ABORTION POLL 4 - LAST ONE... I Promise

Blessed75 · Apr 15, 2004

crystalpc said:
What a false statement. People are paying thousands of dollars to adopt foriegn born children, because they cannot adopt here.
I waited 5 years to adopt my son, on the state adoption list. I wanted other children, but the agencies always gave to people who were still waiting for their first child.
What world are you living in?

Excuse you? What world is HE living in? What a Christ-like thing to say - Sorry you had to wait that long but I have two adopted sisters that were adopted IN THE STATES and both adoptions went through within 6 months. It's different for everyone but you don't need to be bitter b/c you disagree with someone and you don't have to be bitter b/c of your bad experience.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · Apr 15, 2004

crystalpc said:
What a false statement. People are paying thousands of dollars to adopt foriegn born children, because they cannot adopt here.
I waited 5 years to adopt my son, on the state adoption list. I wanted other children, but the agencies always gave to people who were still waiting for their first child.
What world are you living in?

This is not true. Most state adoption lists are full of kids who cannot get adopted.

The problem is a lot of parents to be want only newborns (especially white baby boys).
The reason that many folks go outside the country and pay lots of money is to circumvent the state adoption systems.

This is often because they don't want to adopt 2 or 3 year olds or they fail the criteria for state adoption and do the good old standby of buy themselves a kid from abroad.

There are many kids in the 2-6 year old bracket who cannot get adopted.

pistonpunch · Apr 15, 2004

One of my best friends was "product" of his mother being raped.
The friendship & encouragment he's been to myself & others is amazing.
He now runs a very large program for kids in an underpriviledged neighborhood.
He has touched the hearts of many lives.
What I think about everytime I hear of someone wanting to dispose of their baby... Is what or who that person could have been... an Einstein, DaVinnci.
we'll never know.

Blessed75 · Apr 15, 2004

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said:
This is not true. Most state adoption lists are full of kids who cannot get adopted.

The problem is a lot of parents to be want only newborns (especially white baby boys).
The reason that many folks go outside the country and pay lots of money is to circumvent the state adoption systems.

This is often because they don't want to adopt 2 or 3 year olds or they fail the criteria for state adoption and do the good old standby of buy themselves a kid from abroad.

There are many kids in the 2-6 year old bracket who cannot get adopted.

Ain't THAT the truth!

crystalpc · Apr 15, 2004

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said:
This is not true. Most state adoption lists are full of kids who cannot get adopted.

The problem is a lot of parents to be want only newborns (especially white baby boys).
The reason that many folks go outside the country and pay lots of money is to circumvent the state adoption systems.

This is often because they don't want to adopt 2 or 3 year olds or they fail the criteria for state adoption and do the good old standby of buy themselves a kid from abroad.

There are many kids in the 2-6 year old bracket who cannot get adopted.

Where are these list. I wanted to adopt a 2 to 6 year old.
There are no such list in Michigan. Parental rights of these children are seldom taken away by any state. You better do some more research.

Blessed75 · Apr 15, 2004

crystalpc said:
Where are these list. I wanted to adopt a 2 to 6 year old.
There are no such list in Michigan. Parental rights of these children are seldom taken away by any state. You better do some more research.

Better do some more research? There was no hostility in that post. Maybe you need to get off your high horse. People are trying to post their opinions and POV's and their experiences and you're being hostile. I for one, am offended.

flicka · Apr 15, 2004

I think it's disturbing that people who probably have never had a sexual relationship are declaring that other people should not have sex if they are sick. This needs to stop.

Also, adoption is a wonderful thing but an a woman who is facing an unwanted pregnancy is not a baby machine for infertile couples. By trying to connect the two just confuses the issue.

panterapat · Apr 17, 2004

These "health of the mother" clauses have been expanded to the point of no meaning. The mental and emotional health of the mother can be considered medical reasons for killng a baby. The real reasons for abortion tend to be economic, the parents would rather keep their money to themselves rather than share it with their child. Or shelfishness with ones time, not wanting to sacrifice ones freedom. It is the most unnatural thing in the world for a mother to kill her child. Jesus fortold these times would come. When on the way to the cross, He met the women of Jerusulum. He said, "The day will come when they will say, happy the womb that never bore and the breast that never nursed."

dawnmo · Apr 17, 2004

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said:
There are many kids in the 2-6 year old bracket who cannot get adopted.

