Abortion is tough because it's the sacredness of human life (and defining when human life begins which no one really knows for sure - and can't prove)...and individual rights over their bodies. It's without solution. My approach is to pursue ways to make abortions unecessary. That means better sex education, options on adoption, and teaching people the consequences of having a child. Of course...there's no perfect solution...but eliminating the need for abortions is one thing both sides can agree on...
That was kind of the idea. People who can't afford to have babies shouldn't be having them. It will teach them to act in a responsible way. It's time to be mature and not expect a nice saftey net set up for you everytime you fall.
There is no Constitutional provision for the federal government even outlawing murder in which both the victim and the murder stay within the same state (and off of federal property and neither is a federal agent). So the Federal government can not outlaw abortion, except by amendment. It could possibly put restrictions on crossing state lines to get an abortion.
Are there any statistics out there showing the adoption rate by strict pro-life advocates? I'm certainly not making an argument that women should abort over putting up their child for adoption. (So don't even start Bill O'Reilly's) But I'm wondering how many pro-life people actually consider adopting a child when the time comes?
It is a complete fallacy that these children would not be wanted. 1000's of families (including my brother) went over seas to adopt because it is too hard and takes to long to adopt a baby in the United States. It is a poverty to decide that an unborn child must die so that you may live as you like. - Mother Teresa
'friend of poverty, enemy of the poor' -Christopher Hitchens describing Mother Theresa (before he went over to the dark side)
My liberal answers here are safe sex education and birth control support as early and often as we discuss drug and alcohol prevention, which for me would have been around ten years old. That means in school, and on PSAs. I think abstinence counseling is great, especially for girls, but rather than abstinence only it should abstinence first, protection always. On adoption, I think it's time we grow up about gay adoption and let these additional potential parents into the system in every state in the union. Anti-gay adoption laws, to me, just seem petty and vindictive, and not the best PR for Christian Conservatives. All in all, we could probably do a better job supporting single, underaged, under-employed moms, but that would require social programs, which would require raising taxes, which is probably more controversial than any brain-sucking, fetus-dissolving, coat-hangering abortion procedure there is. I don't particularly support partial birth abortion bans, even though they're here to stay. I assume all abortion procedures have an inherent gruesomeness, the precedent of banning one for that reason could easily be exploited to ban any and all abortion procedures. Probably worth noting, to me, at least, that "Partial-Birth" is not a medical term, it was a phrase coined by a pro-life congressman. Of course, I couldn't find "reproductive rights" in the Federalist Papers either.
It is, because abortions should be illegal on any baby destined to look like Scarlett Johanssen. Her limbs and head complement her breasts very well.
Was that aimed at me? I didn't mean to imply your point if that's the case, and I honestly don't know how my question could be interpreted that way. I asked my question at face value.
What does it matter WHO adopts them? I don't recall many on here saying "I'll adopt your baby." They're saying that someone will adopt the baby. I don't care if it's a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer.
Do you think I actually don't want kids to be adopted? Or that I believe that no kids are ever adopted? I'm aware there's always going to be a constant list of people in line waiting to adopt, just as there is a constant list of children waiting to be adopted. I have 3 aquaintances who have adopted (all from China actually), and have great success stories to tell. One of them is even going back to adopt another child. Again, I'M NOT AGAINST FAVORING ABORTION OVER ADOPTION. I think people are reading too much into the question (and I really am asking if there's a statistic on it). Here's my hypothetical situation: Let's say a couple have the ultimate say on abortion. A mother asks them, "Can I have an abortion?". The couple says, "Absolutely not. Either have the baby and take care of him/her or you can put the baby up for adoption." The mother says there's no way she can take care of the baby. The couple says "Then put your child up for adoption". The mother says, "So YOU will adopt my baby?" How many people who believe the government should not allow an abortion under any circumstances will say 'Yes'? I think it's great most people here say 'abortion is wrong, but it should be legal'. I'm talking about those people who say 'abortion is wrong, and it should be illegal'.
Haha. I am guilty HERE of misleading people. I reworded it wrong. Should read: I'm not favoring abortion over adoption.
