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.
Menstruation is not abortion, anymore then masturbation is.
Children who are in foster care are by and large not adoptable, as their parental rights have not been terminated. By the time parental rights have been terminated the child has been through hell, and has the scars to prove it. Also, by attempting to adopt through the foster care system the abusive/neglectful bio parents have all the rights, and their rights are protected vigorously.
Of the 1.2 million abortions that occur yearly if half of those women decided to make adoption plans those children would be adopted. The same would go for toddlers and even older children if the parents made the adoption plan with an agency and not wait till the state gets involved. The states one and only focus is family reunification no matter who it hurts. And that, imho is criminal.
I think it would also be a good thing to remember that not all people who are against abortion are religious and/or social conservatives. I would be thrilled if more gay couples were allowed to adopt and I do see that day coming as legalization of gay marriage becomes nationwide.
Miu did bring up a good point though......the biggest factor against adoption is the women either feeling guilted into keeping the baby or as a nurse friend once told me 'once the grandma sees the baby, the adoption is all over'. Imho, I think that sex ed should encompass proper contraception use, the decision to remain abstinent and also explore the ramifications of an unplanned pregnancy. This is what abortion is like, this is what keeping the baby is like, this is what making an adoption plan is like and really go into the pros and cons of each decision. Because lets face it, none of those choices are without pain, recrimination and loss.
I don't know about adoption, but birth control is certainly an alternative to abortion.
In most (I might say almost all) cases of abortion, birth control would have prevented the need for the abortion in the first place!
I've never had an unwanted pregnancy because I used birth control to prevent it. When I was ready to become pregnant, I stopped birth control and waited.
Birth control is not 100% but I know what you're getting at.
Maybe birth control along with a condom and spermicide would be pretty fool proof but things can happen.
I think IUDs are pretty cool.
You now what is hypocrisy?Those that are for funding abortion by the government taking peoples taxes giving no say so to refuse to pay for it yet many who support that and are pro choice use the excuse of "who will pay for all the kids in foster homes?" as a reason for justiying abortion.And we know what political party supports federal funding for abortion.
To those that are pro choice and don't mind forcing people to pay for abortions using tax money someone needs to force you to pay for foster care homes.If you like big government so much well there you go,pony up and pay,or are you selfish greedy mean spirited?
1. As a medical priority, birth control would be cheap, easy, certain, universally available, and reversible. The question of unplanned babies would not arise.
2. Adoption would be as easy as conceiving and birthing one's own baby, with the same bureaucratic approval required.
3. Pregnancies that arose through circumstances that were unintended or later regretted can be terminated as a routine medical prodecure up to 90 days.
4. Children age birth to 18 are assured the ssame zealous community support that are now advocated by pro-lifers for fetuses, including assurance of adequate housing and nutrition.
5. No person who chooses to be a stay-at-home mom shall lack for any funds necessary to maintain a child in a wholesome environment.
Lovely discussion over how nice it would be if we could only end abortion and thereby compel about 1.2 million women per year to stop being so selfish and carry their fetuses to term against their wishes so there would be more nice, new babies to adopt. No selfishness involved there at all...no, sirree! How could there be anything morally objectionable in something so concerned and compassionate as forcing other women to abandon their own lives so that they can serve as your personal breeding stock? Why, that's moral rectitude personified!
Then we've got more talk of how women these days need to be more RESPONSIBLE. Responsible for what? Responsible to what? Are women somehow obligated to produce any children at all? Are they obligated to produce as many as they possibly can because failure to produce one when they could would amount to denying an innocent child its chance at life and things like eating chocolate?
News Flash: If you are a woman and you are not on a path toward bearing 20 or more children, you have denied many innnocent children their chance at life and the joys of confectionery consumption. If you are presently capable of conceiving, you in fact do so every single month in which you do not at least strenuously try to conceive. If you don't, some egg that has been waiting for years for its one and only chance at life is going to be consigned with all its hopes and dreams to an ignominious fate somewhere within our waste product stream solely because of your selfishness and lack of responsibility. There are billions of sperm out there just dying for a chance to get at that egg. Your husband, your boyfriend, that guy you saw at Barnes & Noble last week...they've all got some. But just because you are so wrapped up in matters of personal convenience, you turn your back and say no to life. I'm too busy...I can't afford a child right now...I don't actually want a baby at all. Talk about being self-centered! The decision you make is no different from that of a woman seeking an abortion, and just by the way, you don't-even-try types are responsible for killing up to ten times the number of babies that abortion mills are. If we're going to be pointing fingers at some Culture of Death here, let's be pointing at those who are most responsible...the women who could conceive but purposely don't. Serial baby killers, that's all that these women really are...
