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.
yeah, so i just wrote a long response, and then my computer ate it...
let me summarize.
i agree with parktwain that abortion has been politicized too much. but he seems to see it merely as a problem of the right. i think that the left has turned it into a selling point just as much as anyone else.
i am a religious, moderate independent. i am against abortion in most cases; currently i think that sufficient health risks to the mother, and rape are valid exceptions--and there are most certainly others that i haven't thought of. but i don't even remotely think that the mother merely deciding (and/or the father pressuring), 'you know, i didn't really want a kid at this stage in my life' is valid. i think that to be the epitome of lazy, ignorant justification.
though religious, i think that the case for abortion can easily be made without reverting to religious belief. i think it can be made with regards to science, and with regards to social contract.
normally, as far as i have seen anyway, the argument comes down to whether the fetus is its own entity--whether or not it is viable as a little person, and not just an unfeeling, unthinking mass of tissue. both sides of the argument seem to dismiss the research done by the other side and the claims made by the other side. both sides seem to demonize their opposition, going to the extreme in character judgment and assumption of motive (i know that some of you are already dismissing my post as religious dribble, despite what i've already said), and then the abortion issue becomes as much about politics as it is about life and choice.
when it comes to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to outlaw abortion, or sufficient evidence to support the killing of fetuses, i look at it as a criminal court. if i were being charged with a crime, i would (here in the usa) be innocent until proven guilty. if the jury could not decide one way or the other that i was guilty, then i would go free. there was not enough evidence to convict me. the prosecution wants to lock me up forever, but they just can't prove beyond a reasonabledoubt that i'm the fiend that did the crime.
i see our current argument as pretty similar; some people think that there is enough evidence to support the killing of unwanted fetuses despite the fact that there is at least reasonable doubt. to me, that seems like we are saying that the fetus is guilty until proven innocent.
but again, neither side wants to admit that the opposition might have a leg to stand on. i doubt a single supporter of abortion would say that this even has credibility. for them, the mother is the one on trial, not the fetus. they think that the woman should have the right to choose for herself whether she has the baby.
i think that the mother's right (again, barring certain situations) ends once she signs the contract; we're all adults, and we keep spouting that the teenagers need to be treated like adults. i say that we give each other the benefit of the doubt then, and decide that if we are old enough and mature enough to handle sexual relations, then we are old enough and mature enough to handle the consequences of those relations.
if you make the decision to have sex, you had better be prepared for the consequences. wrap it up. take the pill. do what you need to in order to prevent pregnancy--don't be lazy or selfish (i have heard, "one time won't hurt though.." and similar bouts of stupidity often enough). and you had better realize that you run the risk anyway--i don't know of one kind of birth control that is 100% effective except for abstinence.
no one is going to be able to bail you out when you end up with aids or something--there is not yet any abortion for the disease. so you won't be able to claim pro-choice there; you knew the risks. you just get it. end of story.
but we treat fetuses as if they were std's, something for which we think we have a cure that will make all of it go away. in my mind, that is pretty scary. our values as a society are failing us (whether religious or not), if our common psychology says that an unborn child is equal in respect to a sexually transmitted disease.
now, if anyone would care to support or refute these wildly religious, right-wing concepts, i'd be more than happy to read 'em.
So one out of many. What of the others? will you adopt them too? I do applaud you, though. Very impressive. Let's see a picture of your little darling
I read your post initially as 'smerky', and I had written you back a scathing reply. However, I am going to believe you mean it sincerely (well, that is what the yellow smiley means,anyways )
I know a lot of people who have adopted, and a lot of those children had 'problems' as far as prematurity, birth mothers drinking etc...
The problem with adopting in the US is that the laws are written not to benefit the child or the birthmother. Imho, women who choose to place a child for adoption should not have to ask the birth fathers permission to do so. If she doesn't have to to abort, then she should have to to place for adoption. Also, the foster care system is not in place to facillitate adoptions....its sole purpose is to reunite parents aka criminals who have perpetuated abuse (physical and sexual) on their children. Only after years of failure to comply and more abuse will the children finally be adoptable, and by then there has been so much emotional damage done....well, I am embarrassed to admit I wasn't up to the task of trying to parent an older child with that kind of baggage.
All this said, I do believe in better and wider availibilty of contraception as well as the morning after pill. What I cannot excuse however, is second and third term abortion. Again imho -- let us make that obsolete by insuring women have the proper bc, and have immediate access to the morning after pill.
That is all I'm saying, really.
Oh, sorry - I would never post a pix of my son on the internet, but I will tell you he has black hair, golden brown skin, almost black eyes and the cutest dimples when he smiles. I will always feel an immense amount of gratitude to his birth mother that I don't think I can ever accurately express.
in my last post i mentioned that the majority of abortion arguments end up arguing whether or not the fetus is a human being.
this thread so far seems to be claiming that whether or not the fetus is a 'being', since it is unwanted, and depends on someone else for life, then that is justification for killing it.
can you honestly tell me that this seems acceptable to you? or are you falling back on the iea that the fetus isn't inherently human yet anyway, so it doesn't matter?