I'm a little confused but I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. Assuming a position does not mean that you are responsible for all of its repercussions. Saying you believe a child should be put up for adoption and adopting a child are two very separate ideas. It shouldn't really be too hard to see the difference. It's much as if you see a leak in the roof of a friend's house and say "someone should fix that." That doesn't necessarily mean YOU are going to fix it just that it's a better idea to fix it than to let it stay as is. (It's a crude analogy but I'm thinking off the top of my head here). I never understood the mindset that supporting a certain policy means you have to shoulder all of the burden of that policy. There are plenty of people that want to adopt and are on waiting lists but aren't able to.
Phew, I think we're clear on the question. And I fully agree w/ you. I don't believe that if you are pro-life you should be responsible to adopt. I was just curious what percentage of pro-life people actually adopt. Or maybe more easily quantifiable is of adoptive parents what percentage are pro-life. Like I said, TAKE MY QUESTION AT FACE VALUE!.
I presume that that is a human life inside that womb since it has human DNA and 100% of the time comes out human if left to a natural course. Sorry but I don't think that is too much to presume. Why do you? None. And yours? That's why I err on the side of caution: that appears to be an innocent human being in there and if we just leave it alone... everytime it IS a human when born so maybe it's a human while in there. Is that confusing? Tell me who doesn't use their own uncertain definition of when life begins to justify their right to abort? It's not about you; it's about the innocent child who has a right to life. I'm not the one trying to speak authoritatively about anything. I'm the one saying "you can't be sure so just leave it alone." As they say: physician heal thyself. Hey, I'm not the one assigning status by a considerd definition to living creatures which will determine whether that creature lives or dies. That's your side... and you think I have the vanity problem? This is humility over here. The more we learn about human development in utero the more we are learn how early-on these children in utero exhibit what we consider human characteristics. The DNA is human but we feel okay to kill it because we cannot DETECT brain activity. Is it possible that there is a problem with our detection? Throughout history, medicine has proven to be very wrong along the way about many things but every pregnancy that comes to term results in a human child. Just assuming it is a full human and treating it so only hurts the abortion industry. Just to point out your myopia on this... there are those who have spent their entire careers on this issue and are pro-Life. Hey, you're the one trying to get your way at the cost of a human life. Don't look to me to ease your guilt.
This is but one example of many of how your arguments do nothing but convince me that your opinion is not worthy of consideration and that rational thought and communication on this topic eludes you. You reinforce stereotypes.
The argument is but a distraction from the real tragedy that it enables. How is it irrational that I recognize that you have to cobble together a definition of when life begins in order to justify an abortion? Why must you de-humanize the baby? In order to kill it. How is it irrational to want to err on the side of caution when it is a matter of life or death for the human baby/child/fetus? In most states if I shoot a pregnant woman I'll be charged with double-homicide if both she and the baby die but I will still be charged with homocide if just the baby dies. How is it irrational to want that same kind of protection from the medical profession that the unborn get from the criminal element? How is it irrational to give more weight to a right to life issue than to an issue of personal freedom? You can try to marginalize me if it makes you feel better but I will never let you marginalize the children at issue here.
This law was actually made to appeal to anti-abortionists, if I remember correctly. So this argument is rather circular.
I don't know if it is irrational or not, but erring on the side of caution isn't necessarily a legal norm in the U.S. After all we don't err on the side of life or caution when we have convicted innocent people to death row. We don't err on the side of life or caution by exhausting all diplomatic options before starting a war. We don't err on the side of life or caution when the govt. falsely claims the air around the WTC after 9/11 wasn't harmful. We don't err on the side of caution or life when it comes to regulating businesses with regards to their pollution and global warming. We don't err on the side of caution or life when it comes to regulating gas milage. We don't err on the side of caution or life when it comes to signing the Kyoto treaty. So I'm not sure why you would think this case was any different. The fact is most of the leaders that people expect to err on the side of caution and life in the case of abortion, are the very ones that most stridently opposed to erring on the side of caution and life in all of the other cases I mentioned. I'm not in favor of abortion, but this one argument never made any sense to me.
