What exactly have Republicans done to stop abortion?

[Peek a Boo]

You keep saying that. It is not true. There is plenty of debate about it among scientists.

 

nope-- read that article again:

 

The article is addressing philosophical questions and clarifies the fertilization process.

 

Not once does it rebut that a blastocyst is HUMAN or ALIVE.

 

that one embryology book makes a decision to tackle the philosophical side of a debate doesn't equal "plenty of debate" about whether the organism is HUMAN or ALIVE, and doesn't negate what every other embryology textbook has already established: that we are dealing with an organism that is ALIVE and HUMAN, and a unique individual [as opposed to toenail clippings].

[Peek a Boo]

Here is the summary (emphasis mine):

 

when the article states : "I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions." they don't include what scientific positions they are representing, but the "Literature Cited" reveals a LOT of bioethic and religious literature.

 

If i stated a similar piece about how "scientists" have debated the theory of evolution, there would be some immediate jump to discredit those scientists --or at least to demand WHICH scientists hold that claim and what are their facts for making such a claim.

 

"If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."

 

They just spent a long article detailing all the different bioethical and religious BELIEFS out there. It is those beliefs that try to assert some status of "human being/ soul" that can not be defined solely by science, because --as they stated -- without those philosophical questions The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human.

 

They attempt to begin the article saying there is no way to determine if this organism is alive or human, but then never do so w/o falling back on legal, philosophical, and religious history. They even wrap up the article w/ a statement that makes my very point --all these scientific steps are merely a live human in varying stages of development.

 

But again, if you can show any other scientific evidence that claims a blastocyst is neither alive nor categorized as human, that would be an interesting one to see.

[Perry]

when the article states : "I have read a wide range of scientific positions on when life begins, and these positions depend on what aspect of life one privileges in such discussions." they don't include what scientific positions they are representing, but the "Literature Cited" reveals a LOT of bioethic and religious literature.

 

If i stated a similar piece about how "scientists" have debated the theory of evolution, there would be some immediate jump to discredit those scientists --or at least to demand WHICH scientists hold that claim and what are their facts for making such a claim.

 

"If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."

 

They just spent a long article detailing all the different bioethical and religious BELIEFS out there. It is those beliefs that try to assert some status of "human being/ soul" that can not be defined solely by science, because --as they stated -- without those philosophical questions The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human.

 

They attempt to begin the article saying there is no way to determine if this organism is alive or human, but then never do so w/o falling back on legal, philosophical, and religious history. They even wrap up the article w/ a statement that makes my very point --all these scientific steps are merely a live human in varying stages of development.

 

But again, if you can show any other scientific evidence that claims a blastocyst is neither alive nor categorized as human, that would be an interesting one to see.

 

I am not interested in debating when human life begins. I am only trying to point out to you that you keep saying there is a scientific consensus, and there clearly isn't. As far as I can tell, the only people claiming a scientific consensus are non-scientists.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

But again, if you can show any other scientific evidence that claims a blastocyst is neither alive nor categorized as human, that would be an interesting one to see.

 

Forgive me (to the OP), but one question: Do you mean human and living like a kidney harvested and being transported rapidly on ice for transplant is both human and living? If so, then of course the blastocyst is living human cells. Unless it's a pig blastocyst, then it's both living and porcine. A sperm and an egg are both living and human, should they be from a human. (And no, not like human nail clippings, I agree.)

[Peek a Boo]

I am not interested in debating when human life begins. I am only trying to point out to you that you keep saying there is a scientific consensus, and there clearly isn't. As far as I can tell, the only people claiming a scientific consensus are non-scientists.

 

actually, I'm not asking for a debate, just for facts from scientists that do show the organism in question is neither alive nor human. My point is that the article doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.

