Abortion

[Brite]

Slaskia

 

You are young and I understand your way of thinking. I read what you posted and all you are doing is putting a bandaid on the irresponsible people having sex and not using anything to stop getting pregnant, so that is easy, I can just have an abortion, so what. The thing is, the irresponsible things people do today, are not held responsible for their actions and it is getting worse and worse, just like crime is. Live and let live is the younger generations way of thinking these days. I am not old by any means. I was once your age, lol.

 

Look at all the people on Welfare, and have child after child, why should my hard earned money have to take care of them for thier ignorance!!!

Your money going to their welfare for having a kid after kid, yet you don't want abortion funded that could help out with the welfare case. HRMMM

[~Kat~]

Your money going to their welfare for having a kid after kid, yet you don't want abortion funded that could help out with the welfare case. HRMMM

Not for ignorance and irresponsible people I do not.

 

I am sick of paying for the idiots who do not want to work, and could care less about their actions that make other people have to pay for their stupidity.

[ShinyTomato]

Not for ignorance and irresponsible people I do not.

 

I am sick of paying for the idiots who do not want to work, and could care less about their actions that make other people have to pay for their stupidity.

You do realise that only 8% of abortions are "irresponsible" people who knew it was possible for them to get pregnant and didn't bother with birth control, right?

 

And no federal money, once again, funds abortion.

 

And, only 2-3% of the children given up for adoption (when people actually have the money to do it) are actually adopted. The rest stay in the system until they die or age out, statistically going through at least one abusive foster home.

[Fuzzbucket]

Not for ignorance and irresponsible people I do not.

 

I am sick of paying for the idiots who do not want to work, and could care less about their actions that make other people have to pay for their stupidity.

Let's hope you are never out of work and suffer a burst condom one day.

 

Never mind - you can have YOUR taxes go to nuclear weapons and suchlike, which I in NO WAY support, and mine can fund abortions (not that they ARE tax funded, and not that I am in the US anyway - but still.)

 

Hypothecated taxes. Great idea. In principle....

 

You come over as so compassionate there...

[Alpha1]

I like their concept of FLO (Future like ours) To determine whether or not abortion is ethical and moral. Under their theories abortion is justifiable when these circumstances are met.

 

I don’t. It’s like a glorified version of the common simplistic potentiality argument that people make. It makes the argument that the loss of a fetus is as great as the loss of an adult human being which is ridiculous. If it works to show that a fetus can have a “future like ours”, and it’s wrong to kill the fetus based on this, then the same could be said about an unfertilized egg or sperm.

 

  Same woman, but she chooses to carry -- the fetus later becomes a parasitic mass, around week 24.

 

That’s not cool

 

Is the abortion in A still murder? It wasn't a parasitic mass yet, but in scenario B, there is no way it can become a human being. So is it murder if it was never going to be human in the first place?

 

The problem is that they contend that it is a human organism at conception, which probably means that they think ensoulment happens at conception.

 

Hypothetical time! What if they could monitor a fetus and have a 100% success rate of determining if it will turn into a parasitic mass? Would it be murder then?

 

Wouldn’t it be better arguing what happens at conception?

 

Twinning is the most common example used, but there are also chimeras.

 

 

I think that is a big issue with the modern idea of soul at conception, which is why organisations like the Vatican tended to flip flop.

 

More commonly mentioned is the fact that 30-50% of all fertilized eggs will never develop fully. Who wants to baptize the menstrual flow?

 

Anyway, here's what I think:

 

Any point drawn during the pregnancy is arbitrary. There's more than a handful that I've seen people use in order to draw a line. The pro-life side looks at this and is repulsed by it.

 

It’s analogous to speed limits or the voting age. Why can’t I go 1 mph faster? In order for it to be moral, pro-lifers believe it can't be arbitrary, but they don’t realize that going back to protecting fertilized eggs is like letting people go as fast as they want on the road because "it's arbitrary if we don't".

 

And, only 2-3% of the children given up for adoption (when people actually have the money to do it) are actually adopted. The rest stay in the system until they die or age out, statistically going through at least one abusive foster home.

 

Shiny, I have a question on this.

 

http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/49

 

It's saying that about half stay in foster care for a year and less. Only 11% for five or more years. Am I overlooking something?

[ShinyTomato]

Shiny, I have a question on this.

 

http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/49

 

It's saying that about half stay in foster care for a year and less. Only 11% for five or more years. Am I overlooking something?

 

Yes.

 

That's all children in foster care, Alpha. Or rather, children adopted from foster care. The majority of children in foster care stay a short time in care solely because it's not a "given over to the state via adoption" case. It's "The state takes custody because of endangerment."

