Abortion Equation

[phk]

[(Abortions - "extreme case Abortions") + Kids in Orphanges + Kids with broken families = Children willing to be adopted].

Is that true?

[Richard]

In English?

[Gabu]

[(Abortions - "extreme case Abortions") + Kids in Orphanges + Kids with broken families = Children willing to be adopted].

Is that true?

I find the use of the phrase "willing to be adopted" a little strange in relation to the first term in the equation; newborn babies are generally not willing to do much of anything.

At any rate, yes, unaborted babies who are unwanted certainly do contribute to the number of children who need to be given up for adoption, although I can't exactly see how that's a revolutionary new concept.

[phk]

In laymens terms do you believet that.

The amount of abortions combined with kids in orphanges along with kids in broken families is equal to the number of kids that are willing to be adopted by prospective parents.

[opebo]

I don't really care.  Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy to term just because someone will adopt it?  It is very damaging and disfiguring to the body, as well as painful and unpleasant, and lastly dangerous.  Who wants stretch marks?

[George W. Bush]

I don't really care.  Why should women be forced to carry a pregnancy to term just because someone will adopt it?  It is very damaging and disfiguring to the body, as well as painful and unpleasant, and lastly dangerous.  Who wants stretch marks?

Like Stretch marks should be valued above a human life.

[dazzleman]

I believe in adoption over abortion.

There is something wrong with a society that aborts millions of babies per year while some couples struggle to adopt babies from foreign countries because they are unable to conceive their own children.

Several people I know participated in highly successful adoptions.  It's terrible to think that if they were born today, rather than 30-40 years ago, they probably would have been aborted or raised in a substandard manner by a trashy unmarried mother, rather than getting the upbringing that they got.

My parents' best friends adopted 4 children, including a "difficult to place" child because she was half Asian.  The agency was having so much trouble getting couples to take her (this was in the 1960s) because of her ethnicity, yet these staunch conservative Republicans adopted her without reservation and made her their daughter.  She turned out to be a wonderful daughter, and the other children turned out to be wonderful sons and daughters, no different than if they had been biological children.

A friend of mine was adopted.  Ironically, she is also half Asian.  She considers the couple who adopted her to be her parents, period.  She has a brother and a sister, all adopted.  They relate to each other no differently than biological siblings would.  She has no interest in her biological parents, which I think is a healthy attitude.  She is very successful and well adjusted, and her adoption could only be classified as highly successful.

In addition to abortion, part of the problem is that our society adopted this "keep the biological family together at all costs" mentality with the Family Reunification Act of 1980, which made it much harder to terminate the parental rights of obviously unsuitable parents.  This caused children to languish in foster care rather than being made available for permanent adoption.  Plus, with the opening of many adoption records, adoptive parents had to worry about the biological parents rearing their ugly heads later in the child's life and causing problems.  This is a big part of the reason so many Americans go to Russia and China to adopt, rather than adopting American children, to the extent that any are available.  You want to know that your children are your children, and that you don't have to share them with some other people with whom you probably have nothing in common.

I am a traditionalist on adoption.  I think unsuitable parents should have their parental rights permanently severed, and that the adoptions should be closed.  I also think that unmarried young girls who are too immature and irresponsible to raise their children properly should be encouraged to give them up for adoption rather than keep them, as we do currently.  Giving up a baby can be the greatest act of love, and I have seen that work in real life.  I have also seen the alternative.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I believe in adoption over abortion.

There is something wrong with a society that aborts millions of babies per year while some couples struggle to adopt babies from foreign countries because they are unable to conceive their own children.

Several people I know participated in highly successful adoptions.  It's terrible to think that if they were born today, rather than 30-40 years ago, they probably would have been aborted or raised in a substandard manner by a trashy unmarried mother, rather than getting the upbringing that they got.

My parents' best friends adopted 4 children, including a "difficult to place" child because she was half Asian.  The agency was having so much trouble getting couples to take her (this was in the 1960s) because of her ethnicity, yet these staunch conservative Republicans adopted her without reservation and made her their daughter.  She turned out to be a wonderful daughter, and the other children turned out to be wonderful sons and daughters, no different than if they had been biological children.

A friend of mine was adopted.  Ironically, she is also half Asian.  She considers the couple who adopted her to be her parents, period.  She has a brother and a sister, all adopted.  They relate to each other no differently than biological siblings would.  She has no interest in her biological parents, which I think is a healthy attitude.  She is very successful and well adjusted, and her adoption could only be classified as highly successful.

