Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most, but admittedly not all, animals have evolved to not eating their young. Perhaps someday humans will catch up!
Can you cite a single instance of a human being that ate their young? Many mammals also eat their placenta after giving birth for nourishment - should humans hope to 'evolve' to that level as well?
Thank goodness. It's appalling how women have evolved to be so helpless over controlling the act of fertilization.
Yes, when that man broke into my home with a knife and a ski mask, I was so fortunate to use my highly evolved powers of fertilization control to render his sperm impotent.
I love it! More compassionate liberalism. The intake of sugar and excretion of waste justifies killing.
Well, conservatives are by no means compassionate, either. Since conservatives usually rail against people who take money from one person to feed or care for another. That's called "welfare", and it's "bad" isn't it?. So a fetus is a welfare bum, got that?
You chose to keep the fetus until birth. Other people might choose differently, and it doesn't mean they are monsters or they are indifferent to suffering. Pregnancy and delivery themselves are medical risks and some women might decide, with their doctor, that it is not worth the risk to themselves.
It's your body, your choice, and I'm not belittling your decision. However, I must object at least in part to your assertion that "pain was felt". That may be true, but pain doesn't equal suffering. When a person catches fish in a net or a hook, it causes intense pain to the fish, and yet the majority of humans are indifferent to the fish's pain, because they regard the fish's life as not worthy of much (if any) moral consideration. Many ethicists and philosophers would argue that the pain of the fish doesn't matter as much as the suffering of a child or an adult because the fish doesn't have the mental faculties to contextualize the pain into suffering- it's brain tells its body to twitch and flail not out of fear of its imminent death and realization of its own mortality, but because millions of years of evolution have affected the fishes DNA to react to pain in such a manner to attempt to free itself. And yet, a fetus often has a nervous system less developed than that fish.
To compare an adult Amazonian to a fetus is (more than) a bit insulting to the Amazonian. The Amazonian has a lifetime of memories and kinship, he is conscious of his environment and thinks about his world in a symbolic manner using language. He would worry about his children or family when he leaves the village. Not even babies can do this, because babies do not have the mental capacity to think about the future or contemplate their existence; they live in a sensorimotor world.
So, as long as it is not your pain, it is not suffering? Because a life that is lost is different from yours it had no worth? You have mentioned that babies born also do not have fully cognizant......do you support retro active abortions, too? Where does the end of that reasoning lie?
And I am not arguing that point, that abortion is always going to be in use. There is no denying that. And yes, it is particularily disgusting how birthmothers are viewed in our society, but I do hope that you weren't trying to say that I would label or call those women names in any way shape or form. A very good friend of mine gave her son up for adoption 22 years ago, I assure you I have never called her a harlot.
At anyrate, yes there are reasons for having an abortion, some better then others......but bottom line is that tax dollars via medicaid should not pay for them.
No, I don't presume that you would label anyone or that you are anything but a generous and compassionate woman using your own personal experiences to bear on a difficult issue. I just think that denying a woman the right to make her own choice on this issue because she is poor (which is the result of withdrawing tax dollars) adds to the victimization of a woman who may have a very good reason for wanting an abortion.
In the paragraph you quoted, there is no mention of not being allowed to adopt these children.
Here are further resources, addresses, and contact info for your perusal:
All Children - All Families Initiative
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington DC 20036-3278
Phone: 202/628-4160
TTY: 202/216-1572
Toll Free: 800/777-4723
E-Mail: hrc@hrc.org HRC | Home
Child Welfare Information Gateway
(Formerly the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse)
U.S. Children's Bureau
1250 Maryland Avenue SW, Eighth Floor
Washington DC 20024
Phone: 703/385-7565
Toll free: 800/394-3366
Email: info@childwelfare.gov Child Welfare Information Gateway
National Network of Adoption Advocacy Program
5601 Chamberlayne Road
Richmond VA 23227
Phone: 804/377-1627
Fax: 804/864-8457
Welcome to NNAAP (http://www.nnaap-ococ.org - broken link)
National Resource Center for Special Needs Adoption
16250 Northland Drive, Suite 120
Southfield, MI 48075
Phone: 248/443-7080 Spaulding For Children
North American Council on Adoptable Children
970 Raymond Avenue, Suite 206
St. Paul, MN 55104
Phone: 612/644-3036 NACAC
The children in the first link you provided are not adoptable. Perhaps you didn't see the paragraph where they spoke of children whose stays may be short due to family stresses, or long due to addictions. Those kids have families, and are experiencing a host of problems.
I'll have to go thru the new links you provided, hopefully they are more accurate.
No, I don't presume that you would label anyone or that you are anything but a generous and compassionate woman using your own personal experiences to bear on a difficult issue. I just think that denying a woman the right to make her own choice on this issue because she is poor (which is the result of withdrawing tax dollars) adds to the victimization of a woman who may have a very good reason for wanting an abortion.
But why tax dollars? PP is making a mint, not to mention what they garner in donations......why do the truly destitute have to pay anything but a nominal fee? Where is the compassion in that? Believe me, I understand that in a business bills must be paid. But if your business promotes itself as a champion for womens reproductive rights.....well, time to step up and prove it.
So, as long as it is not your pain, it is not suffering? Because a life that is lost is different from yours it had no worth?
How clever, try and twist it around to make it sound like I said something I did not.
A fetus is not simply "different" like a trisomy-21 child is different from a child with 23 chromosome, or a black child is different than a white child. A fetus is different in that it deserves less ethical consideration because it is incapable of experiencing the world in a way that engenders as much ethical concern. Therefore, the interests of the mother outweigh the interests of the fetus.
Quote:
You have mentioned that babies born also do not have fully cognizant......do you support retro active abortions, too? Where does the end of that reasoning lie?
It is very simple. Babies that are born and unwanted by the mother (for whatever reason- perhaps the mother is dead for instance) are no longer putting a mother's body in physical geopardy- they can be put into foster care and hopefully one day be adopted. Therefore they can be given much more ethical consideration than a fetus.
Personally, I find abortion somewhat undesireable and it is better to not get into a position where one needs an abortion. However, it would be far worse to live in a world where women had no autonomy over their bodies, than to live in a world where abortion was legal.
Can you cite a single instance of a human being that ate their young? Many mammals also eat their placenta after giving birth for nourishment - should humans hope to 'evolve' to that level as well?
Donner pass. . . . Actually, just poetic license. Eating our young would be a degree of evolution. We just kill 'em for choice; a behavior that I don't recall of any animal.
But why tax dollars? PP is making a mint, not to mention what they garner in donations......why do the truly destitute have to pay anything but a nominal fee? Where is the compassion in that? Believe me, I understand that in a business bills must be paid. But if your business promotes itself as a champion for womens reproductive rights.....well, time to step up and prove it.
They do provide services to the indigent at nominal fees and sometimes at no charge. People may have to prove that they cannot pay for services, but the organization truly does strive to make medical care and not just abortion available to people who need it. They also accept Medicaid payments for qualifying patients so that the patient doesn't have to pay. Planned Parenthood has grown beyond Margaret Sanger's original vision of making birth control available to women, and I understand the frustration that pro-lifers have with this organization, but it is not an evil entity or an uncaring business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
