Adoption, Abortion, and Self

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont speak for or against this so called "Mainstream anti-choice movement". So that question is not relevant to me. None of this is relevant to me mate. If you are looking for a person to debate this with, its not me.

It just not fair to tell you "if you care about abortion, you must care about children as well". You could go on an on if you like with "if you care about children, you must care about teens, then old people, then strangers, the wayfarer, the man on the moon" etc, etc. No. Thats wrong.

Thats all. Cheers.

These people who you say care about abortion: who are they, exactly?

 

[Clara Tea]

To all of those who find abortion deplorable, there are tons of children needing parents. Why are you worried about an unborn\unliving thing, when there are children needing a stable home and other basic needs?


there is real violence and indifference being targeted towards children. Where is your religion on this matter?


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media -.

The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 “Bush” Tax Cuts | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

President W. Bush phased out estate tax (which means that there would be dynasties of rich--like the kingdom of George III of England).

So, while some have golden toilets, others starve, and most properties are being bought by rich corporations, while young couples can't buy houses (have to rent from the rich), and the rich can charge what they want....often making people homeless (which is why we have such a large homeless population, today).

In this land of the haves and have-nots, it is common for women to hire the burden of pregnancy. They don't want to stretch out their bodies, and have hormonal imbalances. They can merely hire a surrogate mom to have their babies for theim.

Raised by nannies, the kids have little influence from parents.

More laws passed to keep families from taking care of elderly family members (California: undue influence to tend the elderly....can undo will/trust and disinherit), forcing elderly into government long term care facilities where loose standards are met (sit up for 15 minutes/day to prevent bedsores), but standards of care are terrible (don't respond to nurse call button, wallow in poop for 24 hours, eat glop)).

More laws make economic incentives to live in sin (marry and lose welfare benefits). SSI requires inspections with nit-picking regulations (no cereal boxes on refrigerators). In California, welfare would fix kid's teeth with temporary fillings (needing a dentist to put in another temp filling in a few weeks....more work for dentist, more pain for kid--easily prevented by using permanent filling material).

The upshot is that our laws are not set up to help.

Should we apply this crazy system to more aspects of our lives? To abortion/or lack of abortion? Perhaps it is a personal matter, best left to the individual?

Someone has to take care of orphans, so it is either family members (which often refuse) or the government, or adopting families. Surely adoption can't be all that bad.

 

[firedragon]

These people who you say care about abortion: who are they, exactly?

There are many types of people who do. I dont box them into some kind of sect. Social justice warriors do. So do some big time spokespeople like Ben Shapiro. Then you get rape victims who are pregnant without the law helping them getting an abortion. Then you get parents of rape victims who are the ultimate responsibility takers of this child to be born. Then you get governments who want to play to the gallery to get votes. Also you get governments who are concerned of the social well-being. And so on, and so on.

So again, I am not gonna box them all into some name which is a common tactic of propaganda. Call them all a name, and use it for propaganda.

Not me mate. So you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[leroy]

To all of those who find abortion deplorable, there are tons of children needing parents. Why are you worried about an unborn\unliving thing, when there are children needing a stable home and other basic needs?


there is real violence and indifference being targeted towards children. Where is your religion on this matter?


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media -.

Which is a paradox becasue we have plentty of infertile partners that woudl love to adopt a child,
At least in my county (Mexico) there is a waiting list of 2+ years for those who what to adopt…………..and if we accept (or atleast tolerate gay marrage and adoption) we would have much mure loving couples willing to adopt a child.

there is real violence and indifference being targeted towards children. Where is your religion on this matter?

So the solution is “kill the babies before they are born and prevent all that violence”?........ that’s like saying “lets kill all the blacks” and that way racial discrimination will disappear, because there would be no black people to discriminate

51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media

Well then instead of using taxes for free abortion clinics, medical support, pills, etc. why don’t we use that money to strength foster institutions

Besides, if I where to bet, I’ll say that Foster parents are un average less likely to be violent or “bad” in some way than biological parents.

 

[leroy]

I don't think your comparison works.