[Peek a Boo]

Forgive me (to the OP), but one question: Do you mean human and living like a kidney harvested and being transported rapidly on ice for transplant is both human and living? If so, then of course the blastocyst is living human cells. Unless it's a pig blastocyst, then it's both living and porcine. A sperm and an egg are both living and human, should they be from a human. (And no, not like human nail clippings, I agree.)

 

 

nope-- i'm talking about an individual human in a specific stage of development, not a piece of a human.

 

I absolutely understand that until the sperm and egg are completely diffused in the fertilization process you still have two separate pieces of a human.

 

eta: but they aren't really truly separate....;)

 

But even the article linked shows that as a matter of hours and one that can be seen and determined when the process is virtually complete --or at least moving along to the next academic stage.

[kokotg]

eh, never mind.

[Peek a Boo]

I think you're begging the question here.

 

oh, don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a rip-roaring debate ;)

 

But in this specific instance, I'd settle for some basic facts first.

 

There are scores of human development textbooks that establish the individuality of a developing human. I have a couple sitting on my shelf.

 

The article linked doesn't hold up the claim Perry made.

 

=============

 

oops-- i caught your post before you edited. you were pretty spot on in theory :D But i am capable of restraining myself and focussing on one thing at a time before delving into a Really Big debate ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

If "killing" (by not allowing it to implant) a blastocyst is *murder* then I think we need to make antibacterial products illegal because we're killing equally complex organisms with those.

 

I don't think "alive" is the same thing as "a life." The sperm and egg are alive, after all. Then, we are back to Monty Python and every sperm is sacred.

 

Not everyone has to agree with you, Peek. I'm never going to agree that not allowing a blastocyst to implant in my womb=murder. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll keep voting pro-choice because I want my reproductive rights to remain intact from people who don't want me to have bcps or an iud.

[nakitty]

If "killing" a blastocyst is *murder* then I think we need to make antibacterial products illegal because we're killing equally complex organisms with those.

 

I don't think "alive" is the same thing as "a life." The sperm and egg are alive, after all. Then, we are back to Monty Python and every sperm is sacred.

 

Not everyone has to agree with you, Peek. I'm never going to agree that not allowing a blastocyst to implant in my womb=murder. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll keep voting pro-choice because I want my reproductive rights to remain intact from people who don't want me to have bcps or an iud.

 

I agree.... and now I'm off to commit mass murder in my kitchen.:tongue_smilie:

[nakitty]

So it is the hope that they will erode the abortion rights down that keeps you voting Republican? And you are ok with voting for a candidate that doesn't really represent your views EXCEPT for the pro-life issue.... on the HOPE that he/she will be able to erode a little bit more of womens rights? And you are content with that? I guess I just have a difficult time relating to that. I think it would be rare to find a candidate that matches our beliefs 100% ... and I think we all have an issue or issues that we hold above others... but I cannot think of any one issue I would sink my vote on... especially if it meant such a small victory for my issue. Thank you everyone for responding. I really do appreciate the insight. Even if I don't agree with it.;) I'm sorry the thread took on a life of its own....though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This topic stirs people so....

[Peek a Boo]

I am not interested in debating when human life begins. I am only trying to point out to you that you keep saying there is a scientific consensus, and there clearly isn't. As far as I can tell, the only people claiming a scientific consensus are non-scientists.

 

of course, if I'm going to claim there's an overwhelming number of facts to support my case, i should probably share them to be fair, since i asked the same.

 

here's some "non scientists" and their consensus:

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

this gal uses a lot of "non scientists" in her article too. You can just skip to the end and read her sources if you want. Includes a bit of history about the "scientific" debate too--

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

 

 

and apparently I'm not the first to notice the blatant non-science aspects of this supposed science text:

 

http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com/2005/03/this-is-science-textbook_01.html

 

http://www.imago-dei.net/imago_dei/2005/03/autonomous_wisd.html

[Peek a Boo]

If "killing" (by not allowing it to implant) a blastocyst is *murder* then I think we need to make antibacterial products illegal because we're killing equally complex organisms with those.

