abortion

I think that abortion is murder personally. But I would prefer to start by making abortions less necessary, rather than jump up and down and scream "That's evil!!!!11!!" I think the first thing would be to make adoption a more viable option -- by encouraging couples to adopt rather than seek fertility treatments or adopting from china.

That's one thing I wish more pro-lifers got. They're always ready to say "don't have an abortion", but they don't ever seem to address the cause of the problem -- namely that a girl, usually under 18 and not married (There are exceptions of course), in the heat of the moment had sex with her boyfriend, possibly while drunk. At that point, you have a kid who if she keeps the baby at home won't be able to live very well on their own. She probably won't be educated beyond high school, and may even have to drop out entirely, and therefore she'll have some low-paying job and try to raise a baby on her own. Other than abortion or adoption, that's going to be her life. So either you find a way to make the girl's life better, or to make adoption more attractive, or accept that some people will be desprate enough to make the choice to abort the baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

I think that abortion is murder personally. But I would prefer to start by making abortions less necessary, rather than jump up and down and scream "That's evil!!!!11!!" I think the first thing would be to make adoption a more viable option -- by encouraging couples to adopt rather than seek fertility treatments or adopting from china.

That's one thing I wish more pro-lifers got. They're always ready to say "don't have an abortion", but they don't ever seem to address the cause of the problem -- namely that a girl, usually under 18 and not married (There are exceptions of course), in the heat of the moment had sex with her boyfriend, possibly while drunk. At that point, you have a kid who if she keeps the baby at home won't be able to live very well on their own. She probably won't be educated beyond high school, and may even have to drop out entirely, and therefore she'll have some low-paying job and try to raise a baby on her own. Other than abortion or adoption, that's going to be her life. So either you find a way to make the girl's life better, or to make adoption more attractive, or accept that some people will be desprate enough to make the choice to abort the baby.

---

I often come across what you suggest alot. But the sad thing is that adoption would be a viable choice. but it can never be the answer on its own. See, alot of people just throw adoption out there like its that easy. But it really isnt. Its not that easy to adopt somone. And then there are the other factors. Let me begin to break them down.

First off, now say all these women that would have gotten abortions now go full term and have babies and give them up for adotion. The number would be in the millions ( it was estimated at 1.365 million abortions in 1998). Now, instead of 1.3 million abortions you now have 1.3million babies put up for adoption. Now thats basically 1.3million orphans(at least until they get adopted).

Now it was estimated in 2000 that 1.4 million children were adopted. But the studies dont and cant tell you how many children arent adopted every year, but its safe to assume that there are more children that dont get adopted that accually do get adopted every year. now add another 1.3million a year. Adoption rates are declining, so you can see that the number of kids not getting adopted would increase while adoption rates continue to decrease.


Then there are the other factors, Alot of people want young kids, health kids, and kids of their own race. And since white people are really doing the most adopting here comes another problem. Most people dont want older kids(11+yrs old) because they are really already set in their ways. People arent too quick to adopt a child with a disability. and since most people who adopt want a child of their own race, and most people adopting are white, you can see where minority children fall short. You know, i could really go deeper into all of this, But i wont. All im really tryingto say is that. There is really no one answer too this. You need to have adoption as an option and you need to have abortion as an option.

Quote:

---

If you're suggesting to make it law, you're saying that it's always their fault.

---

Please quote where I suggested making a law.

Quote:

---

As for black and white laws.. most laws aren't black and white.. there are always loop holes, there is always another way to interepret. or at least there are in many cases.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

That doesn't always work. Short of locking children up, children are going to misbehave and rebel.

---

I don't "rebel", as you put it, and it's not due to being locked up, and it's not due to "nature". I have always had a great deal of freedom, but I knew that if I screwed up, I would loose that freedom. That's life. :mad: And by the way, if parents don't have the responsibility to try to keep their kids from ruining their lives, then they also don't have the responsibility to feed, clothe, or house them. :rolleyes2 I realize parents can't be expcted to be infallible, but if they can't take care of their kids, then they shouldn't be parents.

Concerning Abortions, what I find very interesting is the imagery that has been utilized.

Since technological advancements have allowed people to transcribe soundwaves into visual image, anti-abortion groups have utilized these images in their favour.

One extreme example is the use of a sonnogram in a court case where the sound waves were spead up in order to simulate the cry.

Anti-Abortion movements are thus trying to give a voice to a being that can't speak. They are leading the viewers to the assumption that the child within the woom is capable of conciously detesting.

I think that when we as concious people analyze abortion we should avoid relying on photographic "truths" to establish a point. Up until these recent technological advancements, people were unable to see the actual fetus... these new technologies that actually allow us to see the fetus give promote ideas of the life. However, they eliminate the eye from seeing the individual with whom the child is in.

Furthermore, anti-abortion movements have given the fetus a voice and morality with out investigating the values and ideologies of the culture and the woman to who the child is embeded in. This is very difficult for me to grasp because we as people form values from outside experience, we become people from living.

here's my 2 cents. abortion is wrong.... what? i said it was only 2 cents not $2.

but seriously, "if you don't do the crime you won't have to do the time" so to speak. if you don't have sex, you don't have children. coincidence? i don't think so.

from the time of conception that is a human being, just because it can't see and can't say "mommy please don't kill me" doesn't ammount for anything.

there... you got $2 worth, are you happy?