posted
Well, I guess for a lot of people, the decision does seem to rest with them and with them alone. I suppose that I can't really enter this argument because I believe the decision is NOT ours. Ever. But not everyone believes in a higher power at work and I understand that...so, I guess I'll back out of this argument again.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Assuming your friend is part of a community, don't you think some part of her decision-making should be weighed with respect to the concerns and needs of that community?
I know that arguing that abortion is wrong vs. women's right to choose is like arguing about apples and oranges. Everyone's gone over this many many times in this thread already.
One thing that surprises me is the extreme lack of education on the issue. On BOTH sides. People need to know what
So many pro-choice people support Planned Parenthood, who's original purpose was ethnic cleansing. It's founder (Margaret Sanger) was a blatant racist(even admitted so), and started the company in order to offer sterilization clinics in poor ethnic neighborhoods. Her goal was to advance the "superior" white race by convincing other ethnicities that more children are a burden to themselves, and that sterilization was the only option(abortion was not legal at that point.)
Many people don't even know that Roe v. Wade was a court cased based on a lie. Norma McCorvey(Roe) lied about being gang-raped and becoming pregnant. She was pregnant from consentual sex and never even had an abortion. She ended up giving her baby up for adoption. It wasn't until almost 20 years(i think) later that she became Pro-Life and admitted to lying in court.
There are multiple other cases of people admitting to lying to propel the Pro-Abortion agenda. (I'm sure that there may be some Pro-Life lies out there as well, but I haven't looked those up.) I can't remember names right now so I'm not even going to try to mention them.
I can understand wanting the "right to choose." I don't agree with it but I can understand it nonetheless. I can't understand supporting a cause that exists because of lies and deception. I can't understand supporting a corporation that gets taxpayers' money from the government and pushes its racist abortion agenda on people all over the world.
Hmmmm.... with statements like this, who could resist reading the rest of the website:
quote:Planned Parenthood says Child Sex is OK!!!!
Very nice. That gem was extrapolated from this Q&A from Planned Parenthood:
quote:"Dear hmj,
There is no wrong or right age for a person to lose their virginity. Having sex is a big decision. There are lots of feelings and responsibilities to consider. The only person who can tell if you're ready to have sex is YOU!"
The website continues:
quote:The Founder of Planned Parenthood was an Extreme Racist and a Nazi Sympathizer
By the same logic, we should stop visiting Disneyland and stop buying BMWs (actually the second suggestion isn't that bad).
quote:Life Dynamics researchers say they also found "irrefutable evidence" that pro-abortion-rights organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation "knowingly conceal" the crimes of sexual abuse of minors "while aiding and abetting the sexual predators who commit them."
Yes, I'm sure that's the main goal of Planned Parenthood: The protection of the sexual predators' privacy.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greg, you really think a site called "abortionismurder" is going to be objective?
"There's really no point in arguing about abortion since it's like arguing about apples and oranges." ... "Have you heard all this horrible stuff about the pro-abortion (of course I don't want to call them by the correct name, which is pro-choice) side?"
Hypocritical, perhaps?
And I don't go around calling the pro-life side the pro-taking-away-a-woman's-privacy-and-going-back-to-the-days-of-back-alley-abortions side. I don't know of any pro-choice people that think everyone should have abortions and that they're great things. They're for a woman's right to choose, hence "pro-choice".
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
SO because some pro-life people have murdered doctors are we to assume that pro-life condones murder? Hinting that "pro-choicers" are supporters of lies is just as fallacious.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie-- when you present a sign saying, "Men who oppose abortion should f--- thmeselves," what kind of emotional reaction do you think you can expect?
Loving understanding and open dialogue?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Someone on hatrack once gave the example of their 15 year old daughter who was attacked and raped. She was affected terribly and was desperately depressed and suicidal. He felt sure that if she had to remain pregnant with the rapist's child, and bring it to term, she would have committed suicide beforehand.
See, ak, speaking to someone who claims a set of religious beliefs, I find it hard to understand how you could believe that God doesn't create life and have a purpose for each individual life. I know that people who aren't religious wouldn't let that argument stand, but nothing confuses me more than someone who says they believe in an omnipotent God, yet somehow they fail to see how he can make a life worth living.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the reason they pick the 14th week to do the amnio is because that's when certain chemicals are present in the fluid. In other words, it's the best time to get the best results. An amnio done earlier could be incorrect.
Amniocentesis can be performed between 15 and 18 weeks (though when I had it done in 2000, they would not do it after 16 weeks). Before that, there is a riskier procedure called CVS that can be done between 10 and 12 weeks. An amnio takes out amniotic fluid and pieces together a picture of the baby's chromosomes, which are IIRC floating around semi-freely.
