anti-abortion people should have adopt all the kids they're forcing to be born

College Confidential Community
81

<p>I also agree with whoever said that the conservatives are hypocritical because while they claim to be pro-life, they are often in favor of war.</p>

<p>War is death. One cannot be pro-life and be pro-war. </p>

<p>Who would Jesus bomb?</p>

<p>As for the death penalty, I have the perfect solution: Violent criminals should never be let out of jail. Ever. That would be a deterrent, just as the death penalty is a deterrent in some countries. But, while in jail, they should have access to rehabilitation and spiritual counseling of their choice. (but not forced upon them.) That way, they can have the rest of their lives to reflect on the life they took, and if they feel remorse, they can get things right between them and God. And our streets would be safer because no more repeat offenders out of jail ready to strike again (as many do because jail does a poor job of rehabilitation.)</p>

<p>Jails should be reserved ONLY for violent offenders. Non-violent criminals should pay in other ways (like community service or paying a ton of cash if they stole something, or something like that.) And certainly drug addicts do not belong in jail; they belong in rehabilitation.</p>

<p>Ah well, just an idea. Not a perfect idea, of course. But better than capital punishment, imo. Who gets to decide that someone should die? Killing does not solve anything. Keeping the violent offender off the streets does, and by keeping him alive there is always the chance he could be exonerated by DNA testing or whatever.</p>

82

<p>from an article by Mark W. Roche:</p>

<p>'...During the
eight years of the Reagan presidency, the number of legal
abortions increased by more than 5 percent; during the
eight years of the Clinton presidency, the number dropped
by 36 percent. The overall abortion rate (calculated as the
number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15
and 44) was more or less stable during the Reagan years,
but during the Clinton presidency it dropped by 11 percent.</p>

<p>There are many reasons for this shift. Yet surely the
traditional Democratic concern with the social safety net
makes it easier for pregnant women to make responsible
decisions and for young life to flourish; among the most
economically disadvantaged, abortion rates have always been
and remain the highest. The world's lowest abortion rates
are in Belgium and the Netherlands, where abortion is legal
but where the welfare state is strong. Latin America, where
almost all abortions are illegal, has one of the highest
rates in the world.</p>

<p>None of this is to argue that abortion should be
acceptable. History will judge our society's support of
abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations'
support of torture and slavery - it will be universally
condemned. The moral condemnation of abortion, however,
need not lead to the conclusion that criminal prosecution
is the best way to limit the number of abortions. Those who
view abortion as the most significant issue in this
campaign may well want to supplement their abstract desire
for moral rectitude with a more realistic focus on how best
to ensure that fewer abortions take place...'</p>

83

<p>Abortion often hurts women, rather than being liberating. Most abortions are not the result of a 'choice' but because the woman has no choice - it is an act of desperation because she feels backed into a corner. NO CHOICE. She must choose between her baby and her career, or her baby and a man, or her baby and her parents, or her baby and her education, or her baby and financial stability.</p>

<p>Let's get beyond the tired old argument about whether it's killing a human or not. That is really irrelevant because the opposing sides will NEVER agree on that, until science discovers a way to irrefutably prove it.</p>

<p>Much more effective would be for the opposing sides to work TOGETHER to find solutions that work FOR WOMEN, since no woman ever WANTS an abortion.</p>

<p>The pro-lifers need to quite treating women who have abortions like cold-blooded murderers. They need to quit blocking access to birth control, which is obviously the way to reduce abortions. They need to quit being hypocrites - they say they want to reduce abortions but then they vote for people like bush who then cuts welfare benefits. It is proven that when welfare benefits are reduced, there are more abortions among poor women. They need to quit being stupid and expecting teenagers to quit having sex. Yeah, right. Abstinance as a solution? Utterly stupid. They need to quit being so self-righteous and start showing some compassion for pregnant single women, instead of helping them only if they convert to their religion. And, they need to care more about the living children who are in need.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the pro-choicers need to wake up and realize that easy access to abortion is not the answer. This often backfires: Instead of being a liberation for the woman, a freedom, a CHOICE, it is often used AGAINST the woman. I've seen this happen to some of my own friends. Their husbands/boyfriends refused to share the responsibility and basically forced the woman to have the abortion. It was either have the abortion or the husband would leave her. Or have the abortion or raise the child without any help. Sure these women were weak but many women are weak. Men often take advantage of women becasue they think 'well she will just have to get an abortion.' Also many women feel forced by circumstances to abort their babies. And, why must women deny their sexuality and fertility to be accepted by society? This is just trying to be like men instead of celebrating femininity. Fertility is part of femininity. I am completely in favor of birth control. But, if a woman wants to keep her baby, she should not feel compelled to abort it in order to keep her job, her scholarship, or her man. Society should embrace fertility and motherhood as honorable. Mothers should be respected for the intensely difficult job they do, instead of scorned 'oh you are ONLY a stay-at-home mom' as if that were a lowly profession. There is nothing more honorable than bringing up a child with devotion and integrity. The pro-choicers need to realize that abortion does not get to the root of the problem - it is only a band-aid.</p>

