life is a one shot deal, and that it shouldn't unnecessarily be snuffed out?


Before DrMike's quite needless arrival on this thread, with arrogance and sanctimony enough to match my own, I had been thinking about this earlier today and am conflicted on the matter. I'm not quite sure what to think now, so I'm going to take some more time to think about it. I'm glad that I didn't need to be prompted by the interminably self-righteous, though.


----------



## Polednice

P.S. I'm leaning towards thinking that I was probably wrong _in this instance_, and, unlike the incorrigibly devout, I have no problem openly admitting my fault, and the unnecessary manner in which I voiced it. Regardless, I think the woman in the video is totally misguided about abortion in general, and anyone who wants to take this one case as a springboard for generalising about all abortion scenarios with talk of love and hope is still a ******* moron.

EDIT: Yes, I was definitely wrong, and acted poorly because of the propagandistic nature and purpose of the video and my own lack of self control.


----------



## starthrower

We understand! It's not like you have free will or anything.  And honestly, I couldn't make it one third of the way through that video with all of the mellow drama and Jesus music. But even able bodied people face great sadness and hardship in this life, so why not give the kid a shot despite his disabilities?


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> We understand! It's not like you have free will or anything.  And honestly, I couldn't make it one third of the way through that video with all of the mellow drama and Jesus music. But even able bodied people face great sadness and hardship in this life, so why not give the kid a shot despite his disabilities?


You're exactly right, and I was no doubt riled by the Jesus music and, unfortunately, my visceral reaction to the appearance of the child and my gut feeling that he's going to have a miserable existence. But, as I said, I thought about it some more this afternoon, tried to put my visceral feelings to one side and asked, "_Why_ would it have really been better to abort?" and found that I was thinking inconsistently. Abortion can be a good, merciful thing, but in much more extreme cases than this. I maintain, however, that these faith-head loons are selfish. :tiphat:


----------



## Cnote11

"Us three". I didn't make a value judgement on her decision, now did I, Dr. Mike  That's okay though, continue to insult me for things I never said.


----------



## Cnote11

starthrower said:


> We understand! It's not like you have free will or anything.  And honestly, I couldn't make it one third of the way through that video with all of the mellow drama and Jesus music. But even able bodied people face great sadness and hardship in this life, so why not give the kid a shot despite his disabilities?


Did you happen to see the kid? Don't infer anything from me saying this, people. I'm just curious whether or not you made it that far in the video.


----------



## starthrower

I took another look at the video. It ain't pretty, that's for sure. But I've got to tell you, I have two good friends who are blind and they're not pretty when they take off their sunglasses. But they are wonderful people with great personality, humor, and intelligence. And good taste in music too! 

It was due to music that I met and befriended both of them, as they were avid fans of my now defunct radio show.


----------



## Guest

I watched the whole thing before posting any comments.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> "Us three". I didn't make a value judgement on her decision, now did I, Dr. Mike  That's okay though, continue to insult me for things I never said.


I Included you because of post #3, where you acknowledged agreement with RT.

As for Poley thinking my input unnecessary, I would note that he showed no such circumspection prior to my posting. Or perhaps the repeated use of *'s hid some word other than the one I envisioned. But his comment betrayed no hint of his evolving thoughts on an issue. Does he typically use such harsh language when his mind is not yet settled on an issue?


----------



## Dodecaplex

DrMike! What sprezzatura! What power! What character!

I mean, good god, Cnote and Poley are nice people and all, but the way you effortlessly destroyed everything they said in this thread is a work of art on its own!

I love you! <3


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I Included you because of post #3, where you acknowledged agreement with RT.
> 
> As for Poley thinking my input unnecessary, I would note that he showed no such circumspection prior to my posting. Or perhaps the repeated use of *'s hid some word other than the one I envisioned. But his comment betrayed no hint of his evolving thoughts on an issue. Does he typically use such harsh language when his mind is not yet settled on an issue?


Are you not also prone to coming to false conclusions and believing in them firmly? I can think of one, glaring, bright, shining beacon of an example.


----------



## Polednice

Dodecaplex said:


> DrMike! What sprezzatura! What power! What character!
> 
> I mean, good god, Cnote and Poley are nice people and all, but the way you effortlessly destroyed everything they said in this thread is a work of art on its own!
> 
> I love you! <3


Seeing as Cnote said practically nothing and I recognised my mistakes myself, it was quite a meagre feat.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> I Included you because of post #3, where you acknowledged agreement with RT.
> 
> As for Poley thinking my input unnecessary, I would note that he showed no such circumspection prior to my posting. Or perhaps the repeated use of *'s hid some word other than the one I envisioned. But his comment betrayed no hint of his evolving thoughts on an issue. Does he typically use such harsh language when his mind is not yet settled on an issue?