This is the silliest post on a serious subject I've read in a long time. Congratulations!
This is the silliest post on a serious subject I've read in a long time. Congratulations!
Please, if you have the time in your busy day, write two or three lines explaining your own well-thought-out position that contradicts the post in question.
1. As a medical priority, birth control would be cheap, easy, certain, universally available, and reversible. The question of unplanned babies would not arise.
2. Adoption would be as easy as conceiving and birthing one's own baby, with the same bureaucratic approval required.
3. Pregnancies that arose through circumstances that were unintended or later regretted can be terminated as a routine medical prodecure up to 90 days.
4. Children age birth to 18 are assured the ssame zealous community support that are now advocated by pro-lifers for fetuses, including assurance of adequate housing and nutrition.
5. No person who chooses to be a stay-at-home mom shall lack for any funds necessary to maintain a child in a wholesome environment.
Number 1 would be great --- imagine a temporary steralization that was 100% effective!
I am not sure what your point for number 2 is --- if you are saying that prior to getting to keep a baby, the bio parents would be under the same scrutiny as adoptive parents, well I certainly see the need for that! If you are saying that adoptive parents should be able to get a baby no questions asked....nope, that would be wrong and inexcusable.
Really isn't number 4 already in place? Either through current welfare programs or foster care?
And as for number 5, what does the desire to be a stay at home mother have to do with anything?
The point of number 2 is that there should be no impediment to a child's custody being turned over to any willing family, provided all parties are in agreement. It is not the business of the state to determine suitability of adiptive pareents, any more than it is the state's business to determine suitability for natural parents.
#4, the current mindset of most pro-lifers is that they are also anti welfare, and tend to believe that if parents are irresponsible, their fetuses deserve to be kept alive until birth, but from then on, the children get whatever misfortune their parents deserve.
#5, It has nothing to do with it, and this choice should not be coerced. But motherhood ought to be seen by our culture as a full-time fully-productive job, and a parent who chooses that livelihood should be guaranteed at least enough compensation to assure that the children are raised in a dignified and healthy environment, without being pointed at and told that their mom is a lazy irresponsible crack-wohre welfare queen sponging off the money that is stolen from hard-working men in Gucci shoes.
You might ask "Who should pay them?". No matter who pays them, the wages will simply be circulation of the national wealth, and spent back into the economy.. One idea might be to require the private sector to "hire" in absentia all the single stay-at-home moms, maybe for minimum wage. This could be a progressive obligation, with small business exempt, and the bigger the company work force, the larger the percentage of single moms thay have to hire. Or maybe even a voluntary movement. Just thinki: TV ads where Mobil Exxon gloats over how many moms they support, instead of how many sea turtles they save. Economically, in the short run, it would be zero sum. But in the long run, we would increase by millions the number of heppy, well-adjusted young adults in the next generation.
The rich hate this idea, because it would mean their own spoiled brats would face stiffer competiion on the rungs of the ladders to success. Sorry, I digressed. Go back to adoption.
1. As a medical priority, birth control would be cheap, easy, certain, universally available, and reversible. The question of unplanned babies would not arise.
2. Adoption would be as easy as conceiving and birthing one's own baby, with the same bureaucratic approval required.
3. Pregnancies that arose through circumstances that were unintended or later regretted can be terminated as a routine medical prodecure up to 90 days.
4. Children age birth to 18 are assured the ssame zealous community support that are now advocated by pro-lifers for fetuses, including assurance of adequate housing and nutrition.
5. No person who chooses to be a stay-at-home mom shall lack for any funds necessary to maintain a child in a wholesome environment.
Out of reps for you, but I do like the plan. Except maybe that the 90 days will be seen as a target by some. Might not want to set that bit in stone...
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.