In addition to abortion, part of the problem is that our society adopted this "keep the biological family together at all costs" mentality with the Family Reunification Act of 1980, which made it much harder to terminate the parental rights of obviously unsuitable parents.  This caused children to languish in foster care rather than being made available for permanent adoption.  Plus, with the opening of many adoption records, adoptive parents had to worry about the biological parents rearing their ugly heads later in the child's life and causing problems.  This is a big part of the reason so many Americans go to Russia and China to adopt, rather than adopting American children, to the extent that any are available.  You want to know that your children are your children, and that you don't have to share them with some other people with whom you probably have nothing in common.

I am a traditionalist on adoption.  I think unsuitable parents should have their parental rights permanently severed, and that the adoptions should be closed.  I also think that unmarried young girls who are too immature and irresponsible to raise their children properly should be encouraged to give them up for adoption rather than keep them, as we do currently.  Giving up a baby can be the greatest act of love, and I have seen that work in real life.  I have also seen the alternative.

There are already lots of kids who no one wants to adopt. Add 2 million more a year, and you've got serious problems.

Conservaties want women to be mindless baby making machines.

[dazzleman]

Conservaties want women to be mindless baby making machines.

Once again, we get the "women are absolutely equal, but men are 100% responsible for anything that happens" mentality.  The feminazis have brainwashed, and mentally castrated, you well.

A woman who doesn't want children has other options besides abortion.  Equality means equal acceptance of responsibility, rather than blaming every unwanted pregnancy on a man.  Women participate in sex too, in case you didn't know that.

And such a nasty comment in response to a post about successful adoptions.  The liberal philosophy seems more and more to be mean and hateful, if you are any indication.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Conservaties want women to be mindless baby making machines.

Once again, we get the "women are absolutely equal, but men are 100% responsible for anything that happens" mentality.  The feminazis have brainwashed, and mentally castrated, you well.

A woman who doesn't want children has other options besides abortion.  Equality means equal acceptance of responsibility, rather than blaming every unwanted pregnancy on a man.  Women participate in sex too, in case you didn't know that.

And such a nasty comment in response to a post about successful adoptions.  The liberal philosophy seems more and more to be mean and hateful, if you are any indication.

WTF?

Umm, no, of course the women are (at least partially) responsible, but that's not reason to outlaw abortion.

Denying a woman a right to a choice is not mean and hateful?

[phk]

Conservaties want women to be mindless baby making machines.

Once again, we get the "women are absolutely equal, but men are 100% responsible for anything that happens" mentality.  The feminazis have brainwashed, and mentally castrated, you well.

A woman who doesn't want children has other options besides abortion.  Equality means equal acceptance of responsibility, rather than blaming every unwanted pregnancy on a man.  Women participate in sex too, in case you didn't know that.

And such a nasty comment in response to a post about successful adoptions.  The liberal philosophy seems more and more to be mean and hateful, if you are any indication.

The conservative philosophy dictates that 1 out of every 4 US kids should live in an orphange. It also dictates that more criminals be bought into the world, it also says that education facilities have to be strained by a glut of un-needed kids.

Literally, what your saying is, "I want to ban abortion to increase poverty which in turn will increase crime rates"; "I want our education system to collapse because of a million new unruly students per year"

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

Ronald Reagan although regretting his deceision to legalize abortion in CA, it none-the-less did a lot of good for CA in the long-run.

Its one thing to take a position for emotion, its another to not think about its consequences to society; which shows irresponsibility.

[opebo]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

[dazzleman]

Conservaties want women to be mindless baby making machines.

Once again, we get the "women are absolutely equal, but men are 100% responsible for anything that happens" mentality.  The feminazis have brainwashed, and mentally castrated, you well.

A woman who doesn't want children has other options besides abortion.  Equality means equal acceptance of responsibility, rather than blaming every unwanted pregnancy on a man.  Women participate in sex too, in case you didn't know that.

And such a nasty comment in response to a post about successful adoptions.  The liberal philosophy seems more and more to be mean and hateful, if you are any indication.

The conservative philosophy dictates that 1 out of every 4 US kids should live in an orphange. It also dictates that more criminals be bought into the world, it also says that education facilities have to be strained by a glut of un-needed kids.

