Pro choice big 3 are usually: rape, incest, life of the mother. What about young ignorance?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Killing a baby is never a smart choice. Placing one for adoption is not only smart, but loving, generous, and kind as well.

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

So she should have the right to choose death for another innocent human being, but nobody else should be able to try and suggest alternatives, even if she's a minor child?


I often wonder why does the pro-abortion crowd not care about women until after they've been born?

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

You can't have one without the other. The notion that pro-choice people want abortion to be available but unutilized is a lie, but even if it were true it would a really hard sell - after all, why have it available if it is to be avoided?

"Reproductive rights" is just code for abortion (oh the irony). There are no other issues that the term encompasses. It's not like anyone has proposed restricting women from reproducing.

This series of posts from Slowpoke shows several problems with the pro-life side of the equation.

First, many on the pro-life side feel that that there is no legitimate debate about when a fetus becomes a baby. They think there position is fact. The facts are not clear in this part of the debate. As for me -- I don't know the answer, and I can look at various opinions on the matter and see merit. But for many on the pro-life side of the discussion, there is no room for compromise.

Second, Slowpoke has an awfully generous view of adoption. The foster care situation in this country is horrendous. It is rife with child abuse (which I have personally witnessed), and as an educator I personally have seen foster parents who are in it for nothing beyond the money it brings into the house. There are wonderful foster parents and horrible foster parents, and that extends into couples who adopt, although probably less so. I have worked with foster and adopted children who have wonderful lives, and I have worked with adopted children who live in hell on earth.

Third...except, since it's debatable able when a fetus becomes a baby, it's also debatable whether or not it's murder. Again, I can't decide when it becomes murder.

Fourth, I don't think anyone is suggesting that pregnant girls and women should not be made aware of alternatives. That's a lot different than forcing alternatives.

Fifth, Slowpoke -- many on the pro-life side, particularity men -- like to just dismiss the concept of reproductive rights. Again, there seems to be no room for debate with them.

Unfortunately, it's the rigidity of the POV Slowpoke presents that is part of the reason that we're no closer to solving the problem today than we were when I was a kid.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

This series of posts from Slowpoke shows several problems with the pro-life side of the equation.

First, Slowpoke doesn't understand that there is a legitimate debate about when a fetus becomes a baby. He thinks that his opinion is fact. The facts are not clear in this part of the debate. As for me -- I don't know the answer, and I can look at various opinions on the matter and see merit. But for Slowpoke, there is no room for compromise.

Second, Slowpoke has an awfully generous view of adoption. The foster care situation in this country is horrendous. It is rife with child abuse (which I have personally witnessed), and as an educator I personally have seen foster parents who are in it for nothing beyond the money it brings into the house. There are wonderful foster parents and horrible foster parents, and that extends into couples who adopt, although probably less so. I have worked with foster and adopted children who have wonderful lives, and I have worked with adopted children who live in hell on earth.

Third...except, Slowpoke, since it's debatable able when a fetus becomes a baby, it's also debatable whether or not it's murder. Again, I can't decide when it becomes murder.

Fourth, I don't think anyone is suggesting that pregnant girls and women shouldn't be made aware of alternatives.

Fifth, Slowpoke -- like many men -- likes to just dismiss the concept of reproductive rights.

Unfortunately, it's the rigidity of the POV Slowpoke presents that is part of the reason that we're no closer to solving the problem today than we were when I was a kid.

This, in essence, is the flaw with all the "right to lifers". Their argument always takes the form of "this is murder because abortion kills a baby". None of them can furnish any support for the notion that young fetus is a baby. I think arguing that something that cannot live independently of its mother, and outside of its mother, is the same thing as a baby is just absurd. Whenever, I hear the "murder" or "killing" thing I just tune it out because its unsubstantiated hyperbole that lacks empirical support.

On the other hand, I'm quite supportive of adoption. I wish it was selected more as an alternative.

However, being supportive of something does not diminish the rights of a pregnant women with a non-viable fetus to make choices for herself. That right exists and it is not my place, nor that of all the "Slowpokes" of this world to make the most intimate and personal choices for a woman. If a woman chooses an abortion during the early stages of her pregnancy that ought to be her business and no one else's.

Frankly, I don't like laws that make killing a non-viable fetus murder. I think such laws subtly undercut the right to an abortion.

[toosie]

too many chatty, personal, off topic, and insufficient responses for great debates