55 Million Lives Aborted. . . in the name of choice

[AmyNation]

There are plenty of children waiting for someone to adopt them in our country. There is a shortage of healthy white babies, not adoptable children.

 

[AmyNation]

"Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted...."

Meet the Children - AdoptUSKids


Here are children whose mothers choose life, attempted to raise them and found that they couldn't do it.

 

[tjvh]

We have had abortion since before we climbed down out of the trees and started walking upright. the total number of abortions is many times 55 million.

Its interesting that this was put in the "religion" forum. Especially since the most common religion on this board is based on infanticide.

Whatever. Abortion IS a choice and its no one's business but the woman's.

We need to do whatever we must to keep government out of our bedrooms and our private lives.

So why doesn't the same reasoning hold true to the contents of my gun cabinet, which is ironically also located in my bedroom? The lives of children only seem to matter when there is an ideological driven agenda to be furthered.

Abortions are being performed in your gun cabinet?

I'm talking about keeping the Government out of our bedrooms and private lives (your words) numbskull. But nice deflection noted.

 

[tjvh]

Everybody knows that there was absolutely no abortion before "Roe Vs. Wade". All you have to do is get the Supreme Court to reverse that decison, and, of course, all abortion will immediately stop!

The same could be said of murder and guns.

Murder and guns came about because of roe Vs. wade?

Thanks for being a complete fucking moron.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 104,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted...."

Meet the Children - AdoptUSKids


Here are children whose mothers choose life, attempted to raise them and found that they couldn't do it.

Interesting. So if only about 1 in 500 pro-life housholds adopted one of these children, they'd all have families.

 

[Hollie]

We have had abortion since before we climbed down out of the trees and started walking upright. the total number of abortions is many times 55 million.

Its interesting that this was put in the "religion" forum. Especially since the most common religion on this board is based on infanticide.

Whatever. Abortion IS a choice and its no one's business but the woman's.

We need to do whatever we must to keep government out of our bedrooms and our private lives.

What is it with your side of the aisles' desire to kill their offspring?

What an outrageous and false claim.

In the U.S., Roe vs. Wade is a reasonable compromise for a society to deal with children from unwanted pregnancy. It's obviously not a perfect solution but it does provide a middle ground between those who would require State womb control and those who require decision making in connection with their health and reproductive concerns.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots are hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control (or religious fundamentalist womb control), before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother-nothing more. It neither requires them to enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to a statute (then) at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting the fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother's health moot, if the state choose to pursue it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

For reasons that I have never understood, a minority of Americans simply do not grasp what the Supreme Court understands, which is that a fetus is not a baby. The majority of this minority are, of course, male.

 

[PratchettFan]

My prayers are with the people that just don't understand this.......

They don't understand that the baby they aborted may have been planned by God to be someone great.

Or perhaps they were planned by God to be aborted. I'd say that would be a decision best left in the hands of the woman involved.

too afraid to stand for life?

Nope. Just not so arrogant as to think I can make your life decisions for you.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Can us as Republicans begin to focus on actual issues and stop making ourselves sound silly by saying things like this. Abortion will NEVER be overturned and one day I will have to explain to my children that at one point in American history women with unwanted children had two options. either they could go to a black market abortion clinic, risking her life or she could have the child in the poverty stricken situation that she was currently in (statistically that is often the case) leaving the child to fend for themselves ultimately leading them to a life of crime. Abortion is a medical practice and has been legal for over forty years, lets get over it. Why should two kids be forced to give up on their dreams and aspirations because they had an accident. the Pro life crowd wants to ruin three lives in order to save the one that is statistically already doomed, just in case. Play the odds, abortion is a necessary evil.

There is and has always been a 3rd adoption. Adoption. The waitlist for newborns is years long in this country which is one reason so many Americans go to other countries to adopt babies. And no, race doesn't matter. I know many adoptive families that are multi racial. They are no less family than those that are family by blood.

I find it sad that so many women would rather kill their children than give them up for adoption. And I will never understand why it is only a fetus if the mother doesn't want the child, but a baby if the mother does want the child.

I agree with you on a lot of those points. If I were to personally make the mistake of having a child this young and out of wedlock, adoption would be my desire, but it isnt my choice. I dont wish for abortions, I just cant find it within myself to truly care what others choose to do with their lives. That is a fundamental problem facing our party today, intervening in lives that arent our own.

 

[Avatar4321]

We have had abortion since before we climbed down out of the trees and started walking upright. the total number of abortions is many times 55 million.

Its interesting that this was put in the "religion" forum. Especially since the most common religion on this board is based on infanticide.

Whatever. Abortion IS a choice and its no one's business but the woman's.

We need to do whatever we must to keep government out of our bedrooms and our private lives.

What is it with your side of the aisles' desire to kill their offspring?

What an outrageous and false claim.