For one thing, the anti-choice movement is, well, a movement of many people, not a single person like in your analogy.

Yes, no one person who's passionate about the issue of sexual assault will operate a shelter for domestic abuse victims, represent assault victims pro bono, AND lobby to improve the laws around sexual assault, but in the movement as a whole, we see all these things. In general, if some situation

Likewise, in a movement that were actually about "protecting life," we would expect to see a diversity of ways that this is expressed. It wouldn't just be about abortion.

The second issue is that even if we assume that the anti-choice movement is specifically focused on abortion or fetuses, its behaviour still doesn't make sense.

The mainstream anti-choice movement seems to have no interest in preventing abortions by any means that make a pregnant person happier or better off.

For instance, we recently expanded paid pregnancy and parental leave here in Canada. This directly addresses several of the major reasons why people get abortions, but none of the anti-choice groups in this country said anything in support of the measure. They also haven't campaigned to improve this system further (since pregnancy and parental leave for self-employed people is still an issue).

I can't count how many times I've heard about anti-choicers picketing abortion clinics and hospitals, but do you know how many times I've heard about one of the picketers offering money to pregnant people going in if they choose not to go through with the abortion? Exactly once (in the Netherlands, IIRC).

The actions of the anti-choice movement don't make sense if we assume they're motivated by "protecting life" generally. They don't even make sense if we assume that they're specifically focusing on fetuses, or even if we assume they've narrowly focused just on the issue of abortion.

OTOH, if we assume that the anti-choice movement is motivated by a desire to punish pregnant people for having sex they don't approve of... well, everything they do can be reconciled with that.

If you disagree, I invite you to tell me one way that the mainstream anti-choice movement tries to prevent abortions that has the effect of making a pregnant person happier or better off.

I don’t have the numbers, but if I were to bet, I´ll say that your local church donates money for various institutions, including those that help woman.

As for the solution, well I am not an expert, but why not making foster institutions better and adoption easier for the mother?... and the money that we use for abortion clinics can be used to strengthen foster institutions.

There are plenty of infertile couples that would love to adopt a baby, but they end up not doing it because the paper work is long expensive and hard, why not making adoption easier, cheaper and faster?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t have the numbers, but if I were to bet, I´ll say that your local church donates money for various institutions, including those that help woman.

Any examples?

As for the solution, well I am not an expert, but why not making foster institutions better and adoption easier for the mother?... and the money that we use for abortion clinics can be used to strengthen foster institutions.

All right - which church or anti-choice group is working on that issue?

There are plenty of infertile couples that would love to adopt a baby, but they end up not doing it because the paper work is long expensive and hard, why not making adoption easier, cheaper and faster?

Again: which church or anti-choice group is doing this? Can you point to any that are, say, lobbying the government to streamline adoption?

Most anti-choice churches that are involved in the issue seem to be trying to make it harder to adopt, if anything: trying to deny adoptions to same-sex couples, etc.

Of course, adoption is only necessary when a loving, secure home with the child's biological parent(s) isn't an option. When a pregnant person seeks an abortion because, say, they wouldn't be able to care for a child or because they can't afford another child, there are all sorts of measures that anti-choice groups could support that would end up with the person choosing to not have an abortion and raise the child themselves... whether it's good parental leave, universal health care, daycare, etc., but anti-choice groups generally don't advocate for these things.

 

[Kenny]

No, there aren't. Faith agencies dominate public options and even recieve public funding, despite ongoing LGBT and other-faith discrimination. Which is why most secular/lgbt/single parents give them the finger and adopt internationally instead.

I agree with you that adopting, especially domestically, and *especially* infants is also cost prohibitive though. Though it's not without reason, as it adds a lot of supplemental help for parents like home evals, counseling, education options. Things that would be part of normal welfare programs for all families if the US weren't so goddamn stupid.

I don't think we can place the whole of the blame on the US. What also would help is waiting to have babies until you have a committed spouse sealed by marriage. Self-control is an important virtue in life.