Very true. Every so often, the Franklin County adoption board (or whatever they're called) runs a commercial showing some of the children that are up for adoption. So many children up for adoption, but they are not being adopted because of their age, special conditions (I once saw two beautiful little girls I would have adopted if I could, they were sisters and the adoption agency didn't want to separate them since they'd always been together), or illnesses/disease (many people don't want to adopt a child with special needs).

If someone is interested in adopting a child in the 2-6 year old range, the best bet is to become a foster parent. My mother has several friends at work who had become foster parents, fell in love with the children in their care, and ended up adopting them. Of course, there is no guarantee that you can adopt the child you are fostering (some of them do go back to their parents eventually), but you'll never know if you don't try

Anyway, on the issue of abortion:

I myself do not care much for abortion. There are some options on the poll list that fit me well, but my mother chose not to abort me, and for that I am grateful. I do believe abortion is okay when the mother's health is in serious danger.

However, I am not about to tell anyone what they should do with their lives. I'm not going to force someone to have a baby they don't want, I am not going to tell a woman she must have a child even if she will die by carrying the child to term, I am not going to tell a woman to carry her rapist's baby for 9 months. If someone wants to have an abortion, that is her choice. I can't in good conscience force my beliefs upon her.

Jonathan David · Apr 17, 2004

Funny that this thread has come back to life. I guess that it is one of those issues that we never finish with.

I want to explain why I did this. When I started this thread 2 months ago, I was frustrated with the way that this issue was being discussed.

On the Anti-Abortion side, people were generalizing pro-choicers as decadent, irresponsible and corrupt sinners. On the Pro-choice side, people were generalizing anti-abortionists as narrow-minded, callous, anti-feminist fundamentalists.

Here's what I wanted to know. Is there any truth to these sterotypes? The answer is a clear and resounding NO... in my humble opinion anyway.

Only 45 of 125 people said "no abortion". While that is a significant number, it is only 36%. Only 11, said "unrestricted access". So, 69 of 125 (55%) people ticked categories in the middle and yet, if asked to identify themselves, they would likely say, "I am pro-life" or "I am pro-choice".

The categories that we use are too simple. What I have learned is that many people who are "pro-choice" have real questions and conflicts about abortion. Nobody has ever said to me, "I am pro-abortion". It is always framed as a question of choice... of health, safety and equality... as a lesser of several evils. On the other hand, I know very few people who say, "I really want to control women's bodies". I know so many anti-abortionists who are truly "pro-life". For them, preventing a human life is unreconcilable so, while it will cause great pain to the mother (and possibly the child), it is better that the child be born than have the fetus aborted... again, the lesser of two evils.

Can you make the argument that this is a feminist issue? Absolutely!!! People who deny it are usually arguing from a place of emotion, not reason. Can you truly argue that abortion does not end a human life?... I don't think so. It becomes a semantic argument at some level. Whether it is ending a human life or preventing it, abortion does stop the birth of a real human being.

I think that we need to reconceptualize the way that we frame this debate. This is not about one group of people trying to screw over another group. This isn't about "us and them".... and this is certainly not the "Good guys and the Bad guys". This is a question of minimizing the damage of an unwanted pregnancy. It is about balancing the realities of human life... both the material struggles and barriers that we (though mainly women) face, and the sanctity of life. For many of us, it is also about trying to understand what God is saying to us... about trying to live a life that S/he will approve of.

Today, I make a request of everyone on these forums. We will certainly continue this debate... no doubt we will. But, let's be constructive. Let's understand each other as compassionate and caring people who want what is right. Let us admit that this is not a "black and white" issue... that in a "perfect world", we might not advocate what we do here BUT, equally, that this is not a "perfect world" and that needs to be considered (literally, taken into account no matter what conclusion is reached). Let us be honest with eachother and let us assume the best about our brothers and sisters.

I may have spoken out of turn here. I am sure that there are people who do not share my view (ie, they think that this world is perfect or would not change their beliefs one bit if it were). I do not mean to speak for you... I simply wanted to present what I perceive to be true.

Peace to you all.

JD

P.S. I haven't read the recent posts here. This is a general response and not directed at any specific person or persons.