For your information, I like all of Polednice's posts. I even liked the one where he said he went back on what he said. Seems contradictory perhaps? No, and I'll tell you why. Me "liking" a post does not necessarily mean I agree with each and every word spoken within the post. It isn't some sort of binding contract that says, "this post mirrors my viewpoints". I've liked plenty of posts I happened to not agree with it, but I enjoyed nonetheless. Other people have liked plenty of my posts and I know they did not agree with what I said. Perhaps I was applauding his attack on false optimism that was running rampant in the youtube comments. Perhaps something else. _Perhaps_ you shouldn't assume things before insulting other people, Dr. Mike.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Ach! How could you lose your composure so horribly, Cnote? The doc was referring to this post of yours:



Cnote11 said:


> I agree with you. People are mass insulting someone who posted a positive comment but also said that the baby wouldn't have a normal life. People  They see something "inspirational" and they jump into holier-than-thou action mode.


----------



## Cnote11

Oh, I see you referred to me liking RT's post. Pretty sure RT didn't judge the decision either, merely the video, as I also did in the first post. SHOCKER DR. MIKE THIS WILL ROCK YOUR WORLD. One can agree with a message but still criticize the way it is delivered. I've known plenty of things I've agreed with but still criticized to a great degree the manner they chose to deliver it in. i don't like these types of videos and I don't like the way they cause people to react. That, again, has nothing to do with the message within the video, DOES IT?


----------



## Cnote11

Dodecaplex said:


> Ach! How could you lose your composure so horridly, Cnote? The doc was referring to this post of yours:


Yes, I read what he said wrong. Either way, that isn't a judgement on the decision, but the video itself and the people in the comments. Once again, what Dr. Mike said is entirely invalid.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Are you not also prone to coming to false conclusions and believing in them firmly? I can think of one, glaring, bright, shining beacon of an example.


I can only assume you are referring to my faith, in which case that is a wonderful job on your part, trying to distract from what was really a horrible thing that you posted. I do not condemn others because of my religion. I would never say such things as you did because someone acted contrary to my own beliefs. I applaud your reversal on this matter, but I find your timing incredibly convenient. But that is probably just the cynic in me. You see, us religious nuts are not all incorrigibly optimistic. 
You see impure motives in Parents like the one in this video. I suggest to you that they show more love than most. Bringing love to a child that most view as a monster and think should never have even been given a single gasp of air. The child giggles because it is happy and surrounded by those that love him. There are perfectly healthy children born into this world that will never likely experience half the joy this child will. This child doesn't need pity. The people who are so starved of love in their own lives that they would say such horrible things are the ones in need of pity.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Cnote11 said:


> Yes, I read what he said wrong. Either way, that isn't a judgement on the decision, but the video itself and the people in the comments. Once again, what Dr. Mike said is entirely invalid.


I'm completely disappointed in you. At least Poley acknowledged the *** whupping he received.

Keep in mind, by the way, that I don't agree with either side of the debate; however, I do think that this argument is a work of art.


----------



## Cnote11

I would never say such things as you did because someone acted contrary to my own beliefs.


----------



## Cnote11

Dodecaplex said:


> I'm completely disappointed in you. At least Poley acknowledged the *** whupping he received.
> 
> Keep in mind, by the way, that I don't agree with either side of the debate; however, I do think that this argument is a work of art.


What "asswhupping". I'm pretty sure I never gave my opinions on this topic. Having said that, the only worse thing than not aborting disabled babies is not aborting Mormon babies.

Note, this isn't serious, but it seems like it is what people want to read anyway


----------



## Cnote11

White text, white text!


----------



## Dodecaplex

Read that book, Cnote. It will bring back half of your lost personality.


----------



## Cnote11

Being a perfect gentleman of the court is entirely overrated.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I thought it was a beautiful video. And anyway, I muted the sound and listened to SHOSTAKOVICH instead, and I STILL liked the video. There you go.

Sometimes, I wonder if I would crumble at such a circumstance. What would I do in that mother's place? I think I may take the role of coward, and feel bitter about my conscience not wanting to abort the child. And for those out there who are in such touch circumstances, I won't judge them even if they consider abortion. It's a horribly hard decision to make. I think videos like this one are good because they show "the other side" so to speak, to take the greater risk. I commend this woman and her husband for their undeniable courage.