Additionally, since we have foster parents and parents that have adopted (including ages above 1 year old) - there is quite a bit of help in home evals, counseling and educational options. I'm not sure where you get your information from;

 

[Trailblazer]

The irony is that unwanted pregnancies tend to be a bigger problem in countries with high religiosity.

I wonder if there are more abortions in those countries.

As for celibacy, that's a dream (or a nightmare ). People are going to have sex.

Then they should do what it takes to prevent pregnancy if they don't want children.

As the OP states, already today there are more orphans then there are people willing to care for them. Adding more orphans is not the answer.

Abortions are not the answer either. Newborns are immediately adoptable so orphans are not added.

Also, why would one force a girl / woman to go through the very severe thing that is pregnancy and sacrifice a year of her life? Pregnancy is serious business for the women. It puts much stress on the body and severely impacts your life. For many, especially the young that are still students, this amounts to a lost year and severe emotional / psychological impact.

I never said that a girl or woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy. I think it should be a free choice based upon one's own value system.

And you are entitled to your religious beliefs.
But why should other people care about your religious sensitivities?

Did I say anyone should care? Conversely, why should I care that people believe that abortion is a-okay?

 

[leroy]

Any examples?


All right - which church or anti-choice group is working on that issue?


Again: which church or anti-choice group is doing this? Can you point to any that are, say, lobbying the government to streamline adoption?

Most anti-choice churches that are involved in the issue seem to be trying to make it harder to adopt, if anything: trying to deny adoptions to same-sex couples, etc.

Of course, adoption is only necessary when a loving, secure home with the child's biological parent(s) isn't an option. When a pregnant person seeks an abortion because, say, they wouldn't be able to care for a child or because they can't afford another child, there are all sorts of measures that anti-choice groups could support that would end up with the person choosing to not have an abortion and raise the child themselves... whether it's good parental leave, universal health care, daycare, etc., but anti-choice groups generally don't advocate for these things.

Well I personally don’t know much about anti-choice institutions, but churches tend to be supportive for all types of charities.

I don’t see your point, whether if abortion is morally wrong or not or weather if it should be legal or not has no bearing on weather if pro lifers are good persons or not……………even if you show that all prolifers are murders ,and kidnapers, abortion would still be wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well I personally don’t know much about anti-choice institutions, but churches tend to be supportive for all types of charities.

The Phil Ferguson Show has a segment where people can send in financial statements from churches. The idea is that if someone - typically an atheist - has to go to a church because it's their election poll location or whatnot, and the church has their annual report on their "please take one" table of newsletters, brochures, tracts, etc., the visitor can grab a copy of the financial statement and send it to Phil, who will review it in detail on his show.

Every church is different, of course, but there's a common theme in these reviews: that churches often spend very little, if anything, on charitable activities, whether donations to legitimate charities or charitable activities they undertake themselves.

But again: some actual examples would be useful. Do you know of any churches who are actually doing anything to streamline the adoption process?

I don’t see your point, whether if abortion is morally wrong or not or weather if it should be legal or not has no bearing on weather if pro lifers are good persons or not……………even if you show that all prolifers are murders ,and kidnapers, abortion would still be wrong.

This thread isn't about the morality of abortions; this thread is about the morality - or hypocrisy - of anti-choicers.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't think we can place the whole of the blame on the US

I don't. Only the part that consistently squash sensible government aid programs (and especially if they turn around and spend insensible amount on military spending but that's another thread.)

What also would help is waiting to have babies until you have a committed spouse sealed by marriage.

*waves dismissively* that only works of you place value on marriage as a commitment. Personally I find it rather childish and you should be good communicators and committed to understanding mutual goals and plans regardless of whether marriage occurs. It's just a piece of paper, it doesn't make you more likely to be a better partner or parent.

And places that teach abstinence have record high unwanted pregnancies, so it's not like saying you must have self control actually addresses the problem at all. I'd be more impressed if people utilized sensible birth control.

Additionally, since we have foster parents and parents that have adopted (including ages above 1 year old) - there is quite a bit of help in home evals, counseling and educational options. I'm not sure where you get your information from;

I think you may have misread me because my point was that foster parents have access to tools (for a cost) that in better countries are just provided as a community expense to all parents.