84

<p>OK, now that I've had my say, anyone interested in another go-round?</p>

<p>Let the games begin!</p>

85

<p>outlawing abortion really doesn't solve anything. they would take it underground. people find a way to get what they want, regardless of its legality.</p>

<p>honestly, legislating morality simply doesn't work.</p>

86

<p>How about this one:</p>

<p>'...Pro-war people should be forced to adopt all the orphaned children and financially support all the crippled & diseased people as a result of the war...'</p>

<p>Or, '...pro-war people should be the first to enlist...'</p>

<p>Uh-oh, getting controversial here...</p>

<p>I think debate is healthy. Gets the brain in gear. (As long as it's respectful, that is.)</p>

87

<p>'...they're not babies yet...'</p>

<p>Are you sure about that? Preemies are being saved at earlier and earlier ages. There have been cases of aborted babies saved by nurses because they were born alive and were bigger and better developed than some of the preemies in NICU.</p>

<p>If you think it's not a baby, check out this video of an actual abortion at 11 weeks. It's called 'The Silent Scream.' Then decide for yourself.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.silentscream.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.silentscream.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

88

<p>'...The fetus is not a self-sustaining organism, there is no reason to call it murder....'</p>

<p>A newborn baby is not a self-sustaining organism either.</p>

<p>Abortion is considered ok because of 'dehumanization' - the same technique used to make slavery acceptable. Whites didn't consider Blacks 'human' so they thought it was ok.</p>

<p>Ever notice that when a pregnant woman gets a sonagram from her OB-GYN s/he refers to it as 'your baby' but when a woman goes to Planned Parenthood for an abortion they call it 'the fetus.'</p>

<p>Propaganda at work.</p>

89

<p>lealdragon, when did you have the opportunity to make this observation? Have you been inside very many Planned Parenthood clinics lately? Have you performed a random sampling of obstetricians to see if they use the term "your baby" uniformly?</p>

<p>In both cases, I think each practicioner is attempting to make the patient feel comfortable and at ease. That hardly constitutes propaganda.</p>

90

<p>This is direct observation based on reading literature & articles from pro-choice advocates as well as PP info. Go to any of the feminist pro-choice websites and see if they EVER refer to the unborn as 'baby' - they won't.</p>

<p>Also, I have been a supporter of FFL for many years. They are the most unbiased, since they are not a religious group. (All the other pro-lifer organizations I know of are Christian-based and their pro-life activism is but an adjunct to their goal of converting the 'unsaved.')</p>

<p>FFL advocates getting the facts to women so they can make an INFORMED 'choice' - empowerment for women.</p>

<p>For example, the pro-choice literature refuses to acknowledge the link between breast cancer and abortion. Why? If they wanted to empower women, why don't they tell women upfront about this risk? (If that has changed recently, show me a place where they do so I can become enlightened!)</p>

<p>Being coreced by a boyfriend or feeling backed into a corner by financial considerations, having to choose between her baby and a career, financial security, her parents' approval, or a man... is hardly CHOICE.</p>

<p>I am actually NOT like the 'pro-lifers' in that I do believe abortion may be justified in very extreme cases. However, who gets to decide which cases are extreme? A very grey area indeed!</p>

<p>That's why I am actually NOT in favor of outlawing it - it will accomplish nothing.</p>

<p>I am in favor of open, honest communication between the 2 sides to work together for a COMMON GOAL - of reducing the CAUSES of abortion. If women had more options & more info, they would be less likely to 'choose' abortion since it's not exactly a pleasurable 'choice.'</p>

91

<p>I'm pro-choice, but this is the dumbest argument possible.</p>

<p>If you're pro-choice, like me, and against infringing on abortion rights - how is proving your point by infringing on rights a logical explanation?</p>

92

<p>It isn't. The OP just wanted to stir the pot.</p>

93

<p>haven't you guys noticed that the OP is MIA? He/she only made two posts on this thread. This person is <em>definitely</em> a troll.</p>

94

<p>Sorry to bump an old topic, but seeing that current vote (abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research) I figured I'd check out the actual discussion.</p>

<p>I can't help but comment on just how uninformed the majority of the posts here are.</p>

<p>For starters, surveys (the Gallup Organization conducted a very in-depth one in 1990 showing this) show that those who classify themselves as "strongly pro-choice" (16% of the general population) are much more likely to be pro-death penalty than not, whereas those who classify themselves as "strongly pro-life" (26% of the general population) are much more likely to be anti-death penalty. </p>