 

except murder applies to one human killing another. and not all homocide is murder. plants are complex, living organisms too, but vegetarians aren't committing "murder" anymore than beef eaters are.

 

 

I don't think "alive" is the same thing as "a life." The sperm and egg are alive, after all. Then, we are back to Monty Python and every sperm is sacred.

 

Monty Python isn't writing our biology/ human embryology textbooks. The scientific difference between a piece of human tissue vs a developing human is academic and can be objectively observed. This is basic Biology 101.

 

 

Not everyone has to agree with you, Peek. I'm never going to agree that not allowing a blastocyst to implant in my womb=murder. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And I'll keep voting pro-choice because I want my reproductive rights to remain intact from people who don't want me to have bcps or an iud.

 

Ya know, you DON't have to agree with me on what a legal definition is, but some scientific facts are pretty basic --it's not I you disagree with, it becomes science that you are questioning. And that's ok too: science should BE questioned. I don't expect to change everyone's mind, but i do expect to continue posting basic scientific facts as long as the issue continues to be discussed on a public forum. i will certainly keep a look out for any new scientific evidence that shows something different in the development of a human in utero.

[Peek a Boo]

So it is the hope that they will erode the abortion rights down that keeps you voting Republican?

 

 

for some people, yes.

 

And you are ok with voting for a candidate that doesn't really represent your views EXCEPT for the pro-life issue.... on the HOPE that he/she will be able to erode a little bit more of womens rights?

 

i think most would answer that women don't have a RIGHT to kill another human for convenience, so the only erosion is one of a *wrong* --not a right.

 

And you are content with that?

 

content with righting a wrong? that seems reasonable to me.

 

I guess I just have a difficult time relating to that.

 

 

that's because you don't see it as righting a wrong :D

 

I think it would be rare to find a candidate that matches our beliefs 100% ... and I think we all have an issue or issues that we hold above others... but I cannot think of any one issue I would sink my vote on... especially if it meant such a small victory for my issue.

 

I think that applies to Democrats and other issues as well. To each their own.

 

 

Thank you everyone for responding. I really do appreciate the insight. Even if I don't agree with it.;) I'm sorry the thread took on a life of its own....though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This topic stirs people so....

 

as one who is always sucked in to abortion debates like a moth to the flame, i do think you asked a great question and received some serious answers. never be sorry that threads tend to take rabbit trails down various paths --it is difficult to really discuss an issue w/o getting into the nitty gritty of it. discussion is good.

[Michelle in MO]

Well, there are waiting lists for healthy, white infants, at any rate. I wish it were true that there were plenty of homes available in this country for EVERY child who needs one.

 

I realize that this may be simply my experience and not a statistical reality, but I have several friends who have adopted children from China, South America, bi-racial, literally all over. One couple we know has adopted six children. I don't think any of them hoped to adopt white babies first before adopting children from another country or race. I think they were just so very happy to finally be able to hold a child of their own.

 

Sorry for the diversion; I realize the thread is going in another direction. :blush:

[Karen sn]

Hypocrisy is to *continue* speeding while speaking out against it. To change one's stance afterward is repentance.

 

I think the problem here is that we're discussing a volatile issue. *For argument's sake,* let's replace "abortion" w/ something we can all agree is wrong. Say, shaking a baby. (Bear w/ me--I know we don't all agree on abortion, but it's important that we understand Laura's POV, so this is *just* for the sake of argument.)

 

Imagine a teenager is caring for a baby who's crying, gets overwhelmed, shakes the baby, & it dies. In this situation, she made an emotional, immature, rash decision, & she spends the rest of her life regretting the life she unintentionally took. She wants to help educate others on ways to avoid the pain that she inflicted as well as the pain she suffered.