----------



## Cnote11

I'd kill it.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I can only assume you are referring to my faith, in which case that is a wonderful job on your part, trying to distract from what was really a horrible thing that you posted. I do not condemn others because of my religion. I would never say such things as you did because someone acted contrary to my own beliefs. I applaud your reversal on this matter, but I find your timing incredibly convenient. But that is probably just the cynic in me. You see, us religious nuts are not all incorrigibly optimistic.
> You see impure motives in Parents like the one in this video. I suggest to you that they show more love than most. Bringing love to a child that most view as a monster and think should never have even been given a single gasp of air. The child giggles because it is happy and surrounded by those that love him. There are perfectly healthy children born into this world that will never likely experience half the joy this child will. This child doesn't need pity. The people who are so starved of love in their own lives that they would say such horrible things are the ones in need of pity.


Yeah, my timing was convenient, DrMike, because I wanted _your_ approval of all people on this planet. If anything, I'd have wanted to be stubborn just to be contrary, but even I'm not that petty. And I'm not distracting - in case you're coming to this thread late, folks, take a look at my first reply! It was emotive and wrong, and I acknowledge I was severely mistaken.

You're also totally up yourself to suggest that people wouldn't want the child to have a "single gasp of air" because they perceive it to be monstrous. Some children are aborted because _that_ is the loving thing to do. Some children have such severe, painful, horrid disabilities that the loving thing to do is to not allow them to suffer the pain, while the selfish thing to do is to dote over them, and give yourself a self-congratulatory pat on the back because you find them so inspirational. _Of course_ these idiots will feel proper love, but it's still a selfish love. I _thought_ that was the case here, but, after thinking about it, I realised that the boy's disability is nowhere near that severe, and I was totally wrong to make that assessment. And then you come prancing in to decry the state of humanity.

Get over yourself.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> What "asswhupping". I'm pretty sure I never gave my opinions on this topic. Having said that, the only worse thing than not aborting disabled babies is not aborting Mormon babies.
> 
> Note, this isn't serious, but it seems like it is what people want to read anyway


Wow, that is quite possibly the weakest attempt to elicit an angry response from me. So pathetic, I think I might just give you a like for it.


----------



## Polednice

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I thought it was a beautiful video. And anyway, I muted the sound and listened to SHOSTAKOVICH instead, and I STILL liked the video. There you go.
> 
> Sometimes, I wonder if I would crumble at such a circumstance. What would I do in that mother's place? I think I may take the role of coward, and feel bitter about my conscience not wanting to abort the child. And for those out there who are in such touch circumstances, I won't judge them even if they consider abortion. It's a horribly hard decision to make. I think videos like this one are good because they show "the other side" so to speak, to take the greater risk. I commend this woman and her husband for their undeniable courage.


I appreciate your viewpoint, Hui - I know we rarely agree on moral issues such as this, but I'm pleased to see that you don't assert blanket condemnations like some people.


----------



## Cnote11

Dr. Mike would never say such bad things about you just because he disagrees with you, Polednice. I think you're mistaken.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> Wow, that is quite possibly the weakest attempt to elicit an angry response from me. So pathetic, I think I might just give you a like for it.


I wasn't trying to elicit an angry response. You completely missed the point of the post. Perhaps you didn't read the white text.


----------



## Cnote11

Also, your response to that post proves my point.


----------



## Cnote11

Thank for the like, though. I know you wouldn't like it if you didn't agree with it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> I appreciate your viewpoint, Hui - I know we rarely agree on moral issues such as this, but I'm pleased to see that you don't assert blanket condemnations like some people.


That's my job.  I try to modify the term "Argument" and make something more productive of these kinds of topics.


----------



## Cnote11

For the record, I am pro abortion only for the reason that I've always wanted to play Mafia boss who puts hits on people but without the real-world consequences.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I appreciate your viewpoint, Hui - I know we rarely agree on moral issues such as this, but I'm pleased to see that you don't assert blanket condemnations like some people.


Oh I am fully aware there are many much nicer people than myself. I choose to not sugarcoat anything, especially when it comes to condemning insulting statements towards mothers expressing their love and gratefulness for their children. I happen to think mothers are pretty special, and this one in particular. You can insult me all you like, but to do it to someone so clearly undeserving seemed particularly egregious.

And to you, Cnote, I am well aware of your Intentions. I just think it is a particularly ineffective way to make your point. And no, I didn't read the white text. If it is worth saying, say it.