EDIT: also, i have a decent number of relatives that have adopted, and my wife and i are planning on it as well as soon as we have a little bit of financial stability.
obviously more needs to be done; but a lack of prospective adoptions is not even remotely what should be required to justify killing babies.
who cares about abortion.... if you don't like it.. don't get one...
lets worry about real issues.... and not 30 year old court rulings....it really is tired...
Let twist my words some more, shall we? Just because there are burdens to society, doesn't mean we should allow more, deliberate burdens.
A baby that you won't raise and/or hold in your womb. What's it to you?
Those were your words. I didn't twist anything.
Quote:
Anyone that took 10th grade science/health class (and didn't hold their ears yelling LALALA I REFUTE YOU) can tlel you the morning after pill is NOT abortion because it doesn't kill ANYTHING. It prevents fertilization...which runs along the same logic as spermicide (which acutally DOES kill sperm).
I guess you should have taken your hands from your ears and you would have learned in that class that there is more than 1 kind of morning after pill. The "abortion pill" is one of several "morning after" pills.
Quote:
And there are plenty of neocons that have problems with birth control (its unnatural for the woman's body!) and sex ed (It's the devil!). So please don't try to speak for them all as I've had both phrases shoved in my face.
You watch to much LifeTime.
Quote:
How about offering solutions to unwanted children? Be part of the group that actually solves the problem rather than point fingers.
What solutions have you offered other than abortions, abortions and more abortions? Thats not solving the abortion issue.
What have you done to help the situation besides complain?
With all the fingers you have flying in different directions pointing at other people you must have mistaken one of your own for mine.
Quote:
---that, and actually distributing correct facts about stuff like the morning after pill. I mean geez folks, this stuff has been around for years and there's still people thinking its abortion. Again, lack of foresight. Sigh!
who cares about abortion.... if you don't like it.. don't get one...
lets worry about real issues.... and not 30 year old court rulings....it really is tired...
nice if it were that simple. this 30-year old court ruling has farther reaching consequences than will oj simpson getting off on because the glove didn't fit...
I would and did adopt a baby from a low income household, I did adopt a baby from a low education household, and I will even one up you --- my baby is not white He is, however my son. And despite whatever difficulties he faced at and prior to birth he is all the more beautiful for it. And I have nothing but gratitude towards his birthmother for making an extremely difficult and painful decision.
1. You know MANY people who got pregnant by being raped?
2. It is the age of 23 out here. Most doctors here will not "fix" a man or woman before the age of 23.
1. Sure do. Quite unfortunate---especially for the ones who were high school teenagers when they were raped AND THEN found out they were pregnant.
2. Even if "out there" it is the age of 23 (which means that I still cannot personally have my tubes tied) I'm sure the procedure is NOT covered by many insurances and would be extremely expensive otherwise. Moreover, like with abortions in some states, there is probably "mandatory counseling" to make sure that not having children is what the woman really wants.
Be prolife all you want but no need to overplay what a pre-born fetus that has no ability to sustain its life without the support of another person is. It is a fetus. Not a baby. That is why there are different words that separate the two!
And please do answer my former post that you left hanging:
You completely misunderstood me. I definitely did not say only crack addicts have unplanned pregnancies but what would you do in the case of a crack baby---as most unplanned pregnancies are in low-income, low-education households? Would you put it through the system? Would you adopt one? What to do with that baby?
First issue, can a 6 month old baby sustain life on it's own wihout the support of another person? How about a 2 year old? Though one is slightly more advanced than the other, neither of them could sustain their own life. They would not have the ability to find food, water, shelter, or other needs necessary to live on their own. They ABSOLUTELY would need another person to sustain their life.
Second issue, what do you mean "what do you do with that baby?" If there is a 1 month old baby with any of the above named problems, does that baby not have the same rights and opportunities ahead of them as one who does not?
can a 6 month old baby sustain life on it's own wihout the support of another person? How about a 2 year old?
how about a 10-year old? i don't even think that the majority of 15-year old could take care of themselves if they were left to their own devices.
at what point do we draw the line and decide that the protohuman is smart enough to be called one of us? at what point does it rate to be acknowledged as one of us, and why is it that someone else gets to decide what it rates and what it doesn't?
we want so much to make sure that people are treated equally and fairly in life, but up until some arbitrary point, they are not considered good enough to be classified as 'people'. sounds similar to the false logic that people used to justify the enslavement of inferior races.
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.
He is, however my son. And despite whatever difficulties he faced at and prior to birth he is all the more beautiful for it. And I have nothing but gratitude towards his birthmother for making an extremely difficult and painful decision. 