NerdySurfer/rick · Apr 17, 2004

i would have to say that abortion is always wrong, who gave you the choise wheter to let the child live or not? who said that was eaven an option, well it shouldent be, and even if it wasent your falt, it would be sin to end a life like that,
ps: my dad is a doctor, and i know that there are hardly ever ever posiblitys of hearting the mother by having the baby,
my two cents worth..

mnmcandiez · Apr 17, 2004

This is how i see it you shouldnt get pregnant if you dont want to have the baby.

Bulldog · Apr 17, 2004

mnmcandiez said:
This is how i see it you shouldnt get pregnant if you dont want to have the baby.

It's not like all peple get pregnant on purpose...

mnmcandiez · Apr 17, 2004

Well dont have sex if you dont want to have the baby.

theeyesoftammyfaye · Apr 17, 2004

mnmcandiez said:
Well dont have sex if you dont want to have the baby.

thats one of the most far fetched directives i've heard on my time at CF...it keeps popping up over and over: "don't have sex! don't have sex! don't have sex!"

reality check: people are going to have sex, especially in commited relationships. telling them not to have sex is completely out of the question for many couples. there are a great number of married individuals (and commited couples) not yet ready to have children, financially, emotionally, etc. contraception is a good choice for these people. "don't have sex!" is not a reality, sorry.

of course, while contraception is the preferred choice, i don't believe that we should restrict abortion access at all. a woman's reproductive choices should be just that: HER choice.

mnmcandiez · Apr 17, 2004

theeyesoftammyfaye said:
thats one of the most far fetched directives i've heard on my time at CF...it keeps popping up over and over: "don't have sex! don't have sex! don't have sex!"

reality check: people are going to have sex, especially in commited relationships. telling them not to have sex is completely out of the question for many couples. there are a great number of married individuals (and commited couples) not yet ready to have children, financially, emotionally, etc. contraception is a good choice for these people. "don't have sex!" is not a reality, sorry.

of course, while contraception is the preferred choice, i don't believe that we should restrict abortion access at all. a woman's reproductive choices should be just that: HER choice.

Well i know its her choice but she should except the consequences and she shouldnt be selfish and kill her child. Abortion is trhe same exact thing as murder and i dont know how it is still leagal.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · Apr 17, 2004

mnmcandiez said:
Well i know its her choice but she should except the consequences and she shouldnt be selfish and kill her child. Abortion is trhe same exact thing as murder and i dont know how it is still leagal.

It is not murder, period. A foetus is NOT a person. It's a lump of protoplasm, nothing more nothing less.

If people put as much effort and thought into the care of living people as they do to a lump of non-sentient cells then the world might be a better place.

draper · Apr 17, 2004

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said:
It is not murder, period. A foetus is NOT a person. It's a lump of protoplasm, nothing more nothing less.

If people put as much effort and thought into the care of living people as they do to a lump of non-sentient cells then the world might be a better place.

Really? What makes it not human? The fact that it isn't as developed as you or I?

And I do agree wholeheartedly w/ your second paragraph.

draper · Apr 17, 2004

NerdySurfer/rick said:
i would have to say that abortion is always wrong, who gave you the choise wheter to let the child live or not? who said that was eaven an option, well it shouldent be, and even if it wasent your falt, it would be sin to end a life like that,
ps: my dad is a doctor, and i know that there are hardly ever ever posiblitys of hearting the mother by having the baby,
my two cents worth..

Hardly ever? And when there are?

DaveSZ · Apr 17, 2004

It's not my place to judge others in regards to this issue, but it would be best to simply increase sex education and access to contraceptives to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate.

Here's a question:

What would you do to the woman if she had an illegal abortion?

Lock her up in jail?

ABORTION POLL 4 - LAST ONE... I Promise

Under what condition(s) should abortion be made an option?

None. Abortion is always wrong.

When there are serious risks to the mother's health.

When there are serious risks to the fetus/baby's health.

In cases of alleged rape.

In cases where rape has been proven in a court of law.

At or before the end of the first trimester.

At or before the end of the second trimester

Before the fetus/baby has reached natural viability

Always. Access to abortion should not be restricted.

Other (please specify in your post... if you feel comfortable doing so)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

oh yes.... like lightning

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Praise God in all things!

Goodbye, I won't be back

Revolutionary Dancer

NerdySurfer/rick

Guest

Veteran

Don't Tread on Me

Veteran

no parking baby - no parking on the dance floor

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Perspicacious Poster

Perspicacious Poster

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency