people, I have ended two lives and have no regrets. I have 5 beautiful children and have taken care of numerous foster children and done respite care for dozens of others. When that anti-abortion person comes forward that has been fortunate enough to adopt, I will sincerely thank them...

anti-abortion folks would be best served by ended the nasty rhetoric and working to improve the economy, work to support women's rights and support a strong public education system... these are the things that help prevent unwanted pregnancies and keep us strong as communities

I also support a man's right to privacy but, then again, that question was NEVER put before a court of law for adjudication, I wonder why?

"pro-deathers", lol.

bwahh haa haah aaa.

As if one adoptive family respresents the other 1500 judgemental ass holes that sit back and do nothing but judge and call people names like "pro Deathers"...oh wait

It was MY alert that got a jury to hide this (INSERT MOST OFFENSIVE TERM THAT CAN POSSIBLY BE USED TO DESIGNATE A PIECE OF TEXT).

Seriously?

Obviously you are not pro-choice and have never adopted any children out of foster care.

But we do agree on one thing...I wish I could run into someone who had adopted a child out of foster care, too. But there are a lot more hypocrites who claim to be pro-life that are only pro-fetus.

infected and die. Thank you very much for your concern.

Are all Catholics priests or nuns? It's just not a good argument, my friend.

I am pro life because I believe that life is precious and I believe that it begins at conception. I don't have the ability, or the temperament to adopt kids from foster care.

Adopting a child is most certainly acting on those beliefs.

Now I'm not as likely as others to get blindly enraged at pro-life Democrats since I know a few who are otherwise good people. Three pro-life Democrats that I know, have at least ATTEMPTED to adopt a child, and two have been successful. I can find in myself some respect for a pro-lifer that opposes the death penalty and at least supports the social safety net system - basically someone who can, in the case of their own life, prove George Carlin to be wrong. But saying you have no desire to adopt? No, that's not respectable.

Some people cannot adopt a child. They are too old, or other things bar them from taking care of the child. I am the sole support for most of my family. I have a business that requires that I travel constantly. I would love to adopt, but it is not possible for me. If I got rid of my business, I would lose my means of support, and not be able to support myself, or a child.

On the other hand, I AM against capital punishment, AND war, for the same reason. In fact, this is the only thing I disagree with, in the Dem platform--abortion.

What if you were a woman in this situation and instead of adopting, you got pregnant?

Financially speaking, what makes having the baby instead of an abortion different from adopting a child? How would it impact your business and your means of support?

It's not a matter of finances, except that I have to have a certain amount of money in order to take care of the family members that need my support. In order to have that money, I have to travel constantly. This is not a good life for a foster child and I don't think I'd get any agencies approval to adopt one.

But I, particularly and specifically, am not at issue here. You were speaking generally. A person, say one in ill health, who can barely take care of themselves, can still be against abortion, and not be able to adopt. This is why your argument is not a good one. A person in prison can hold the same belief, but still not be able to take care of an adopted child. Etc., etc.

It's not "convenient" for you, you have too many other things/people/work that can't be impacted... but you are willing to judge women who have abortions as murderers if they "choose" themselves that having a child in their life is similarly problematic. You'd like to force them by law to up-end THEIR life for an unwanted child. Furthermore, you'd like to force them by law to put their own life in jeopardy so you can satisfy some arbitrary moral line you've created in the sand.

You've clearly never even tried to adopt, to be proactive in helping take care of others' unwanted children yet you have the audacity to want to force someone else....

It is one thing to chose to never have an abortion, it is quite another to make sure no one else has the right to one.

If I WERE to give up my business, and not travel anymore, I would NOT have the money to provide for an adopted child. Do you understand that. If not, I will repeat it. For the third time.

to have a child in your life. But you state that EVERYONE ELSE (but you) must carry that child to term regardless of the circumstances/consequences/impossibilities of their life.

Pregnancy can completely disrupt a person's work, it can ruin a person's health, it can kill them. Yet you want to say that everyone else must do this thing (but you of course who are too special/different/important)....

Do you not see the hypocrisy? At all? Really?

If I were to give up my business, I would not make enough money to support a child and would be turned away if I tried to adopt. If I don't give up my business, I would be turned away, if I were to attempt to adopt. Get it now?

As for in general, I think that we need to attack the problem from the front, not the back. For one thing, we need to make birth control front and center once a child reaches the age where they are sexually curious. Maybe from the third grade on.

You know, it strikes as ludicrous that most kids in our society know that "Jesus loves the little children" by the time that they are in first grade, but have NO IDEA what birth control is. It says something about how utterly stupid our society is when it comes to sex and our own bodies.

All of this vitriol spilled on each other regarding the pro life/pro choice issues is a waste of time. I AM pro life. But I think that we can do better by addressing the real issues here, the things that cause unwanted pregnancies. God knows we have the technology to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We simply are not using them properly.

The teacher told me my kid had it out, was playing with it, putting hand in it and spreading fingers. Explained it was to help women keep from having babies, or some such. Teacher thought it was amusing as did I. It was a small home preschool, I knew the parents so no problem but told my kid to ask before sharing next time.

consider all these obstacles to be "inconveniences" when they happen to women who are pregnant.

They are only insurmountable obstacles when it's their own lives that can't be juggled to turn themselves into primary caretakers.

And some also succeed.

This basic fact makes the argument I responded to, even sadder.

Except for the case of rape, she CHOSE to get pregnant. There are just too many cheap/easy ways to avoid getting pregnant.

If you don't want to get pregnant and do not use birth control, it is not an "accident" if you get pregnant.

And the foster stats are misleading. The age they left foster care is irrelevant. Some enter at age 15+. A more relevant stat is how long they stayed in care.

In Ohio, we tried to adopt. There were none available in the age range we were looking (5- 8) except for a couple with severe disabilities. If we had a probability of getting a kid is severe disabilities that was similar to the probability that happened in having our own kids, we might have still done it. But we didn't think it was fair to our other kids to choose a child that would consume that much time. It wasn't fair to the other kids.

After having a few foster kids stay with us for a few months at a time who then went back to their parents, we dropped out of the program after a few years because it was clear we weren't going to get one.

A black baby came up for adoption and there were a hundred people on the waiting list. My friends who have adopted did so from overseas (and the kids were handicapped) because there were none here.

Like the other poster said, it isn't a strong argument.

I simply don't believe that.

The information is simply too available.

Sex education in the US is incredibly shoddy and access to birth control can be tough. And sometimes it just doesn't work. You just want to punish anyone you label a slut because they happen to be sleeping around.

Well guess what? Its none of your fucking business

A private, legal medical procedure, one that falls under health care privacy laws, is comparable to parents abusing their kids.

In one case, it IS none of your fucking business, in the other it is.

"emote much" is getting rather condescending.

A fetus does not = a child. Do you believe a fetus = a child? Should they have the same rights? IF another person believes "the fetus is a human being" (fetus=child) then they should be able to stop a pregnant woman from smoking, drinking, eating poorly, wearing tight waistband, doing a brazillion other things that *they* are concerned might constitute child abuse. Right?

I don't know where the line should be drawn.

Which is why I like discussing the issue.

with her doctor to abusive parents. This disgusting lack of real concern for women is despicable.

It's even more important to keep people with that kind of attitude out of women's private healthcare decisions. Obviously saying "its none of your fucking business" isn't sufficient. How about just plain "fuck off"? Is that clearer?

I lived in a small town years ago with only one pharmacy. The pharmacy did not sell condoms at all. (No other place in town sold them either.) A friend in that town also found that they don't fill birth control prescriptions. (She found this out when she presented her prescription to the pharmacist.) The nearest Planned Parenthood was nearly 100 miles from that town.

If you didn't have a car, you weren't getting any contraceptives. As poor as that town was, there were many without cars. Turns out there were also a large number of small children in that town too, born to parents who couldn't afford them.

slut you!!1111 You shouldn't be having sex if you are poor!!!11111

It is incredible, isn't it.

Those darn sluts should have bought some aspirin, put it between their knees and held on for dear life.

People think only of their own ease, of how convenient things are for them, and forget that in some parts of the US it is much harder to pick up bc, to find transportation to leave town, to even get a doctor's appointment. (This town didn't have a doctor-you had to drive to the next county.)

I really think people just don't understand.

I guess you consider each of those contraceptive failures "chose to get pregnant". Not a good argument at all.

Although some are very low. (Which I why I got a vasectomy)

However, two combined are very, very unlikely to fail. I met lots of folks who say their pregnancy is an accident. However, in every case where I've gotten to know the person well enough to know the details, it wasn't an accident. It was a lack of prevention.

If one absolutely cannot afford to get pregnant (especially if one believes a fetus is a human), there is one way to not get pregnant.

We all have choices. Even choosing not to decide is a choice.

with a high efficiency rate. What is the "one way to not get pregnant" you mean? "just say no" to sex also has a failure rate.

And yes, I have worked in women's health for a long time. People do take chances but contraception also fails. "just say no" doesn't work very well for many.

if it is actually used???

1) rape
2) rape
3) rape


OK, they are all rape. Let's look at them individually.
1) Woman is single, celibate. She goes to a friend's house for a small get together. Someone spikes her drink and has sex with her while she is impaired.
2) Woman is partnered. He gets frisky. She says no. He pushes, excuse me, encourages her to change her mind. She says no. They go to bed, to sleep. She wakes up with him having sex with her.
3) Woman is with someone who doesn't take "no" for an answer. He took her to a movie and feels he deserves sex.

Rape, rape, rape.

OK, 1 more. Woman is celibate, in no way wants to get pg as has much planned out for herself. Is smart, in college, on the fast track to success. No drugs in drink. No dude who feels dinner = sex. She simply gets lonely, makes out with someone and although they masturbate, keeping underwear on, some sperm soaks through his shorts, gets onto her and voila.

It happens.

They want to have sex but she doesn't want to get pg so says no. He tries to convince her it'd be ok. She says no. They go to sleep. She wakes up with him rubbing his erect penis on her.

Is this rape?

This sub sub thread was replying to how can just say no not work if actually used.

And if she got pregnant, I think any jury would agree.

It is sexual assault without question.


Rape:
"Class B Felony -- Knowingly or intentionally having sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex when: 1) the other person is compelled by force or the imminent threat of force; 2) the other person is unaware that sexual intercourse is occurring; 3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to intercourse cannot be given.

Class A Felony -- The offense is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, committed while armed with a deadly weapon, or results in serious bodily injury to a person other than the defendant.

There. Simply. She can say no all she wants, but if the man doesn't go along with it, she can get pregnant.

"if it is actually used". Yup. Celibacy may be the answer for some, but even "if it is actually used" by the woman, it may not be used by the man.

which I specifically excluded because she had no choice.

is a human being, then it is logical to say "because it is a human being and her convenience does not supercede that human's life since her actions forced that human being inside her.

If I do not exercise due caution, get injured and cannot support my kids anymore, can I kill them? Of course not.

However, if a person sees a fetus as no different than a baby out of the womb, that is how they view abortion.

It seems you do, since you keep writing "if someone believes".

IF you do believe so, then since "her actions (did not in the case of rape) forced that human being inside her", is abortion ok in the case of rape? And remember all those scenarios I gave showing different types of rape beyond what is typically thought of.

But yes, I believe abortion is OK in the case of rape.

Why does a child not deserve to live simply because his father didn't listen to his mother say "no"?

