Abortion Debate

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by dar512

I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US.

Lady's comment said "where are they [people who will take the baby] when the woman doesn't want her child?" The correct answer is, "everywhere".

sm said:

"You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption."

I don't want kids so why on earth would I try to adopt one?

Sorry...apparently you guys took me literally when I asked, "where are those who say every child is a wanted child". What I meant was that I don't see a riot of people (read: pro-lifers) knocking down the doors of every woman that carries a child to term and is willing to take in those particular children. I'm addressing those pro-lifers that want to impose on a woman's private and personal decision. All I keep hearing about are couples that spend gobs of money to go overseas to adopt a child from some other nation when there are children here that need a good home.

dar said:

The reason this issue is so difficult is that both sides want to throw a broad blanket over a wide range of scenarios. I don't understand how people can have such simplistic viewpoints. I find it a very difficult topic.

It's quite simple for me: abortion, as it stands now, is legal. And that to me means that absolutely no one has the power to make a decision for me about me and my fetus/baby/zygote/embryo..whatever the fuck anyone wants to call it. See, I don't have an "abortion argument": I really don't care when life begins and all of that. Harsh? Maybe, but I'm keeping it verrrry real right about now. That argument will go on until time ends, but in the meantime, if I choose abortion, then so be it.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by ladysycamore

Or for those who say, "Every child is a wanted child"...where are they when the woman doesn't want her child? I don't see anyone lining up to take in that "wanted" child.

You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.

-sm

[garnet]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.

Originally Posted by dar512

I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US

So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?

There are lots of children already available for adoption. They just don't happen to be the right age, the right color, the right background, etc. for most prospective adoptive parents.

There are people out there who desperately want children but for whatever reason can't have their own. And that's really sad. But that has nothing to do with with whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by garnet

So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?

Neither of us said that. Lady's comment said "where are they [people who will take the baby] when the woman doesn't want her child?" The correct answer is, "everywhere".

The reason this issue is so difficult is that both sides want to throw a broad blanket over a wide range of scenarios. I don't understand how people can have such simplistic viewpoints. I find it a very difficult topic.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by jaguar

The real problem is the strange notion that human life is somehow magically sacred, if people are that worried about 'people' dieing they should asked to sell their posessions to feed starving wretched kids in africa before that can claim some sort of moral high ground about abortion.

I assume that you are using the term 'sacred' as a synonym for valuable. Are you saying that human life is not sacred (valuable)? If so, then I disagree.

I also find your statement to be a non sequitur. That's like saying, "If you're so worried about the spotted owls, why don't you sell your furniture and help the condors?"

I have no doubt that there are needy children in Africa and elsewhere. That doesn't mean that people can't be concerned about events closer to home, as well.

[wolf]

I am all for adoption.

And usually it works out quite well.

However, it really is a "pig in a poke" situation.

A lot of my patients have either ceded parental rights or have had them taken away.

Many of these are babies that would be considered "high premium" on the adoption market ... cute, white, blue-eyed bundles of joy.

With a family history of mental illness and/or extreme substance abuse from both parents.

I see a lot of frustrated parents whose story starts with "Well, I adopted Timmy at birth, and it turns out that his mom was ... "

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by wolf

I am all for adoption.

And usually it works out quite well.

However, it really is a "pig in a poke" situation.

A lot of my patients have either ceded parental rights or have had them taken away.

Many of these are babies that would be considered "high premium" on the adoption market ... cute, white, blue-eyed bundles of joy.

With a family history of mental illness and/or extreme substance abuse from both parents.

I see a lot of frustrated parents whose story starts with "Well, I adopted Timmy at birth, and it turns out that his mom was ... "

I'm a newbie, but I thought I would contribute.
The reason adoption lines are so long is because not all of the babies put up for adoption are "high premuim." Even requesting that you want a boy or a girl can cause a major delay in the adoption process. Not to mention if the child is not of the "preferred" race. And then there is the fact that the child, like wolf said, will have underlying issues because of the adoption and/or the parents habits. Also, if the woman planning on giving up the baby for adoption changes her mind and keeps the baby, there is also the possibility for her to change her mind again and put the child/infant up for adoption. But once he/she is no longer a newborn, suddenly, no one wants him/her. At least, that is the way I understand it. All I ever hear about is how we need more people to adopt children, but everone wants newborns.

And on abortion, just because someone believes that abortion is wrong, does not mean they should force their opinions on others. I agree with stricter rules on late term abortions, but that is not my choice to make. And if it was illegal, then women would just be doing it in a back alley instead. The way I see it, it someone doesn't agree with abortion, then they shouldn't do it. But they shouldn't keep others from doing it.

I'm being redundent, sorry. I will post more when I am more awake.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Iggy

The reason adoption lines are so long is because not all of the babies put up for adoption are "high premuim." Even requesting that you want a boy or a girl can cause a major delay in the adoption process. Not to mention if the child is not of the "preferred" race....snip...

welcome to the Cellar, Iggy.
The daughter and her hubby, of a friend of mine just did the adoption thing in Kazakhstan. Babies have to be 6 months old and an expensive, drawn out process. But they're happy.

[Happy Monkey]

Hey, part of garnet's discussion was about which euthanasia methods are PETA-approved!

[wolf]

I saw a hilarious video regarding "putting the dog out of it's misery" the other day, but don't have the URL handy. As soon as I find it I'll post it.

[Radar]

Abortion isn't a moral dilemma and it isn't murder. Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves, not even anything growing inside of us. I support abortion for any reason or no reason. I support abortion as a means of birth control. I support abortion if the pregnant woman wants to do it on a whim. I support it even if she has one every month. I support abortion in all circumstances because it's not my decision to make. I would hope my wife wouldn't make the choice to have an abortion, but it's her choice, not mine.

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Radar

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

The biological definition of the progeny as a parasite is true, even up until they are old enough to do dishes or cut the grass. Taken in the long term, the relationship can be defined as symbiosis, especially if they are raised right and pass through the whole relationship until the parent becomes the parasite.

Now, the scientific fact that you are asserting exists only in that someone believes that to be true. It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.

Actually, that's a tautology, one of the few facts that's objective. What's subjective is whether this guy is blue.
/end pedant mode

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Radar

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by dar512

Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?

Good one.

Originally Posted by garnet

So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?

There are lots of children already available for adoption. They just don't happen to be the right age, the right color, the right background, etc. for most prospective adoptive parents.

There are people out there who desperately want children but for whatever reason can't have their own. And that's really sad. But that has nothing to do with with whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

You have to live under a rock to not know what causes kids. Yes, IMO (which everyone will probably disagree with, of course) she SHOULD have to be a human incubator. Inconvenience and/or irresponsibility is not an excuse for murder.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.

-sm

Yup, but if more women had the children that they so carelessly kill, it might be easier to adopt. At least, that's my opinion.


*sigh* And to Radar....too bad HIS mother didn't believe in abortion, huh? Snide remark aside, a fetus is enough of a "person" to have protection from unwanted termination, under the law, so yes, a fetus IS a person, to an extent. Once it has brain waves, I consider it a person. Again, my opinion.


/my opinion


Sidhe