----------



## Cnote11

I agree, it was entirely ineffective. Never stopped me from post whoring before.


----------



## Cnote11

Also, if you "knew my intentions", then why did you claim that I was attempting to make you angry? That was not my intention, therefore you didn't really know my intention. How convenient of you to claim that you knew my intention after the fact... hmm...


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Oh I am fully aware there are many much nicer people than myself. I choose to not sugarcoat anything, especially when it comes to condemning insulting statements towards mothers expressing their love and gratefulness for their children. I happen to think mothers are pretty special, and this one in particular. You can insult me all you like, but to do it to someone so clearly undeserving seemed particularly egregious.
> 
> And to you, Cnote, I am well aware of your Intentions. I just think it is a particularly ineffective way to make your point. And no, I didn't read the white text. If it is worth saying, say it.


Yes, DrMike, you are our saviour. And, by the way, although I was wrong about the woman's decision to keep the child, **** her sideways double-time for making a video with Jesus music that completely disregards the complexities of other women's plights, asking them to never consider abortion in any circumstances. :tiphat:


----------



## Cnote11

Was she asking them to never consider abortion? Or was it to think twice about their decision? I don't quite recall.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> Was she asking them to never consider abortion? Or was it to think twice about their decision? I don't quite recall.


In the description to her video, she states:

"This is my plea to anyone considering abortion. Rethink your decision, no matter the circumstances. I am so glad I chose life!"

No matter the circumstances? **** you again.


----------



## Cnote11

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Although it is sort of condescending, as if she's saying people make these decisions without any real thought.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Although it is sort of condescending, as if she's saying people make these decisions without any real thought.


That's one interpretation, but, as HillTroll will tell you, "rethink" has more than one application - one is literal, one is euphemistic for "change your mind". If the former, she's a dill-weed for assuming that people don't think about such huge decisions, if the latter she's an even more enormous dill-weed.


----------



## Cnote11

When I'm faced with the prospects of abortion, I just flip a coin. She showed me the error of my way.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Polednice said:


> That's one interpretation, but, as HillTroll will tell you, "rethink" has more than one application - one is literal, one is euphemistic for "change your mind". If the former, she's a dill-weed for assuming that people don't think about such huge decisions, if the latter she's an even more enormous dill-weed.


Reminds me of Euclid's 2nd theorem. Beautiful


----------



## sheffmark

This thread is better than watching the television!!:lol:


----------



## Guest

Yes, all witness the enlightened at their rhetorical and reasoned best. Remember that it is the religious nuts that are the hateful ones.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes, because the posts in this thread are obviously entirely seriously. 

Also, I like your assumptions.


----------



## Dodecaplex

You know, I'm starting to feel bad about this thread being turned into a circus. It reminds me of the whole fetish thread, where people lost all civility and respect.

Therefore:

KYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYRIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
KYYRIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEELEEEEEEISON
KYRIE KYYYYYYYYYRIEEEE ELEISOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON


----------



## Guest

I am curious what Poley would think if they finally found the "gay" gene and people started aborting gay babies to spare them the hate and discrimination they would no doubt experience. Wouldn't that be the kind thing to do?


----------



## Cnote11

Which one of my threads do I not derail into circus antics?


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> Yes, because the posts in this thread are obviously entirely seriously.
> 
> Also, I like your assumptions.


Oh, don't worry. To paraphrase Bill Buckley, I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you meant what you said.


----------



## sheffmark

I'm not saying which side of the fence i'm on but in a free world we all have FREEDOM OF CHOICE!


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I am curious what Poley would think if they finally found the "gay" gene and people started aborting gay babies to spare them the hate and discrimination they would no doubt experience. Wouldn't that be the kind thing to do?


There can never be such a thing as a gay gene as genetics isn't that simple. I'm confident that the underlying biology of homosexuality will be sufficiently complex to stop morons from finding out in advance. Alternatively, I'd hope that if we ever have the know-how to determine those complexities, we'll be sufficiently advanced that such prejudice wouldn't exist.

Anyway, your premise is faulty because it assumes that I stick with my original post, but I already said I was wrong. The abortions I'd advocate are not ones where it's a purely a case of people have bad life experiences. I'm talking about people who would having unbearable physical pain every day for their entire lives, short as they may be. Is it the kind, loving thing to do to force them to come into the world anyway?


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> I am curious what Poley would think if they finally found the "gay" gene and people started aborting gay babies to spare them the hate and discrimination they would no doubt experience. Wouldn't that be the kind thing to do?