Since you believe it is ok to kill a child if its mother didn't freely make the choice to conceive, how far after being born should this extend?

with her life, health and body. Pregnancy isn't a convenience issue - it's also a life and death issue. Childbirth kills and your position basically forces a woman into that - you have no right to force her into that kind of jeopardy.

Furthermore, you may exercise all the caution in the world but shit happens: terminal illness, car accident, permanent head injury from a fall - all of this is beyond your control, just like failed contraception. Your anecdotes aside, you are being deliberately obtuse if you don't think birth control failure isn't the reason for many pregnancies.

"Fuck off" on the other post.

I'll stick to conversing with the smarter posters.

Have an nice day.

ways back.

Oh noes! someone told me f* off so I'll insult them, take my toys and go home!!!!!!!!!!1111

Talk about smarter reading comprehension... LOL! Try to actually read for content instead of getting all emotional...

get together.

And egg that, if a whole lot goes right, has the chance of becoming a fully functioning human being.

By having sex, she "forced that human being inside her"? What?

I know of many women where they became pregnant despite using birth control properly.

Your argument is insulting along with being erroneous.

You would like to force a woman to carry a disabled child to term, but you would not adopt one....

So a woman is obligated in your mind to take on these risks (24/100,000 deaths per live birth- higher than the risk of being a police officer, firefighter, infantryman fighting in Iraq for the Britts.....), but you won't even be inconvenienced? You have a choice, but she does not?

You are free to feel the way you want about abortion, but you are not free to impose your views on anybody else.

when they got pregnant. sometimes, even being responsible, contraception doesn't work.

I would buy this argument if the religious right actually encouraged education and birth control. Instead we have folks sticking their heads in the sand, expressing outrage when teens get pregnant, and demanding that they carry the babies to term. If you agree to put vending machines with birth control in high schools (honestly it would be better for the kids than soda), I might agree to your reasoning.

I wouldn't have to pass the test for adoptive parents. Pretty simple.

Surely you have a couch that you could spare, or some floor space in which they could place their sleeping bags?

None?

Supporting better care for the homeless means that you should act on your beliefs, right?

It's a poor argument because we can go down this road on any number of social issues. There are a variety of valid responses to social problems, ranging from taking personal responsibility for them to advocating societal responsibility towards them.

If the answer is none, what right do you have in advocating for government programs.

It's a bad argument.

But I do donate to homeless shelters to help keep them open.

Edit: I mean local shelters.

It would be a good counter if you belonged to a group politically agitating to throw more people out on the street.

You're not trying to make more homeless. Anti-abortion people are trying to make more kids.

I was too lazy to see a way out of that argument.

that those folks who are against abortion are not actively trying to have women get pregnant with kids they do not want. (OK, the Catholics sometimes appear to so let's say non-catholics!).

Actively trying to have those women get pregnant would be necessary for your analogy to really match.

Our species pair bonds through sex. Ergo, a lot of sex is gonna be happening. A lot of sex has always happened between humans. And a lot of abortions have always happened.

To pretend that celibacy is an effective answer to abortion is utterly dumb. We've never been a chaste species. We aren't going to start now.

'pro-life' advocacy. No one advocates turning more people out into the street. But 'pro-lifers' by definition want to bring more unwanted children into the world.

As Colin Powell said about invading Iraq, "You break it, you own it"/

And, when I am able to take them in again, I will.

But you are right. It's a poor argument. We, as a society, have the responsibility towards these people. They are OUR people, and we pay taxes that we ought to be able to use for OUR people, instead of waging wars that enrich the warmongers. Our priorities are in the wrong place. Instead of fighting this argument, which only divides us, about abortion, we need to address the reasons why bringing a child into our society represents such a hardship. It should not. We should have the programs in place that make taking care of basic human necessities easier. Instead, we have a culture of death, and of hate.

The OP's argument is not bad at all. Those who claim to be "pro-life" should back up their words with actions -- putting their lives, money and energy into efforts to help unwnted children and BTW, doing everything possible to stop war(s)...