<p>Secondly, the OP who talked about adoption and pretty much anyone else who favors the consequentialist pro-choice argument (that it would be better to just kill the baby than let it live a "horrible" life), there is not a single baby up for adoption right now in America. In fact, there are 2,000,000 families currently approved for an adoption waiting for American babies to become available. The National Right-to-Life Organization (nrlc.org) has programs in place to pretty much make completely take care of a pregnancy for you. If you are a college student, and, for whatever reason, are sensitive about staying at your current university while pregnant, they will transfer you out to a comparable university for the 9 months you are pregnant, line up an adoption for you (and now-a-days you can even choose the parents who will get your baby, meet them, interview them, etc...)...more or less do everything, completely free of charge, to keep you from getting an abortion. Such consequentialist pro-abortion arguments that a lot of people like to employ are pretty much inapplicable and clearly misinformed in this day and age.</p>

<p>Also, I'm not sure what some of you are saying that the fetus or embryo or zygote or baby or whatever you call it is not alive. It replaces its own dying cells, has distinct and unique human DNA, is continually growing and developing, etc. Whoever said that "most biologists don't actually classify a first-trimester fetus as alive" is completely talking out of their ass - the truth is more or less the exact opposite. 18-21 days after conception, the baby's heart begins to beat. Around 40 days, there are measurable brain waves (neural function). At 8 weeks the nervous system begins developing (and the baby can feel pain). 11 weeks and the baby has its entire system of organs (every organ a full-grown adult has). All of that in the first trimester, nonetheless. </p>

<p>Also, early on, someone said that after 30 weeks the fetus was viable, which is again wrong. Around 20 weeks is the current line for viability, meaning a woman not even 5 months pregnant could go into labor prematurely, have the baby, put it in an incubator (life support) for 3-4 months and the kid will live a completely normal life. Drawing the line here is stupid as well...this will just get earlier and earlier (and has) as technology improves. 20 years ago (or even 10 or 5) there was no way for a child born 4 months prematurely to survive. In another 20 we will probably have some sort of artificial womb that makes viability more or less the point of conception or a couple weeks later. Riddle me this: two women get pregnant at the exact same time (hypothetically). 5 months down the line, one of the women goes into premature labor and has a kid, puts it in an incubator where it will be for 3-4 months. The other woman continues to carry the baby to term, but at 8 months (after conception) both of them decide they don't really want to have a kid anymore. The woman still carrying the child heads down to her local abortion clinic, coughs up some dough (depending on where you live as some states will pay for it), and kills the child. No problem. The other woman goes into the hospital, unplugs the incubator, and thus has committed first-degree murder. The only difference between those two babies? Location. That's it.</p>

<p>Another point - everyone is so quick to point out that the man can just pick up and leave after having sex and never take any responsibility for the kid. How this somehow requires an abortion has never really been clear to me, but what about a mother having an abortion when the dad really wants to have the kid? The mother and father have sex, she gets pregnant, they are seemingly happy for the first 8 months. Then for whatever reason (they get in a fight, she gets "cold feet", etc) the woman wakes up one day and decides she doesn't want to baby anymore. Heads down to the abortion clinic, has a partial-birth abortion (which, by the way, are gruesome - I'll address this later) without ever telling the dad, who was dead set on having the kid and was really looking forward to it. Supporting it and everything. It happens.</p>

<p>Onto the issue of "personhood." That term has never been put to a positive use throughout the history of this world. Slaves were human beings, but not "persons". Jews were human beings, just not people. Persons are living things with distinct human DNA. Slavery was a moral issue. How was it affecting you if the plantation owner a few mile down the road kept slaves? Didn't agree with it? Then don't own them. Simple as that...right?</p>

<p>It doesn't make any sense to try and say the government shouldn't have any say in "moral" issues. You guys who are all nominally "pro-choice" have any idea as to how partial-birth abortions are performed or the laws surrounding them? These are abortions that occur in the third trimester, when the baby can usually live without any form of life support whatsoever. The abortionist literally reaches into the womb with a pair of pliers and, using ultrasound, locates and grabs onto the baby's feet. He or she then proceeds to deliver the baby feet-first via a mini C-section until all but the child's head is outside of the mother. Once this happens, he takes a pair of scissors, jams them into the back of the baby's head (while the child kicks and clasps his/her hands, in visible pain), pries open a hole in this area, sticks in a vacuum tube and sucks out the kid's brains until his/her skull collapses and the body can just be fully delivered. Know why they keep the head about 5-6 inches inside the mother? Because if that kid took a SINGLE breath that's classified as murder under US law. 6 inches seperating a procedure that occurs 37 times every day in the US(of the 3700 abortions performed daily in the US, 'only' 1% occur in the third trimester) and is perfectly legal under the current laws from first-degree murder. How does that make sense?</p>