 

Now I realize that everyone does not agree on the rights of a fetus or the definition of abortion, etc. But I see Laura's situation as similar to the one I've described. She made a decision in her youth, & after learning more about...the process of abortion or her faith or whatever, she came to the conclusion that *she took a life.*

 

I imagine it would be much easier to choose to ignore the compelling information one was receiving than to change one's stance on something as personal & emotional as abortion. Esp for someone who has had one, the cost to change their opinion on it is so great, so hard.

 

Is her change hypocritical? To me, that would be like calling someone who accidentally gives misinformation a liar.

 

For her to come to the conclusion that abortion is a form of murder & not denounce it as such (if her conscience so requires) would be worse than hypocrisy, wouldn't it? Imagine a drunk driver who's killed someone *not* speaking out against drunk driving? We'd think it inhumane.

 

To disagree w/ Laura's stance is one's perrogative. To call her a hypocrite for taking that stance seems to miss the deep pain & conflict she must have suffered to arrive at it.

 

I agree with everything you said here Aubrey -except for WHY I used the word "hypocrite." She has the right to speak out against it. BUT TO COOSE FOR US - she does not have that right. She does not have the right to legislate my choice for me.....and for her to think she can do so, especially after that choice was given to her TWICE already, seems a little hypocritical to me. Legislation is my issue here. Believe me - I get where she is coming from emotionally - but she has no right to turn that into legislation.

[Karen sn]

 

 

If I were to rail against abortion, then come to a situation where I decided to from now on support abortion as a right and moral option, that is simply a change of position, not hypocritical.

 

 

True. You can change your own mind. But should you be allowed to choose for others....especially when you have been given choice TWICE before yourself? Feel free to change positions. But don't require the same from me.

[Danestress]

.

[Erica in PA]

I think there's a relatively simple answer to this question: politicians don't always do what they say they will do. Pro-life candidates sometimes talk about abortion during the primary, mostly to gain the support of pro-life voters, and then do little about it when actually in office. Surely there are areas where you as a democrat can see that your candidates also sometimes talk a good game during the election but fail to deliver once elected. Maybe it's promises to help minorities, or help the poor, or fix the health policy, etc. But once in office, their actions don't match their rhetoric--- and it's not always the Republicans thwarting them! :tongue_smilie: Same thing here. It's disappointing, as I'm sure you're disappointed with your leaders sometimes too.

 

There are some things that Republicans have done to limit abortion, such as the partial birth abortion ban, requiring parental consent, and limiting the use of federal money to pay for abortions. I'm glad for all of these things, even though I'd like to see more done. Many democrats didn't support any of these things. I'd rather vote for someone who agrees with me in principle, and hopefully take action on it while in office (though there's never a guarantee in politics), rather than someone who says outright that they strongly oppose my ideals.

 

Erica

[Renee in NC]

I realize that this may be simply my experience and not a statistical reality, but I have several friends who have adopted children from China, South America, bi-racial, literally all over. One couple we know has adopted six children. I don't think any of them hoped to adopt white babies first before adopting children from another country or race. I think they were just so very happy to finally be able to hold a child of their own.

 

Sorry for the diversion; I realize the thread is going in another direction. :blush:

 

I think her point was that in this country, people wait years for healthy white infants or go overseas to adopt, while many, many minority and/or less-than-healthy children languish in foster care. What I have seen is that minority babies are adopted LAST after healthy white babies, white babies with health problems, and foreign babies.

 

Don't even think about older children - they just don't get adopted.

[Jugglin'5]

Maybe so, but I still know many local homeschool families who have adopted Black and Hispanic babies, crack babies, kids who had been permanently stuck in the foster-go-round, or all of the above. I don't know that many people, so it can't be that uncommon. All those families are pro-life. I think this is a red herring.

 

I think her point was that in this country, people wait years for healthy white infants or go overseas to adopt, while many, many minority and/or less-than-healthy children languish in foster care. What I have seen is that minority babies are adopted LAST after healthy white babies, white babies with health problems, and foreign babies.

 

Don't even think about older children - they just don't get adopted.

[Renee in NC]

Maybe so' date=' but I still know many local homeschool families who have adopted Black and Hispanic babies, crack babies, kids who had been permanently stuck in the foster-go-round, or all of the above. I don't know that many people, so it can't be that uncommon. All those families are pro-life. I think this is a red herring.[/quote']

 

I don't think it was meant as a red herring. If you go back (pages) and read the original comment, it was that women shouldn't have abortions and we don't need to help them provide for children that they have as a result of not having abortions because of all the families waiting to adopt.

 

Yes, babies that are not healthy and white do get adopted. That wasn't the point, I don't think. Or maybe I am misunderstanding. I didn't understand it to be that pro-life families don't adopt, but rather that the majority of the people "on waiting lists to adopt" are waiting on healthy, white infants. Otherwise, they wouldn't be on waiting lists because there are plenty of children who are not white and/or healthy on waiting-to-be adopted lists.

[PariSarah]

I think her point was that in this country, people wait years for healthy white infants or go overseas to adopt, while many, many minority and/or less-than-healthy children languish in foster care. What I have seen is that minority babies are adopted LAST after healthy white babies, white babies with health problems, and foreign babies.

 

Don't even think about older children - they just don't get adopted.

 

It's very sad, and a shameful commentary on our society, that children have needs that aren't being met.

 

To me, the answer that most makes sense, the societal change that most needs to happen, is that we become less focused on material success, and more open to helping children who need it, even if it's hard. Structural changes that need to happen include more help, especially at the local level, for adoptive parents of special needs children, and effective support, education, and rehabilitation of at-risk families.

 

And, while pro-life individuals do tend to be overrepresented among adoptive parents of special needs children, at least in my community, pro-life organizations could stand to do a little more work at that structural level, sho'nuff.

 

But it makes no sense at all to say, "Look at these children. They deserve better than what they're getting. They deserve to have been killed in the womb." As an argument for abortion rights, the heart-wrenching situation of foster children just doesn't work. (It does work, my Catholic friends will forgive me for saying, as an argument for birth control. Giving women in crisis situations the resources to prevent conception, particularly when they don't adhere to a religion that gives them the resources to maintain a chaste lifestyle, is a reasonable approach to prevention. But abortion and birth control are just not on the same moral plane, and only a tiny minority on either side pretends they are.)

 

Or, if you were going the character assassination route, "Look at those pro-lifers. They don't adopt those same special needs children that we don't adopt. Therefore, our moral character is superior, and our position must be right." It just doesn't work.

[Aubrey]

I agree with everything you said here Aubrey -except for WHY I used the word "hypocrite." She has the right to speak out against it. BUT TO COOSE FOR US - she does not have that right. She does not have the right to legislate my choice for me.....and for her to think she can do so, especially after that choice was given to her TWICE already, seems a little hypocritical to me. Legislation is my issue here. Believe me - I get where she is coming from emotionally - but she has no right to turn that into legislation.

 

But then your objection is against *anyone* who would legislate against abortion, not just Laura.

 

And again, I think for Laura to vote pro-life might be the equivalent of a drunk driver who has sobered up joining MADD. To continue to drive drunk & try to be an activist against such would be hypocritical. To change one's beliefs & then work to protect others from the same pain is not.

 

I do thank you, though, for allowing me the analogies of drunk driving & shaken babies. I know that must have come across pretty loaded, & I think it really took some...hm...I need a word that means greatness & willingness to listen, etc., but I can't think of just the right one...my point is that it was generous of you to hear my badly-phrased analogy.

 

Fwiw, I can understand being offended by the work of pro-lifers to legislate against abortion. I can't imagine being told that I *must* carry a life, with all of its physical burden, inconvenience, pain, & stigma. I'm not sure it's fair to do that to someone else. At the same time, though, I *do* believe that the life developing in the womb is sacred, & I don't know how to reconcile the right of the two lives.

 

Before having children, I thought it was simple: abortion is wrong. Now, though...I still believe abortion is wrong, but there's so much more at stake than I could see 10 yrs ago. Kwim?

[OnTheBrink]

 

except that it's not "selfish" to want others to NOT KILL HUMANS without legal consequence or due process. Quite the opposite. Your argument would extend to those who want to see the death penalty abolished also --are they just being "selfish" because they don't want to see a human killed?

 

Or slavery when it was still legal and a right--"I can understand that YOU have regrets about owning slaves. But to deny someone else a right (that you've already exercised) seems incredibly selfish to me."

 

selfish? REALLY??

 

It helps keep the discussion a bit more clear when you define just what RIGHT you are defending-- the right to kill another human for convenience.

 

*standing up and cheering*

[PariSarah]

Well, there are waiting lists for healthy, white infants, at any rate. I wish it were true that there were plenty of homes available in this country for EVERY child who needs one.

 

. . . healthy children of all races. Even my friend who was willing to take a child with a history of fetal drug use had to wait over a year.

 

At least in my county, the only adoptive parents that don't have to go on waiting lists are those willing to take an FAS baby, an HIV-positive baby, large sibling groups, or an older child with diagnosed attachment disorders. The vast majority of kids languishing in foster care in this county come from those categories.

[Michelle in MO]

Maybe so' date=' but I still know many local homeschool families who have adopted Black and Hispanic babies, crack babies, kids who had been permanently stuck in the foster-go-round, or all of the above. I don't know that many people, so it can't be that uncommon. All those families are pro-life. I think this is a red herring.[/quote']

 

The family that I know that has six adopted children have only one adopted white child; they are a very loving couple who chose specifically to adopt two Chinese daughters, one child from South America whose special needs are profound (he's both deaf and autistic), one child from Russia who was older when he was adopted, and I forget from which country the last child came from. They were not able to have biological children.

 

I realize that one family doesn't make statistical reality; nevertheless, I don't think this is that uncommon, either.

[kokotg]

Yes, but as an argument for abortion rights, this doesn't make sense to me.

 

right, but that's not how the adoption thread of this thread (got that?) got started. I was responding to someone who suggested that the availability of adoptive homes for infants was an argument against abortion. I was just pointing out that there aren't homes for all babies, not saying that that meant people should rush out and get abortions. But the fact is, if I were an African American woman and/or someone who knew she was carrying a child with special needs, I would not have the same confidence that my child would end up in a loving home that a white woman carrying a healthy white baby would have. I was just reading an article yesterday about how some agencies are starting to place African American infants in Canada and other countries because there's such a lack of adoptive homes for them in the US.

[SFP]

But it makes no sense at all to say, "Look at these children. They deserve better than what they're getting. They deserve to have been killed in the womb."

 

 

Has someone actually said this? It sounds like a strawman to me.

[kokotg]

I also wasn't making any kind of accusation that someone's "not doing their part." I was just pointing out an unfortunate reality about adoption in this country.

[Renee in NC]

ACCKK! I wasn't saying it was an argument for abortion rights.

 

It seems easy to say, "Well, if a woman gets pregnant, she either needs to pull herself up by the bootstraps or give her baby to someone who can afford it." I hear it all the time from conservative Christians - "don't have an abortion, but you better not even *think* of using Medicaid or food stamps or anything else that uses my tax dollars."

 

I was responding to that attitude and got all wrapped up trying to clarify what I thought the Op meant. It really didn't have anything to do with abortion rights or pro-life or anything, but rather a simple response to someone who said that if the mother couldn't support her children without tax-funded programs that she should give her baby to someone who could. I find that line of thinking repugnant and *common* in the Republican arena.

[Old Dominion Heather]

Also languishing are those whom the parents will not release for adoption.

 

My parents did foster care for a child with a view to adoption when I was a kid. Her parents wouldn't agree, they decided to just leave her in the foster care system in a group home, and she had issues. We were told by the foster care system that there was nothing they could do, her parents had the right to maintain the status quo and that is what they did.

[[email protected]]

Please stay on topic, or the thread will be closed. Discuss the issue, not the board.

 

Moderator

[PariSarah]

It seems easy to say, "Well, if a woman gets pregnant, she either needs to pull herself up by the bootstraps or give her baby to someone who can afford it." I hear it all the time from conservative Christians - "don't have an abortion, but you better not even *think* of using Medicaid or food stamps or anything else that uses my tax dollars."

 

Ick! I have very uncharitable thoughts in my heart towards people who think that way, but I will not share them.

 

;)

[PariSarah]

Has someone actually said this? It sounds like a strawman to me.

 

. . . it certainly is. No one says this. (Or, rather, only a very few people say this, and if they didn't head political action groups, I wouldn't take them seriously at all.)

 

But isn't that the force of the argument?

 

I'm assuming that the pretext to the argument goes something like this:

 

A: Women should be allowed to choose abortion, because sometimes they can't afford to raise a child.

B: Well, aren't there alternatives, like adoption or state assistance?

A: But sometimes adoption doesn't work, and the child languishes in foster care.

 

Arguing that flaws in the adoption system provide a reason to maintain legalized abortion is saying that a child who falls victim to one of those flaws 1) is morally worth of better (that is, deserves a good home and all that) and 2) that being aborted is better.

 

My apologies for using short-hand (strawman) version in the earlier post, but that is the essence of my problem with this argument. It recognizes a child's valid claim on society (we should be providing this child with what it needs) while at the same time denying that child's valid claim (but we don't want to work hard at providing it, so we'll just tell the mom it's okay to abort).

[kokotg]

.

Arguing that flaws in the adoption system provide a reason to maintain legalized abortion is saying that a child who falls victim to one of those flaws 1) is morally worth of better (that is, deserves a good home and all that) and 2) that being aborted is better.

 

 

 

And I believe John Irving explores this thoroughly in The Cider House Rules. Maybe we need a book club spin off from this thread :tongue_smilie:

[Scarlett]

And I believe John Irving explores this thoroughly in The Cider House Rules. Maybe we need a book club spin off from this thread :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Oh my! The week before I gave birth dh and I decided to go to one last movie before baby came. Guess what we saw? We had NO idea what it was about. :tongue_smilie:

[Renee in NC]

I see your argument, but at least in our little subthread about adoption, we were arguing FOR financial help for mothers who don't want to abort, not as an argument for keeping it legal.

[Danestress]

 

 

No, I think on this thread (at least the part I have read carefully) it went like this:

 

1. Women will increasingly be able to have abortions in the privacy of their homes by chemical means so

 

2. We need to think about how to reduce the DESIRE for abortion because even if we legislate against it, we can't really stop it, and what we really really want is to end abortion

 

3. Assuring women that the there are loving homes willing and able to receive their children might encourage some to go through with the pregnancy

 

4. To the extent a woman believes that her own child will not be adopted by a loving family (for whatever reason) or that she can't bear the sadness of being forced to relinquish a child because of economic circumstances, adotion is not a total answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

[Peek a Boo]

True. You can change your own mind. But should you be allowed to choose for others....especially when you have been given choice TWICE before yourself? Feel free to change positions. But don't require the same from me.

 

 

so if you have lied TWICE before then you have no right to say that another can not lie? so much for libel and slander laws.

if one has stolen something TWICE before then they have no right to enforce the laws for theft?

If I owned slaves then i don't get to say that one shouldn't own slaves?

 

Should I be allowed to choose for others that they don't have the right to kill another human? we do it all the time.

 

so you have a problem with legislating rights.

are you saying you think we should retract the law about slavery?

or murder?

or theft?

 

all those legislate a penalty on what one is and is not allowed to choose.

and they all revolve around the basic concept that we are human, and humans do not have a right to do unto other humans however they wish.