People can and do abort babies based on results of amnio tests.
posted
But I'm pretty sure that the test done to check for spina bifida and Downs is more accurate depending on the time that it is administered.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, so I'm remembering basically correctly that it's in the 4th month that's the soonest an amnio will be done?
PSI, I don't know what to tell you except that I believe God gives us our free agency for a good reason, and that I don't believe He causes genetic defects, any more than I believe He is responsible for sending punitive viruses to afflict people, or that lightning rods subvert God's will by preventing bolts of electricity from the blue.
It's certainly not true that anyone who believes in God has to be in favor of legislation against abortion. Do you feel anyone who believes in God should also be in favor of legislating sexual abstinence outside marriage? Or like in some Islamic countries how they make it illegal to not be Islamic? I feel that agency is the most important principle, and I don't feel qualified to make these decisions for other people.
I'm not sure I really feel qualified to make them for myself, even. I hope I never have to. Why would I feel qualified to make them for someone else?
Many genetic defects will kill a developing fetus. Downs is one which, while serious enough to cause severe health problems, is not always serious enough to kill the baby in utero. My friend's boy did almost die many times in his first year of life, and would have certainly died without the open heart surgery and intensive care hospital treatment over a period of months. By intervening and not letting him die in infancy did they subvert God's will? How can anyone say with total certainty what God intended here?
I personally feel that God doesn't commit the errors of this world, nor cause the problems, but we are here in order to find the moral path we should take through all of the pitfalls and troubles which arise in mortal existence. If the answers were all easy, we would not need to live in order to discover them.
[ April 27, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
AK, I don't want to decide for anyone. Thing is, it's always seemed to me that this kind of decision should be out of everyone's hands. Out of my hands, out of the court's hands, out of the parents' hands too. Blanket illegality. I don't feel as though I'm "making a decision for someone" when I say that abortion ought to be illegal; just the opposite.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AK, remember that each spirit chooses to join in on mortality here on earth. That each child, born or unborn knows exactly what they are getting in for and still wants to come. I agree that if the mother's life is at stake, safe the mother, and I can see th arguments about rape victims (on which I'm still undecided). But how can you choose to null that childs choice to come live here on earth because you think it would be hard for them? They choose to come here knowing that, willing to go through what it is they were faced with.
You know I love you AK, but I really have to strongly disagree with you here.
posted
Me too Hobbes. This takes us from a "choice/pro-choice" argument to an argument about the nature of God and the universe.
You said that you believe that "God doesn't cause the errors of this world" to which I can cautiously say "I agree." Yet, I believe firmly that God knows about the errors and who will be affected by them. I firmly believe in the truth of the scripture that God won't give us more than we can bear...but I do know that He allows stuff to happen to test and try us. This could be a hurricane in our hometown, a baby with cerebral palsy, or the death of a loved one unexpectedly. This is why I believe that the choice isn't ours to make.
But then in the every-day abortion debate arena, this argument doesn't hold water, so that's why I usually just read along without saying anything.
posted
And I don't question your beliefs, any of you, and your right to apply them to your own stewardships. What I question is whether your stewardship extends to my friend's family. I don't believe it does. I believe she was made steward of her family.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
mmmkay. I understand what you mean. So a question that I have (that I'm sure has been asked a gazillion times on this thread and others) is just how far should our 'stewardship' go. There are some obvious choices badly made that can get us punished in this society...and most people agree that this is the way it should be. So, how much fits under the "I did it for the good of my family and it's my own business" umbrella?
That is an impossible question. It comes back, again *sigh* to the "Is abortion murder?" question. The answer to this question would probably dictate whether it would still be within her stewardship to make that particular choice for her family.
This is all just talking out loud. I'm not coming to any solid conclusions here, so don't mind me.
posted
Narnia:"I firmly believe in the truth of the scripture that God won't give us more than we can bear..."
Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 10:13? If so, remember that it speaks only of temptations, not trials or suffering in general. We are not promised protection from "more than we can bear" except in the case of temptation, and even then the promise is conditional.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes that one...and some other supporting ones that discuss trials etc. But that's another thread.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry guys, my post was really poorly written last ngiht. I wrote it at 3 AM after reading all six pages of this discussion for like 2 hours.
Regarding that website I posted, it did use some language that I admit is pretty stupid, i.e. "PP says child sex is OK" and "PP protects sexual predators", although there is some truth to each statement.