You say you don't have the ability or temperament... well, some women don't have the ability or temperament to carry a child to term.

Your very comments validate the OP's observation!

this hits close to home. I'm glad she was not aborted.

That being said, since the woman had no choice in getting pregnant, she clearly should not have to carry the pregnancy to term.

Something I've always wanted to ask a "pro-lifer". Is the woman "precious" too?

Better they should chance dying themselves - how's that for a pro-"life" conundrum....

I once read a post at DU in which the poster had a long internal talk with himself about the "problem" of abortion. At no point in time did he mention the woman who was involved...not once.

When it comes to the "abortion debate," women are invisible to some. Very sad...and very telling.

Is it ethical to murder someone else in order to save your own life? If we accept the moral premise of the pro-life crowd, that a fetus is indeed a life and aborting it is tantamount to murder, then the argument for abortion rests either on utilitarian "one murder is better than two deaths" reasoning or on a direct "ranking of lives" calculus -- i.e., a woman (or her doctor) should be able to decide that her own life is more precious than her child's.

Either way is morally problematic and your question is not going to dissuade a genuinely thoughtful pro-lifer.

That this is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Period.

We can philosophize on the beginning of life and it's moral implications but this is at it's base level, a medical decision that rests with the woman, her doctor (and perhaps her family if she chooses).

Obama himself acknowledged that laws are essentially a "codification of morality" (his words). Addressing the moral dimension of a legal issue is necessary, especially if you want to pursuade others to come around to your point of view. Abortion is an enduring emotional and political minefield precisely because both sides can marshal powerful moral arguments to buttress their respective positions. It's not a debate one is going to win with a single, clever question like "isn't the mother's life precious?"

I'd also be careful about relying solely on the "legal view" as an argument-ender. The current legal view also holds that corporations are people and should be able to dump unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns. Both views will only be the law of the land until five votes say otherwise.

In fact, I presume I won't change ANY anti-choice person's mind, ever. From personal experience imho, until or unless a family is faced with those CHOICES themselves, it's a conversational stone wall. For now, the due process clause means that legal privacy issues apply and thus I'll continue to speak on that. And when it becomes time to debate whether someone's fully grown loved one is more important than a clump of blastocyst cells, then I'll bring up my view on that.

This is a discussion board. I already know there are some people who won't change their minds on certain issues but that doesn't mean their (imo erroneous) views will stand unchallenged. I'll bring any argument I have to this particular discussion (and I have lots... ) when or if that particular point comes up and becomes relevant to the convo.

and ignore the moral perspective, then corporations do indeed have the right to speech that Citizens United says they do. and you should be happy and accept that.

I would argue that the legal perspective is not always the moral one.

and one we can respect. That is also happens to be the law of the land right now is also just fine with me.

It's not either/or. Even if Roe v Wade were entirely a legal decision without any moral consideration, that doesn't make it flawed either imho.

Regardless, like I said, I don't take just one position in my argumentative arsenal on abortion (heh, alliteration!)

That ends at full personhood at birth. The unfertilized egg has a value of "0" meaning that it is not a person at all. Some people consider the fertilized egg as having some value greater than 0 where as others don't. Many abortion laws and proposed abortion laws equate the fetus as less than a full person at least early on. Some laws consider a third semester fetus as closer to a full person than younger fetuses. Other proposed laws would permit abortion only for a good reason like if they were raped suggesting that the fetus is seen more than a 0 but less than a full person. I think that most Americans believe this and it makes sense intuitively and scientifically. Americans may have differing opinions about how close to a person a fetus is at each stage, but for most it increases as the fetus gets closer to being born and is usually less than a full person.
In a medical setting, it is usually considered negligent to let a woman die if the fetus is causing her declining condition. This is especially true when the fetus cannot be saved. When a woman's health is declining at the end of the 2nd trimester or beginning of the 3rd, doctor's may try to determine if they can wait a little longer before removing the fetus/baby in order to save its life. Sometimes they can wait a few weeks in a medical setting which will ensure a good outcome for both. Other times, waiting means that they will both die and that not removing the fetus is negligence. I am sure that most women in these situations would prefer that there would be some way that their fetus could survive outside the womb. Even if the 20-24 week fetus was considered a person though, I don't know if removing it would exactly considered murdered if not removing it would result in the mother's death. It is more like removing life support from someone who is terminal.

Why does full personhood happen at birth?

Physically, a 26 week preemie is the same as a 26 week fetus. Yet one is a full person and on will not be for another ~14 weeks?

I'm not trying to antagonize. You just seem thoughtful and I'd like your perspective.

I think it will be interesting to find how "personhood" is defined once we achieve a purely synthetic womb where the woman's only contribution is the egg and the human is incubated in an artificial environment.

Although 26 week preemies do need medical help to survive, but not from another human body.
I'm not sure what the philosophical ramifications will be if there are artificial wombs. There are already embryos that start outside the wombs. These are still physically far away from being a full person so would probably be seen as not being a full person. For an older fetus living inside an artificial womb, I am not sure what rights it would be accorded. Certainly the parents might decide that they don't want to be parents to their 16 week or 20 week fetus. Some people might want to adopt fetuses, but I am not sure how this would work.

Which means society will never truly find consensus on it.

why would someone push, bully their belief onto others. There are some who believe that the fetus is considered a child when the brain stem is developed (about five months), others believe that the spirit enters the baby at birth. Now the old testament has that if someone causes a woman to abort, the person will pay a certain amount of money; of course, it's higher if the fetus was male.

I will put the life of my daughter, whom I value, above the fetus. If she choses to sacrifice her life, it is her choice.

And I find it suspect the reasons anti-abortionists use. Hitler outlawed abortion; Cuseceus in romania outlawed abortion and proclaimed a woman had to procreate, at least five times. Tell me, if it was about the fetus. He didn't give a shite about the fetus; he did care about building an army, just like hitler.

And once the anti-choicers go after abortion, they will attempt to end other birth control. Because it IS about women's choices and control. Of course, wealthy women will still get to have abortions, they'll just leave the country; and more poor women will just die desperately attempting abortion because they cannot afford another mouth to feed; especially, since most of those same anti-choicers don't believe in aiding anyone.

about the mother who decided against Plan B when her developmentally challenged daughter was raped. Putting aside the fact that the story is probably concocted, notice what you wrote:

over a fertilized egg. In the eighties we discussed abortion and increasing populations. Read some of the leading right wing heads, like g. gordon liddy and others. Their arguments against abortion were quite interesting. It revolved around whites being a minority in the future, not the argument today of it being a potential human being.

If someone is against abortion, don't have one. Don't expect everyone to believe the same thing or force it upon others. My concern are women who are desperate opting for a coat hanger abortion and the government invading womens' lives like a witchhunt, prosecuting them even for a miscarriage.

So, you're saying that my family loving our daughter, valuing our daughter-is a "morally, repugnant thing to say? That's the whole point. By not allowing a woman that choice, you have shown that the woman is not valued.

No, not all anti-abortionists have ulterior motives; however, in this country, quite a few do. I see some who would gladly kill a doctor, believe in the death penalty, and are very much pro-war and believe in social darwinism. I respect those who do hold a pro-life stance in every way, even though I may not agree with their anti-choice position.

So abortion is murder.

What should happen to a woman who is found to have had an abortion?

Hm?

Tell me.

I'm curious.

Quite curious.

Hmm? How can it be fair -- or morally consistent -- that two days should be the only difference between a constitutionally-protected doctor's visit and a 20-year prison sentence?

(I guess I should add a *devil's advocate* tag here.)

seriously, wtf?

I suppose you would be OK with a federal law banning abortions the day before giving birth?

I wouldn't assume too much.

Again, when does that happen?