News Article: Obama Lifts Ban on Abortions
- Thread starter CrimsonNan
- Start date
Like everyone else that survived I had my Clinton Elian Gonzalez Commie uiniform on that day. Only regular Americans were murdered.
Nice intellectual response to my post.
cheers
I'll tell you what's intellectual...using Obama's decision to change our tactics in fighting terrorism as a factor in questioning his Christianity.
And that is the biggest part of the problem. We, as a society, have taken this and other issues and tried to handle them with philosophical and hypothetical gloves. We want to handle it this way and wrap it up in a neat little box using all sorts of philosophical arguments and hypothetical situations and end up treating it as some philosophical or fantastical idea to be considered, and not as a reality.
We get into layers and layers of arguments and definitions, conditions, and hypothetical situations. And the issue becomes more and more complex, more and more unrecognizable.
The reality is that when you break it down to it's smallest parts, one human is making a choice that prevents another human from living theirs.
You said that if you put a fetus on a table it doesn't live, but an infant does. Not unless you feed it. If you put an infant on a table and choose not to feed it, it dies.
There are any number of factors that could cause a fetus not to make it to term. There are just as many factors or incidents that could prevent an infant from seeing it's first birthday. Some of those are natural, some of those require human intervention.
Take the fetus in the womb and the infant on the table. As long as the people involved do what is expected to assist life (e.g. feed the baby) and no one makes a choice to do something to hinder life, then barring any natural disasters both will go on to live a possibly happy and productive life. For that not to happen, again barring natural issues, a human would have to make a choice to do something to hinder that life.
Abortion is a choice that hinders life. It prevents life. Therefore abortion is, by definition, taking away life. When life officially occurs for that fetus is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you take that away before or after it "officially", "scientifically", or "biologically" begins, or even after it is born. When you make a choice that takes away the rest of a life that child could live or prevents them from living it, then you are taking away life.
And yet the system is full of children in need of a home. The operative word in your post is "baby". Those 2 million are holding out for a healthy infant, and won't accept older children, or children with mental of physical issues.
Last edited:
Thanks (seriously) for acknowledging that there are available homes for the babies that are presently being aborted. Obviously, the older children and children with mental and physical issues were not aborted.
Care to respond to my point? If there are so many available homes, why are there so many children stuck in the system? How many of those children will you take?
That's debatable, but a different subject. The point is that we don't control our tax dollars to say where they go and what they are used for as a country. Many on here have problems with funding education for non-citizens and abortion. While others have problems with funding GW's revenge quest against Sadaam Hussein and other conservative policies.
I've heard this argument before and it is the silliest thing ever. Not everyone who believes abortion to be immoral is in a position to adopt anything, sometimes not even a pet. Also, it is not that easy to adopt. My morals are not subject to "conditions".
Sure. I didn't respond to that part because we're talking about kids who are older than infants, meaning it's a separate subject from abortion.
Those kids are without parents for one of at least 3 reasons:
1. Parent(s) incarcerated and/or deemed unfit by the court
2. Parent(s) deceased, and no one else available to take the kids in
3. Parent(s) one day just up and abandoned the kids after already raising them partway.
None of that has anything to do with the abortion issue.
As for how many I'll take, give me about two years. Then I'll be in a position where I can. Really, I'm not joking!
I
It's On A Slab
Guest
Just using the semantics game against those who think they've got the word cornered.
I'm not surrendering any real estate.
I
It's On A Slab
Guest
And for all those 2 million couples, there are plenty of foster kids out there, but they're not as "desirable".
The last I looked humans weren't endangered.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
One thing to remember on that, is that many of these looking to adopt are young and/or first time couples.
Just like there is a growing and learning process for children, there is a growing and learning process for parents. Parents learn how to parent their children as they grow. Ask any foster parent and they'll tell you that a first time parent needs to start with a baby, not a five or eight year old child. Those children need to go into stable homes with parents who already have or have had children. Unfortunately the player pool there is much, much smaller than parents looking to adopt their first child.
Regardless, the issue of the existence of foster kids has little to do with abortion. Very few of those kids, if any, were put up for adoption instead being aborted and just ended up in the system. They were put into the system after the fact.
My cousin and her husband have had an interesting trip down this road. After a few years trying to get pregnant, injecting hormones and the whole lot, my cousin was told that she would never be able to get pregnant. So they started looking into adoption. They wanted a baby, but the waiting list was almost like the one for Tide Pride. They decided to try a program that let them become foster parents, well, let them try and decide if it was something for them. They got a couple older kids (4 and 7, I think) who needed a home while they were being processed into the system. They spent several months with them, until a more permanent home was found. They could have had the option of trying to adopt or keep the kids as foster children, but they decided that is was too much too fast for them as parents. So, they decided to try and wait for a baby. After about two years of waiting, my cousin woke up pregnant. The doctors told her it would never happen, but it did. They're going to look at foster or adoption down the road, as they do want more than one child and can't count on getting pregnant again. However they, as most first-time parents, need to go through the process of raising a baby before they'll be able to handle an older child coming in.
If you ask social workers they'll tell you that while they appreciate a couple wanting to get a child out of the system, first-time parents rarely work out as foster parents of older children for that very reason. They're just not ready.
Oh, and if half of the 1 to 1.5 million babies that are aborted each year were instead given birth and placed for adoption, it would still be years for the waiting list to catch up, assuming more people don't sign up to adopt.
Personally, I know at least a dozen or so families who would be willing, who would want, to adopt an infant if there was availability. They haven't signed up for adoption because of the waiting list. But they don't show up in the numbers wanting to adopt. There are millions and millions of people wanting to adopt an infant.
And there are a million or so babies that are denied life every year simply because it's not convenient.
Latest threads
-
No. 2 Seed Alabama Falls 5-3 to No. 3 Seed Miami to Open the Hattiesburg Regional- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
What if "Deep State" really doesn't exist? (link)- Started by Its On A Slab
- Replies: 5
-
-
News Article: SEC increase fine to 500K for rushing the field- Started by Elefantman
- Replies: 4
-