Literally, what your saying is, "I want to ban abortion to increase poverty which in turn will increase crime rates"; "I want our education system to collapse because of a million new unruly students per year"

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

Ronald Reagan although regretting his deceision to legalize abortion in CA, it none-the-less did a lot of good for CA in the long-run.

Its one thing to take a position for emotion, its another to not think about its consequences to society; which shows irresponsibility.

Opposition to abortion is an idealistic position.  But that is a good starting point for a discussion on it.  In an ideal world, abortion is morally wrong, but as I said, I have been willing to entertain the notion that it is sometimes the best of several bad options.

It's funny how in your support of abortion, you are acknowledging some of the things conservatives have been saying all along, such as that it is poor parenting that is causing the collapse of education in urban areas, not lack of funding.  That's pretty interesting.  And legalized abortion has not prevented the continuation of people who are unsuitable as parents having more children that they raise in a horrible manner (encouraged by the Great Society programs that opebo thinks were such a smashing success).

The classic NOW argument is that having an abortion is a medical procedure akin to having an ingrown toenail removed.  I've seen few people here, even extreme liberals, making that argument, so that is progress.

But I don't buy into this garbage that denying women "choice" is mean and hateful.  A woman can close her legs, be on the pill, insist on a condom, and she can give the baby up for adoption.  A woman has plenty of choices that don't involve killing her baby if she is not prepared to be a mother.  This plethora of other choices makes it very hard to support the stabbing of a baby in the back of the skull, the dismemberment of its body, and its extraction from the womb in pieces, or preferably using a vacuum cleaner, in order that the mother might avoid stretch marks.  We have to get beyond this "women's choice" garbage and find a good moral position on this issue.

[Ebowed]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

[dazzleman]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

That's true, though the liberal trends that brought the Great Society also boosted legalized abortion.

What I find interesting today is that a congress that was strongly Democrat, and considered very liberal, voted by heavy margins in early 1976 to ban any type of federal funding for abortions.

[Ebowed]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

That's true, though the liberal trends that brought the Great Society also boosted legalized abortion.

What I find interesting today is that a congress that was strongly Democrat, and considered very liberal, voted by heavy margins in early 1976 to ban any type of federal funding for abortions.

Well, look at the candidates for the 1972 nomination.  Humphrey and Muskie were against abortion, and McGovern thought it should be up to the states -- certainly a position that wouldn't slide even for a longshot candidate for the Democratic nomination these days (look at Kucinich).

[dazzleman]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

That's true, though the liberal trends that brought the Great Society also boosted legalized abortion.

What I find interesting today is that a congress that was strongly Democrat, and considered very liberal, voted by heavy margins in early 1976 to ban any type of federal funding for abortions.

Well, look at the candidates for the 1972 nomination.  Humphrey and Muskie were against abortion, and McGovern thought it should be up to the states -- certainly a position that wouldn't slide even for a longshot candidate for the Democratic nomination these days (look at Kucinich).

And Gerald Ford, as incumbent president, was mildly pro-choice I think.  His wife Betty (while high on booze and pills) made comments strongly supporting the Roe vs. Wade decision.  It seems abortion wasn't such a party issue back then.

Somehow I think the same thing will happen with gay marriage.  Just as the Democrats back then probably supported abortion but were afraid to say so, they currently support gay marriage and are afraid to say so.  We'll see how it plays out.

[Ebowed]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

That's true, though the liberal trends that brought the Great Society also boosted legalized abortion.

What I find interesting today is that a congress that was strongly Democrat, and considered very liberal, voted by heavy margins in early 1976 to ban any type of federal funding for abortions.

Well, look at the candidates for the 1972 nomination.  Humphrey and Muskie were against abortion, and McGovern thought it should be up to the states -- certainly a position that wouldn't slide even for a longshot candidate for the Democratic nomination these days (look at Kucinich).

And Gerald Ford, as incumbent president, was mildly pro-choice I think.  His wife Betty (while high on booze and pills) made comments strongly supporting the Roe vs. Wade decision.  It seems abortion wasn't such a party issue back then.

Somehow I think the same thing will happen with gay marriage.  Just as the Democrats back then probably supported abortion but were afraid to say so, they currently support gay marriage and are afraid to say so.  We'll see how it plays out.