 

[janesix]

To all of those who find abortion deplorable, there are tons of children needing parents. Why are you worried about an unborn\unliving thing, when there are children needing a stable home and other basic needs?


there is real violence and indifference being targeted towards children. Where is your religion on this matter?


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media -.

Because a baby, in the womb, is NOT an "unliving thing". It is a human baby.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wonder if there are more abortions in those countries.

The amount of abortions usually goes hand in hand with the amount of unwanted pregnancies, so yeah it wouldn't surprise me.

Then they should do what it takes to prevent pregnancy if they don't want children.

And before they can do that, they need to be educated into how to do that.
Next to that, their adult role models shouldn't be telling them things like "condoms are from the devil".
And after all that, there are still going to be those instances where they do everything they were supposed to do, and still get pregnant.

And regardless of how the pregnancy occurred, it is and remains the woman's free choice whether or not she keeps it and goes through the burden of bearing a child.

Abortions are not the answer either

I didn't say they were. But they are certainly always an option.

I never said that a girl or woman should be forced to go through a pregnancy. I think it should be a free choice based upon one's own value system.

Cool, then there is nothing to debate.

Did I say anyone should care? Conversely, why should I care that people believe that abortion is a-okay?

You shouldn't care. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion.

 

[Trailblazer]

And before they can do that, they need to be educated into how to do that.
Next to that, their adult role models shouldn't be telling them things like "condoms are from the devil".

I agree that sex education is vitally necessary, and they should tell them that condoms are not the best form of birth control; in fact they are one of the worst.

And after all that, there are still going to be those instances where they do everything they were supposed to do, and still get pregnant.

True.

And regardless of how the pregnancy occurred, it is and remains the woman's free choice whether or not she keeps it and goes through the burden of bearing a child.

I agree, it should be her choice. Nobody should tell other adults what to do with their body.

You shouldn't care. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion.

And nobody is going to force me to get a covid vaccination either. It's my body.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree that sex education is vitally necessary, and they should tell them that condoms are not the best form of birth control; in fact they are one of the worst.

Perhaps one of the worst, but still pretty good nonetheless.
It certainly worked for me for over 15 years. Only stopped when we decided to get pregnant. And 2 weeks later we were. So that's a personal success rate of 100%.

Only once did we have an...eum... "accident".
But I noticed it in time, lol
Let's just leave it there, haha.

I agree, it should be her choice. Nobody should tell other adults what to do with their body.

Hear, hear.

And nobody is going to force me to get a covid vaccination either. It's my body.

I don't think it's necessary either.
HOWEVER, vaccination is very different.

Vaccination is also a matter of protecting others.

Covid is nowhere near the type of desease that warrants mandatory vaccination. Primarily because 100% of people with anti-bodies isn't required to stop the pandemic, and because luckily enough people have the common sense to get vaccinated.

However, if 100% WERE important or if not enough people would have that common sense, it very much would become mandatory.


Also, the idea of drawing an analogy between a mandatory vaccine on the one hand and forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy that she doesn't want is ludicrous. Absurd.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps one of the worst, but still pretty good nonetheless.
It certainly worked for me for over 15 years. Only stopped when we decided to get pregnant. And 2 weeks later we were. So that's a personal success rate of 100%.

The diaphragm also had a 100% success rate for me, I never liked taking the pill.

Vaccination is also a matter of protecting others.

It is, if you are around others.

Covid is nowhere near the type of disease that warrants mandatory vaccination. Primarily because 100% of people with anti-bodies isn't required to stop the pandemic, and because luckily enough people have the common sense to get vaccinated.

However, if 100% WERE important or if not enough people would have that common sense, it very much would become mandatory.

Thanks for that information. Some people are acting as if Covid warrants a mandatory vaccination and judging and insulting people who don't want the vaccine. They are trying to make it a moral issue.

Also, the idea of drawing an analogy between a mandatory vaccine on the one hand and forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy that she doesn't want is ludicrous. Absurd.

That's true.