In the U.S., Roe vs. Wade is a reasonable compromise for a society to deal with children from unwanted pregnancy. It's obviously not a perfect solution but it does provide a middle ground between those who would require State womb control and those who require decision making in connection with their health and reproductive concerns.

Out-of-the-pulpit-and-into-the-womb zealots are hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control (or religious fundamentalist womb control), before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother-nothing more. It neither requires them to enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to a statute (then) at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting the fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother's health moot, if the state choose to pursue it.

outrageous and false claim? You actively support killing your offspring. There is no other name for abortion.

If you choose to have an abortion, does your child survive? no. Therefore, you are for killing your offspring

Nothing false or outrageous about it. You just dont want to deal with the truth. But then you've demonstrated your preference for emotional arguments rather than rational ones in the past. Im not surprised here. Anything to avoid the reality of the situation.

 

[Avatar4321]

Or perhaps they were planned by God to be aborted. I'd say that would be a decision best left in the hands of the woman involved.

too afraid to stand for life?

Nope. Just not so arrogant as to think I can make your life decisions for you.

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

 

[Avatar4321]

For reasons that I have never understood, a minority of Americans simply do not grasp what the Supreme Court understands, which is that a fetus is not a baby. The majority of this minority are, of course, male.

One day if you are blessed with children, you will be able to see an ultrasound of your child with their heart beating and them moving around. No one can deny that there is a new human life growing when they see that.

But then, it's much easier to remain in ignorance and pretend these children arent human. It eases the conscience when you want them dead.

 

[Avatar4321]

There are plenty of children waiting for someone to adopt them in our country. There is a shortage of healthy white babies, not adoptable children.

And the government, of course, makes it much more difficult than it needs to be to adopt these children.

 

[YoungRepublican]

too afraid to stand for life?

Nope. Just not so arrogant as to think I can make your life decisions for you.

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

It isnt advocating killing people, its not wanting others to be in charge of a life altering decision. Like I said, if cast into that situation I would personally adopt it, but it is not my place to tell another what they can or cannot do with their body. I thinks thats what the poster meant.

 

[PratchettFan]

too afraid to stand for life?

Nope. Just not so arrogant as to think I can make your life decisions for you.

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

No. I'm the one advocating leaving that decision to the people involved. Are you opposed to killing people?

 

[Againsheila]

There are plenty of children waiting for someone to adopt them in our country. There is a shortage of healthy white babies, not adoptable children.

There is a shortage of babies period. Race doesn't matter. People will adopt children of any color. The problem is that our government doesn't terminate parental rights while children are still young enough to be adopted.

Then there is the problem of the Blacks and Indians not wanting Whites to adopt their children. They are much less likely to adopt than whites, but they still don't want whites adopting their children. Thank God the laws on that have changed.

Several years ago there was a beautiful little black girl. Her foster parents, who'd had her since birth decided to look into adopting her. Since they were white, there was an outcry. The girl was taken away from the only family she'd even known and given back to her mother. Only a few months later, the little girl was dead, killed by her mother who shoved a sock in her mouth. Even though she had free daycare and the daycare continually called CPS with their concern for the child, for some reason, the blacks felt the girl was better off with the mother that killed her than being adopted by a white couple.

The argument that black babies are not adoptable is a poor one and a false one. I have friends who have a black child they adopted and he wasn't even an infant when he was taken in to be fostered to adopt. The black baby they took in to foster to adopt, was taken back by his biological parents. No babies since had come up for adoption for them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. Just not so arrogant as to think I can make your life decisions for you.

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

It isnt advocating killing people, its not wanting others to be in charge of a life altering decision. Like I said, if cast into that situation I would personally adopt it, but it is not my place to tell another what they can or cannot do with their body. I thinks thats what the poster meant.

The life altering decision occurs long before someone gets pregnant. It isn't about making life altering decisions. It's about taking the life of another human being, your own child, because you don't want to face the consequences of your actions.

Killing your child doesn't magically become good because it would be inconvenient if you don't.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nope. Just not so arrogant as to think I can make your life decisions for you.

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

It isnt advocating killing people, its not wanting others to be in charge of a life altering decision. Like I said, if cast into that situation I would personally adopt it, but it is not my place to tell another what they can or cannot do with their body. I thinks thats what the poster meant.

That is what I meant.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. Just not so arrogant as to think I can make your life decisions for you.

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

No. I'm the one advocating leaving that decision to the people involved. Are you opposed to killing people?

Yes. I am opposed to killing innocent children. That's why oppose abortion.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yet, you are the one advocating KILLING people.

It isnt advocating killing people, its not wanting others to be in charge of a life altering decision. Like I said, if cast into that situation I would personally adopt it, but it is not my place to tell another what they can or cannot do with their body. I thinks thats what the poster meant.

That is what I meant.

And it's a cop out because you are too afraid to take a stand against killing children.