I don't like how PP has no problem telling young children, even in middle school that there's nothing wrong with having sex at that age, regardless of the fact that it's part of their whole "sexual education". If I had a child that was that young, and people tried to tell them that "It's ok to have sex as long as you use protection, but if protection doesn't work, get an abortion." I was taught that sex is a special thing that aught to be saved. It's stuck in my mind. I would feel good if that's what my kids were taught too.
It's all about proper sexual education. I don't know what the best type of sex ed is though. I'm personally for abstinence education in an ideal world, but we don't live in that world. People will still want to have sex. I'd rather people know how to use birth control methods properly than resorting to an abortion.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Far too few kids are adopted. For a white middle class mother, adoption is very much an option. For a lower class black mother, her kid will be lucky to find a parent, and will most likely be shuttled around the foster system instead.
This argument has always bothered me endlessly. Yes, too few kids are adopted. But virtually all babies are adopted when the parents give up their rights to the baby. So long as the black mother gives up the child when its still a baby, there are so many parents that would love to have the child. If the black mother waits until the child is older, you're correct that there will be more difficulty finding adoptive parents.
The market for babies is huge. I have known two couples that wanted to adopt. In one, the mother was in her late thirties and the father is early forties. They already had two children. They weren't rich, but they were financially alright, enough so that the mother could stay at home. They were quite flatly told that they were too old and too poor and already had children so they had virtually no chance of adoptiong. The other couple that is young, financially well-off, and childless. They have been on a waiting list for a year +. These couples are not specifying a particular race, all that they want is a healthy child. The truth is that there's not enough babies to go around, so they pick only the best candidates to give the too few babies to. Some of you have probably heard of the baby black market. People buy babies at extremely high prices of all races.
The problem is that it is more socially acceptable to get an abortion than it is to have the child and then give it up for adoption. People feel that if you give up a kid, you've done something wrong. So most people either kill or keep kids they don't want; they don't give them up for adoption.
If society needs changing, this is one of the biggest areas that needs to be changed. So many people want the babies, but many single mothers would rather raise a child that they don't want and can't afford rather than live with the guilt and sacrifice of giving up the child.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem is that it is more socially acceptable to get an abortion than it is to have the child and then give it up for adoption.
Meh? Are there as many anti-adoption groups as there are pro-life groups? Do people protest outside orphanages? Did you read all the instances in this thread where posters are against abortion and completely support adoption?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Meh? Are there as many anti-adoption groups as there are pro-life groups? Do people protest outside orphanages? Did you read all the instances in this thread where posters are against abortion and completely support adoption?
No, I'm not saying that their are anti-adoption groups. I'm saying that most people feel that if they're going to go through with a pregnancy, they choose to raise the child, whether they want it or not. I think that this represents a social trend of seeing adoptions as somehow selfish (or something) of the mother. I know that when watching television shows that address the issue, adoption is never mentioned as an option. Its either abort or keep the baby.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol3no1ART2.PDF This site explains many different statistics about adoption. On page 32 it explains that "Most unmarried mothers choose to parent their child. Indeed, the percentage of premaritial births being placed for adoption has declined over the past two decades." It considers abortion, but concludes that "factors other than abortion resulted in this trend."
I don't know why adoption has become less socially desirable. Perhaps now that it's more acceptable to be a single mother, people feel that that is the best option. I don't know. Does anyone have any ideas on the issue?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering on this further, I imagine that if I somehow became pregnant via consentual sex, I would keep the child rather than give it up for adoption. I'm in college, not married, and know that a child right now would drastically change my future and make some of my goals unobtainable. Yet, if I was to go through nine months of pregnancy and face the shame of telling my family and friends that I was pregnant, then I would want to keep the kid. Now, in my case, the child would not be unwanted once it was here, and I would have family to lean on emotionally and financially. Despite my unfitness to be a parent, I would feel that it's my kid and I want it.
Regardless of why many choose not to give their child up for adoption, the statement stands that the current demand for adoptive babies is bigger than the supply.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear, I specified that most babies are adopted. I found nothing on the site that refuted that. What I did find was that of the chidlren that were adopted, "46% were 1-5 years old" and that of children wiating to be adopted "2% were less than one year old." While this isn't proof of my claim (I couldn't find specific statistics after an hour of looking), it does suggest that there is a high demand for babies. I'm making no claim that older children have a good chance of being adopted.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Approximately 3% of waiting children have waited less than a month to be adopted after the termination of parental rights. 16% of the children waited 1-5 months, 30% waited 6-11 months, 20% waited 12-17 months, 12% waited 18-23 months, 7% waited 24-29 months, 4% waited 30-35 months, 7% waited 3-4 years and 2% waited 5 or more years.