Seriously? Seriously? Seriously? Being gay doesn't actively allow you not to leave a normal life. What kind of comparison is being gay to a kid who actually suffers in inhumane ways because of their condition?

And you say you don't want to insult _my_ intelligence.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> There can never be such a thing as a gay gene as genetics isn't that simple. I'm confident that the underlying biology of homosexuality will be sufficiently complex to stop morons from finding out in advance. Alternatively, I'd hope that if we ever have the know-how to determine those complexities, we'll be sufficiently advanced that such prejudice wouldn't exist.
> 
> Anyway, your premise is faulty because it assumes that I stick with my original post, but I already said I was wrong. The abortions I'd advocate are not ones where it's a purely a case of people have bad life experiences. I'm talking about people who would having unbearable physical pain every day for their entire lives, short as they may be. Is it the kind, loving thing to do to force them to come into the world anyway?


Why could it not be something relatively simple? Down's syndrome is a compled disorder that stems from one simple mistake during meiosis where both copies of chromosome 21 are accidentally packaged in the same gamete. We can fairly easily test for this complex disorder.

And yours is only a distinction without a difference. Your position is still the same, in that you think the baby should be aborted if you think they have crossed some threshold beyond which you don't think life is worth living. You were just mistaken here as to how disabled the child was. Were it a little more disabled then you would presumably still call for the abortion.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> And you say you don't want to insult _my_ intelligence.


I'm still awaiting evidence of it.


----------



## Cnote11

If I didn't have intelligence I wouldn't be able to type this, now would I?


----------



## Cnote11

I also enjoy the way you continue to insult people in this thread and throw red herrings around like it isn't anything. I wonder if you'll get warnings for it or they'll let you slide?


----------



## Guest

Oh, I fully expect that last statement to get me some kind of infraction. But you and Poley seemed to not care about stepping on feelings, or making inflammatory comments, then I didn't feel it incumbent on me to hold back.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> If I didn't have intelligence I wouldn't be able to type this, now would I?


That is debatable.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Why could it not be something relatively simple? Down's syndrome is a compled disorder that stems from one simple mistake during meiosis where both copies of chromosome 21 are accidentally packaged in the same gamete. We can fairly easily test for this complex disorder.














DrMike said:


> And yours is only a distinction without a difference. Your position is still the same, in that you think the baby should be aborted if you think they have crossed some threshold beyond which you don't think life is worth living. You were just mistaken here as to how disabled the child was. Were it a little more disabled then you would presumably still call for the abortion.


Yeah, because there is _no_ reasonable difference between someone blind from birth, and someone who requires morphine every day to not scream until they die at 5 years old. You have such heart.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Oh, I fully expect that last statement to get me some kind of infraction. But you and Poley seemed to not care about stepping on feelings, or making inflammatory comments, then I didn't feel it incumbent on me to hold back.


I thought such a childish argument was beyond Christians. "You threw stones so I can throw them too"? Rise above it.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> Oh, I fully expect that last statement to get me some kind of infraction. But you and Poley seemed to not care about stepping on feelings, or making inflammatory comments, then I didn't feel it incumbent on me to hold back.


When did I step on your feelings? If I did, then I apologize. I was just rather unhappy that you acted like I posted about this woman and her decision when I did not do anything of the like.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> That is debatable.


It honestly isn't. Even low-functioning down syndrome people have intelligence. They aren't rocks you know, and either am I.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> We were blessed with a healthy boy with no problems - the test was a false positive.


I actually agree with most of your tirade, but I found this interesting. A problem-free child is a blessing. A problem child or miscarriage is what... a curse?


----------



## Cnote11

It is still a blessing. According to some people, MORE of a blessing. Some psychologists believe people have to take this attitude in order to not be repulsed.


----------



## Polednice

Couchie said:


> I actually agree with most of your tirade, but I found this interesting. A problem-free child is a blessing. A problem child or miscarriage is what... a curse?


People will treat it as a blessing, but it's actually a punishment for being a bad person.


----------



## Couchie

Cnote11 said:


> It is still a blessing. According to some people, MORE of a blessing. Some psychologists believe people have to take this attitude in order to not be repulsed.


A miscarriage is a blessing? So abortion is OK when god does it?


----------



## Cnote11

Well, I don't believe any life is a "blessing" exactly. I don't really put the same emphasis on life as religious people do, or even Polednice does. Also, you can't blame God for negative things. You can only accredit to him positive things. Negative things are always the human's fault.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Thread temporarily closed.

Expect to conclude that some things here that are (shall we say) "actionable."


----------