Well, I'm not quite sure I see the comparison.  Muskie said abortion "compromises the sanctity of human life," but if he really did support abortion and was just afraid to say so he chose a very a bad way to hide those pro-choice feelings.

[phk]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

That's true, though the liberal trends that brought the Great Society also boosted legalized abortion.

Boosted rates of abortion lowered crime in the long-run.

[Ebowed]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

That's true, though the liberal trends that brought the Great Society also boosted legalized abortion.

Boosted rates of abortion lowered crime in the long-run.

Lowered crime rates does not explain nor justify ending human life because it is less than 9 months old.

[phk]

Look idealism and noble experiments are great, Prohibition and  Great Society, but it just doesn't work because they don't provide a realistic framework for society.

I'll agree with you on Prohibition and Abortion, of course, but the Great Society worked fine.  Irritating for the rich of course, to see the poor get money and free abortions, and even worse to have them get uppity, but still, how did it 'fail'?

There was nothing in the Great Society about legalizing abortion..?

That's true, though the liberal trends that brought the Great Society also boosted legalized abortion.

Boosted rates of abortion lowered crime in the long-run.

Lowered crime rates does not explain nor justify ending human life because it is less than 9 months old.

Its going to end up killing more human life if it was allowed to be born in the long-run.

[Ebowed]

That's really bad logic.  You seem to be assuming that every unborn child will become a murderer if not aborted.  Would you go around killing people because you were afraid they'd kill you?

I can see you going up to an innocent old man on the street and saying, "If you want to kill me, you won't be able to!" and then pulling out a shotgun.

You'd go to a bar and notice some guy who looks more 'suspicious' than the others, and you'd pull out the shotgun.  "I'm making sure you won't commit any murders by not allowing you to continuing to live," you'd say.

GREAT logic.

[phk]

That's really bad logic.  You seem to be assuming that every unborn child will become a murderer if not aborted.  Would you go around killing people because you were afraid they'd kill you?

I can see you going up to an innocent old man on the street and saying, "If you want to kill me, you won't be able to!" and then pulling out a shotgun.

You'd go to a bar and notice some guy who looks more 'suspicious' than the others, and you'd pull out the shotgun.  "I'm making sure you won't commit any murders by not allowing you to continuing to live," you'd say.

GREAT logic.

The link is in what he calls "unwantedness" -- the mothers who are likely to have abortions (i.e., those with unwanted children) are the mothers of future (unborn) criminals because unwantedness drives these children to commit crime later in life.  Therefore, if fewer unwanted children are born, fewer crimes are committed when these children would have become adults.

[opebo]

Opposition to abortion is an idealistic position.  But that is a good starting point for a discussion on it.  In an ideal world, abortion is morally wrong, but as I said, I have been willing to entertain the notion that it is sometimes the best of several bad options.

Your morality and your ideal world are entirely subjective.  They don't match my preferences at all.

It's funny how in your support of abortion, you are acknowledging some of the things conservatives have been saying all along, such as that it is poor parenting that is causing the collapse of education in urban areas, not lack of funding.

Poor parenting is caused by lack of funding - aka poverty.  A $15/hour minimum wage and redistributionist welfare program would improve parenting a lot.  However in a heirarchical society those at the bottom are always going to be 'worse' than those at the top, by definition, even if they're thrown a few crumbs.

The classic NOW argument is that having an abortion is a medical procedure akin to having an ingrown toenail removed.  I've seen few people here, even extreme liberals, making that argument, so that is progress.

They are correct.

But I don't buy into this garbage that denying women "choice" is mean and hateful.  A woman can close her legs, be on the pill, insist on a condom, and she can give the baby up for adoption.  A woman has plenty of choices that don't involve killing her baby if she is not prepared to be a mother.  We have to get beyond this "women's choice" garbage and find a good moral position on this issue.

No, your position is hateful by definition, because you wish to impose your own subjective morality on another person.  You justify this by your perception that she is 'immoral' in your eyes for having sex - perhaps even hedonistically (horrors)!  The choice paradigm for understanding this issue is the best one because it recognizes the primacy of the individual and the subjectivity of all perception.

[Ebowed]

opebo, you are imposing your beliefs on everyone else by saying that religion is naturally intolerant and that it's okay for abortion to be legal.  You just refuse to call these "morals," and that's why you think you can get away with being so pompous in all of your posts.