Note that 52% of children put up for adoption wait more than a year to be adopted. Given that adopting parents can be vetted for adoption without a child being ready to be taken, this suggests a large number of children that could be adopted given a higher demand for adoption are not; they instead have to wait for adoption. Yes, most children are adopted eventually. However, 2% is a very large number. Its impossible to make an exact estimate because statistics simply aren't collected very thoroughly, but that's many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of children every year not adopted for five or more years (that is, almost nobody will take them) . These are the children whom it is a problem getting adopted.
posted
I understand and agree with what you're saying. But you don't seem to understand me. I said:
quote: Yes, too few kids are adopted. But virtually all babies are adopted when the parents give up their rights to the baby.
This not only specifies babies, it also specifies babies whose parents have waived their rights. I have seen no numbers related to this. I know this only because of the couple that I know that was flatly told that they couldn't adopt a baby because there just aren't enough babies to go around. Why would an adoption agency lie to this couple? If there were tons of unwanted babies available, they would have given the couple one.
Of all the reasons to have an abortion, fearing that your baby won't be adopted should NOT be one of them because in the vast majority of cases it's just not true.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have y'all read Raisin in the Sun? There's a revival of it on Broadway, and of all people, Sean "P-Diddy" Combs stars in it.
This play made a huge impact on me when I read it and saw the movie as a teenager, and the original poem by Langston Hughes, from which the play takes its title, is spell-binding. This revival appears to be both a critical and financial hit, but that's not the point of this post.
I want to quote a section of the Wall Street Journal's review of the play, because it pertains to the topic at hand.
quote:But I must tell you of the small moment that was actually a big moment. (There's a possible spoiler coming up, so if you don't know the story and mean to see the play, stop here.) An important moment in the plot is when a character announces she is pregnant, and considering having an abortion. In fact, she tells her mother-in-law, she's already put $5 down with the local abortionist. It is a dramatic moment. And you know as you watch it that when this play came out in 1960 it was received by the audience as a painful moment--a cry of pain from a woman who's tired of hoping that life will turn out well.
But this is the thing: Our audience didn't know that. They didn't understand it was tragic. They heard the young woman say she was about to end the life of her child, and they applauded. Some of them cheered. It was stunning. The reaction seemed to startle the actors on stage, and shake their concentration. I was startled. I turned to my friend. "We have just witnessed a terrible cultural moment," I said. "Don't I know it," he responded.
And I can't tell you how much that moment hurt. To know that the members of our audience didn't know that the taking of a baby's life is tragic--that the taking of your own baby's life is beyond tragic, is almost operatic in its wailing woe.
But our audience didn't know. They reacted as if abortion were a political question. They thought that the fact that the young woman was considering abortion was a sign of liberation. They thought this cry of pain was in fact a moment of self-actualizing growth.
Afterward, thinking about it, I said to my friend, "When that play opened that plot point was understood--they knew it was tragic. And that was only what, 40 years ago." He said, "They would have known it was tragic even 25 years ago."
And it gave me a shiver because I knew it was true.
posted
Wow, Kat. I'm pro-choice, but the callousness of the people described shocked me. That's a wonderful play, and it's unfortunate that instead of understanding the character's agony some instead chose to applaud it.
posted
It's possible that the threat of having one's right to choose to abort a pregnancy taken away has overshadowed the tragedy of the situation for a lot of people. I don't particularly think that a 2 week old fetus is a human being yet, but I do think it's a terrible thing for a woman to have to decide to end her pregnancy.
However, even though I think abortion is unfortunate, I see it as a necessary option for first-trimester women to have, and if I feel threatened that people are going to make that option illegal, then hell yeah I'm going to cheer for it. *shrug*
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The responses to the article were interesting. This one in particular caught my eye as one of the few dissenting opinions. In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea what this woman was trying to say. I like to think she's intelligent, but what she wrote is so clogged with rhetoric, it's hard to tell.
Here it is:
quote:Cheering for Choice Kim DiMasi - Chicago
Any piece of work dealing with any kind of repression, including that of choice, will be met with passion simply due to the fact that it is in debate. The fact that the people in your particular circumstance reacted the way they did is only a testament to the fact that Americans are sick of women being denied their freedom to make a simple choice about the rest of their lives. I agree that it may not have been the time or place for a cheer, but if anything it should show you that a wind of change blows through our culture. One that will no longer see Americans suffer at the hands of a deaf, dumb and blind administration.
How are women being denied their freedom to make a simple choice about the rest of their lives? What wind of change is she talking about? And what in heck is she talking about "Americans suffer at the hoands of a deaf, dumb and blind administration"?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
This takes us from a "choice/pro-choice" argument to an argument about the nature of God and the universe. 
