Wow that is the first time I have ever heard that brilliant response(not). How do you come up with such inspired retorts? The answer of course is no. But I promise you nature will take care of the problem if we don't.
if we went through with a birth she said point blank she would ever allow the child to be put up for adoption. Period. And let's be fair here. There are already MORE children in adoption / foster care homes than people are willing to adopt. There is no promise the baby would have been adopted and raised in a loving home. Because if there were any guarantees. Well. There wouldn't be any kids in foster homes now would there? Seems to me there are tons of children in need of an adoption RIGHT NOW without adding to it.
But is it really about rights? Or privacy (as SCOTUS used as the basis of their decision in Roe vs. Wade)? I think it's about responsibility and morality.
Babies put up for adoption are rare. Why....do you think so many people go to China? Because there are no babies here. I'm thinking...your decision wasn't because you thought hard about adoption. So don't play it that way. You and your girl friend just wanted an out....quick. Your girl friend is emotionally weak and can't handle the thought of someone else taking care of her baby--so she rather kill it. It is what it is.
There are plenty of children in the adoption and foster care systems, somewhere around 100,000 in fact. Just because people refuse to adopt an older child or one with special needs does not mean it is anyone else's responsibility to add to the system so people who want babies can have them. You can't make people adopt older or special needs kids just like you can't make people give birth to and give up infants for adoption.
That would have been following up one irresponsible act with another one. It is true that there are kids in the system that aren't getting adopted. In many cases it is because the child is older - there is a much larger demand for infants and toddlers than for children. Still, the vast majority (about 78%) of kids in foster care aren't available for adoption at all. Even the ones that are are put up against the parents' will. Very few children are actually voluntarily put up for adoption (less than 1% of children born to never married mothers are put up for adoption). The ones that are are usually adopted very quickly. The ones that sit in the system for years are the ones that are taken away from their parents and have to wait for the court system to revoke parental rights and put the children into adoptable status. Regardless, the selfish attitude of your friend is quite clear. She either terminates the pregnancy to avoid the hassle of carrying to term, or she keeps the child rather than looking out for its best interests and placing it in a family than can care for it better.
Neither did it ever establish that the unborn were not persons. Oh please. It was Christian movements that were the most staunch opponents to slavery. Virtually all the abolitionists who smuggled slaves to freedom did so for deeply held religious reasons. Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in no small part because of his Christian faith. Perhaps you do not care to look at the horrific human rights abuses that atheism led to in he twentieth century. Why does there need to be an Ammendment? There are already state laws against murder. The only thing that needs to be done is to clarify the law.
I've always found it somwhat senseless that defective babies are allowed to be born that no one will want, while at the same time perfectly normal healthy babies are terminated in utero. It seems illogical to me, a clear misallocation of human resources. Since there is clearly a shortage of white babies available for adoption, I propose that the supply be adjusted to best fit demand. Doing that would prevent things like this from happening: http://www.csmonitor.com/1993/0513/13121.html
Neither have you ever established they are "persons" Tell me, what is the legalities surrounding how old a foetus has to be before a birth certificate is issued or funeral is mandated
Judging by some of the responses in here, some fetuses ducked the Abortion table, which is unfortunate for the rest of us.
I'm tired of your biggotry against fetuses. It's murder. Their personhood should not have to be "established" to recognise this. A death certificate does not require a birth certificate (usually the fetus just has to be 20 weeks old).
So what your saying is that people ONLY want to adopt babies? And all the other kids can just go suck it? My. How compasionate. Think what you want. Attack me all you want. We made the right choice weather YOU personally want to believe that or not. This thread, and the poll data backs it up. Also the simple fact that we both, even today, many many many years later both feel we made the right choice, is all I need to know. Why on earth would you expect a child to take care of a child I simply dont know. And if people wanted to adopt kids, they can easily go adopt a kid. Oh no! I might have to adopt a TWO year old NOT THAT!!!!! I only want to adopt a BABY. Talk about being selfish?
Na. It was the right thing. Then, and now. Period. Youll never convince me otherwise. Period. And as for the adoption thing. Not my problem. I would say that its just as selfish and greedy for peopel who want to adopt to refuse to adopt older children and leave them in the system, as it is for me to not put a baby into the adoption system. Either way a childs life is destroyed right?
[/QUOTE] So, if you were to make abortion "murder". You then need to be prepared to A.) invesitgate EVERY SINGLE miss carriage as possible murder. B.) Be prepared to send people to death in states that support the death penalty. Both mother, AND doctor who performed the abortion. Also any family who knew of said abortion, such as the father. Any nurse who assisted must be charged as an accomplice. And whats your answer for someone who goes to another country where abortion IS legal, has an abortion LEGALLY in another country, and then comes back to the US?
They already investigate every unexplained child death or dissappearance as possible murder. The parent is often automatically the first person that falls under suspicion, even when there is no particular evidence that points in that direction. The USA already has made it a serious criminal offense for one of its citizens to go to another country and hire a prostitute that is under the age of 18 years of age. What is your answer to a mother that brings her children into another country, murders them, then returns back to her own country? Suppose this country she took her children to was some place like Somalia, or Myanmar, where there is no justice. Or to some poor country where most murders are never solved because they have a grossly inadequate police force. Ideally, I think, abortions should be treated as a special form of murder, and the mother should get some additional sympathy and the punishment lessened. But a woman who repeatedly gets herself pregnant over and over again, only to have abortion after abortion, should get no special sympathy.
So by this logic, we should be putting everyone who goes to Amsterdam in jail right? And Why make any exceptions? I mean, if murder is murder, treat it as murder. Stop making exceptions for people. Also. If a mother took her child to somolia and murderd them. Do you feel that you could prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt? Do you feel that the woman would receive a fair trial? Do you feel that the evidence gathering portion of that trial would be conducted fairly? if at all? It would be hard to get any evidence of anything in somolia. But either way. So you not only want to ban abortion in America, you would make it illegal for an american citizen to get an abortion for any reason at all, no matter where in the world she is? Also. They do not investigate mis carriage as murder. THey would have to start to. And I wonder how many innocent women would go to jail? A lot im guessing. "OMG she had a cigarette/or a beer while she was preg. This COULD have been the cause" Send that lady to jail!!!! To much room for abuse here.
Mothers are already arrested and fined for child endangerment: http://www.euronews.com/2012/03/19/ukraine-mums-to-be-could-face-fines-for-smoking-or-drinking/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/m...ation-of-bad-mothers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
However if you want to establish that a foetus under 20 weeks is a "person" then that person should have the indicators of a member of a society i.e. birth certificate and if in the event of death - funeral and death certificate
So where does this sort of legislation stop? Are you going to ban cigarette smoking in all women of "child bearing" age just in case one of them is pregnant?
So where does this sort of legislation stop? Are you going to ban cigarette smoking in all women of "child bearing" age just in case one of them is pregnant?