<p>Care to hear of the common ways abortions are performed in the second trimester? In one common procedure, called dialation evacuation, the abortionist literally reaches into the womb with a pair of pliers, and, one-by-one, grabs onto the limbs of the unborn child and twists them off one by one. This can also be done as late as the third trimester. There was actually a case not too long ago (in Illinois, I believe) where an abortionist went in, yanked off one arm of the child before realizing the child was actually more developed than he'd previously thought. Because the women couldn't pay for the procedure required at this later developmental stage, he refused to continue. The kid was born and the abortionist got 11 years in jail for it (and the judge only gave such an easy sentence because, had he just gone through with the abortion and killed the baby rather than removing just one limb, it would have been perfectly legal and actually encouraged in today's culture). Its happened more than once - look it up. </p>

<p>Anyway just thought I'd chime in. 4 months ago, I thought I was convinced I was pro-choice. I'd read whatever there was about abortion in the media and whatnot. But this semester through a class I had a chance to really read into the various (and what my professor considers to be the best) arguments on both sides of the issue (Patrick Lee, Robert George, Peter, Singer, James Hunter, Kristin Luker, etc) and, through the course of the past 4 months, became decidedly pro-life. The entire "point" that it is nothing more than the religious right who are opposing abortion is just such a lie, really just thrown out there almost religiously (no pun intended) by the pro-choice camp to more or less cast the pro-life movement in a negative life. The argument I just presented is in no way religious. I was born Catholic but haven't been to church since 4th-grade and am completely atheist in practice. Some people have talked about the hypocrisy between being pro-war and pro-life - this I do not agree with (read Paul Berman's most recent book, Terror and Liberalism, for a good start on this topic), but I think this is really a single-issue debate. Whereas a good number of pro-choice organizations (NOW, for instance) are multi-issue, the biggest pro-life organizations are single-issue and bipartisan (National Right To Life, for instance). </p>

<p>What I've also found since I changed my view is that the majority of people that I've talked to since reshaping my ideas are similarly misinformed (pretty much all of them pro-choice). That Gallup Org. survey I referenced earlier also found that 80% of Americans disagreed that abortion was available throughout a pregnancy (all 9 months) and 43% of Americans openly admitted they didn't know exactly what the current abortion laws entailed. I previously believed that "women should have the right to choose" and that if you didn't want one, you didn't have to get one, as I can see many people here argue (and pretty much every pro-choice advocate you'd run into on the street, and even NOW). I had no idea how the laws were shaped, that the fetus could feel pain and had its full organ system in the first trimester, etc or had even considered that abortion IS murder.</p>

95

<p>what exactly does "the OP is a troll" mean?</p>

96

<p>Live, even though I disagree with you on various points, i'd just like to say your post is very informative and interesting, thanks! I'm actually motivated to do further research into the points you've discussed.</p>

97

<p>Some more food for thought: In 1967 Nicolae Ceausescu, dictator of Romania, decreed all abortion illegal. Due to impoverished conditions of the state, couple's had more children than they could afford. Over 100,000 children poured into poorly run state orphanages. That's 100,000 children that are destined to grow up without the loving care of a family, nor with anyone to teach them how to be a functional member of society. Needless to say, many of them didn't make it. They were subject to every heinous act against humanity possible. </p>

<p>Are there situations where abortion should be allowed? Can abortion truly be deemed a universal violation of morality?</p>

98

<p>anovice, i think the reason why you can't just go and pick up a kid for free is because some people will do terrible things to the children, like raise them for child labor and other terrible things</p>

99

<p>"The difference is that unborn children are totally innocent; death row inmates are not."
so say if Osama's mother was denied her abortion and thus caused 911.....</p>

100

<p>johnnzen,
Honestly, if you are going to say that if we don't kill them before they are born they are LIKELY to end up in the welfare/foster child system (which is untrue in the United States), a more effective way of fixing the welfare/foster child/orphanage system would be to just kill kids already in it. You know they are bogging it down and having what you guys are saying "bad" lives, but you are just predicting thats where an unborn child will end up. See where I'm going with that? Who are we to judge which life is worth living? Why don't poor people just kill themselves if they think their lives aren't worth living? It's not them that don't want to live, it's society that doesn't want to take care of or deal with them. </p>

<p>Another statistic - 80% of babies diagnosed prenatally with down syndrome are aborted. The suicide rate of people with down syndrome? 0. They are happy people - want to live. It's society that deems their lives unworthy of living, and therein lies the problem.</p>

<p>But to answer your question, I think most pro-life advocates say that abortion is acceptable if the mother's life is truly in jeopardy, and some are divided on whether it's OK in cases of rape or incest (some would use "two wrongs don't make a right" logic, others would say that since the woman didn't consent to sex she didn't consent to pregnancy and is therefore justified in getting an abortion).</p>

<p>Hansen, and say if George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson or John Locke's respective mothers had aborted them...that's a nonsensical proposition.</p>