 

should one be allowed to do what they want w/ their own body? to a point, absolutely --and that POINT is that your right to extend your fist ends at the beginning of another person's nose. Or more accurately, you can do whatever you want to your OWN body, but not to another human's body.

 

abortion is the killing of a separate human.

induced abortion on demand is the intentional killing of a human for convenience without legal consequence or due process.

 

or to put it in your own words:

why should you get to choose what happens to another [when you kill a developing human in an abortion]?

and then claim it as a RIGHT?

[SFP]

induced abortion on demand is the intentional killing of a human for convenience without legal consequence or due process.

 

What should the legal consequences be? Prison? Monetary fine? Community service?

 

And for whom? The doctor? The mother? The father who may have insisted she terminate the pregnancy?

[Perry]

deleted-double post

[Perry]

so if you have lied TWICE before then you have no right to say that another can not lie? so much for libel and slander laws.

if one has stolen something TWICE before then they have no right to enforce the laws for theft?

 

Past behavior predicts future behavior. It would certainly cast doubt on their credibility.

 

Although I'm not suggesting Laura isn't credible. She has every right to change her mind.

[Laura in VA]

Past behavior predicts future behavior. It would certainly cast doubt on their credibility.

 

Although I'm not suggesting Laura isn't credible. She has every right to change her mind.

 

Oh, you're right. I am not credible.

 

To the mods:

May we close this thread? I'm tired.

[Tarheel Heather]

What should the legal consequences be? Prison? Monetary fine? Community service?

 

And for whom? The doctor? The mother? The father who may have insisted she terminate the pregnancy?

 

What about the clinics that provide services? The clinic owners? What about instances of rape and incest? What about elective termination where there was artificial insemination and the parents who have six only want two? What about those with genetic disorders, are you aborting the exsistence of life because you can not handle the medical issues, treatment, time spent caring for that life. Or because one doesn't want to face having to take care of the medical issues. This debate could go on and on.

 

Yes, I believe it is life from conception. But it is the circumstances that brought that life forth that have to be dealt with by society.

 

I have worked in medical laboratories, I have seen, what is labeled "products of conception". I think that if some have seen maybe those opinions may be changed. But ultimately the fight is with what brings people to that choice. How can a society change that? There are so many variants.

[Tarheel Heather]

Oh, you're right. I am not credible.

 

To the mods:

May we close this thread? I'm tired.

 

 

Hugs to you Laura! :grouphug:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Oh, you're right. I am not credible.

 

To the mods:

May we close this thread? I'm tired.

 

Or maybe just the "Laura's admitted to terminations, so let's discuss that directly or abstractly without regard to her pain" part.

[Debbie in OR]

Or maybe just the "Laura's admitted to terminations, so let's discuss that directly or abstractly without regard to her pain" part.

 

Exactly. Standing with you, Laura.

[Jenny in Atl]

What about the clinics that provide services? The clinic owners? What about instances of rape and incest? What about elective termination where there was artificial insemination and the parents who have six only want two? What about those with genetic disorders, are you aborting the exsistence of life because you can not handle the medical issues, treatment, time spent caring for that life. Or because one doesn't want to face having to take care of the medical issues. This debate could go on and on.

 

Yes, I believe it is life from conception. But it is the circumstances that brought that life forth that have to be dealt with by society.

 

I have worked medical laboratories, I have seen, what is labeled "products of conception". I think that if some have seen maybe those opinions may be changed. But ultimately the fight is with what brings people to that choice. How can a society change that? There are so many variants.

 

And my issue is how those that wish to end it will do so... by the power of the federal government. In a sense, putting a gun to a woman's head making her carry to term. It's just too complicated to make this a yes/no issue.

[Perry]

Laura, I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear I wasn't referring to you. I was responding to Peekaboo's tangential comments about liars and thiefs, which I thought were totally irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Honestly, I have no problem with your pro-life position.