 

In which cases, usually a relative for friend will eventually adopt or be given kinship care, or the parents come back. THOSE are the majority of foster care cases. Unfortunately, abuse, neglect and endangerment are ar more common than children given up for adoption.

 

This study also concerns it self solely with those "who are adopted from foster care." So the numbers are very skewed.

 

Also, that's solely through the ACF federal level, not factoring in state agencies that choose not to associate with the ACF as satellite arms.

Edited July 31, 2012 by ShinyTomato

[Alpha1]

Yes.

 

That's all children in foster care, Alpha. Or rather, children adopted from foster care. The majority of children in foster care stay a short time in care solely because it's not a "given over to the state via adoption" case. It's "The state takes custody because of endangerment."

 

Okay, that makes sense. I had mentioned it on another site before and didn't know what to say to the criticism. Interestingly, I weaseled my way out when I found an article that said internationally only 2% get adopted.

[Dragonshadows]

Hey guys? I was adopted and those statistics aren't exactly accurate.

The parents giving their child up for adoption may choose to go to an adoption center where people who want to adopt the babies are waiting. The parents basically interview them and then make the decision on which set of potential parents should get the baby (this is before the baby is born). My brother also was adopted through the same system, and I know a lot of these centers run in the US. Maybe other countries bring the international rate down to 2% but even then, most of these kids aren't in foster homes. Look at the poor parts of Africa. In some places, there's no adults to run a foster home, or adopt anyone for that matter.

So it's not just because of foster homes that people don't get adopted. ^^

 

And...forcing the woman to give birth, whom will then likely neglect/abuse the resulting kid, if not leave it in a dumpster somewhere to die, is any better? 

 

"There's adoption!" I can hear you say.  Yeah...about that, our adoption system here in the USA is a piece of -bleep-.  First off, the kid pretty much has to be a perfect, white baby to have the best chance of getting adopted in the first place.  Not white?  Have a disbility of some kind?  Chances drop dramatically.  Chances continue to drop the older the kid gets as well, cause adoptees usually want a baby, not an older kid.

 

Not helping is the adoption process itself.  Many places have restrictions on what kids you are allowed to adopt:  race is a big one, but I believe religion (or lack thereof) is  factor as well.  Marriage status and sexual orientation are also limiting factors (gays and singles are usually shown the door).

 

Then of course, there's the pickiness of the agents themselves whom may do everything in their power to not let you have that kid in the first place.  My adoption was an example of that:  my parents had to move to another STATE before they could adopt me because the agent they were dealing with in Calf was a -bleep- that did NOT want them to adopt me.  And here's the kicker:  it was my grandparents that wanted to adopt me!

 

Fix the adoption/foster care system first and maybe we'll talk about restricting the 8% or so of the women that use abortion as their birthcontrol.  Actually...before I'll even consider it then: allow women that absolutely, without a doubt never wants to have kids to have themselves sterilized without being forced to be 35 and/or have kids already first, then we'll talk.

Also, my brother isn't white. And my brother's birthmom was single and hadn't converted yet. My brother has ADD too.

Edited July 31, 2012 by NixAyum

[ShinyTomato]

Hey guys? I was adopted and those statistics aren't exactly accurate.

 

Yes, they are. You were not a state adoption, from the sounds of it. It sounds like you were adopted through an agency, which is an entirely different animal.

 

I'm talking about state adoptions, not agency adoptions or private adoptions. Those are for people who can afford much more, but even then it's not great.

 

Only 2-3% of children given up for adoption will be adopted. (2010 Social Services Survey and Census of Adoption and Foster Systems in the United States)

 

Also, my brother isn't white

 

In state adoption, race is an issue. They will not place a non-white baby with a white couple, or vice versa, in most states, without some pretty amazing reasons. As a social worker I can't even adopt in my state because the chances of a Native American or Romani baby coming into the system to "match" us is slim to impossible.

[prairiecrow]

These are the people that don't use contraceptives that I am talking about. They have sex and oh well, if they get pregnant, I will just have an abortion. Well do it on your own dime and not mine!!!

So, you're saying that you'd condemn the mother (I notice you seem to only be talking about women here ) to a minimum eighteen year sentence for the crime of sexual immorality and ignorance? (And perhaps also for being poor, since I seem to detect more than a hint of disgust in your tone toward people who aren't at least middle class; please, let me be wrong about that!)

 

Plus, you'd trust a woman who couldn't (in your opinion) figure out birth control with the task of raising a happy, healthy child?

 

I do apologize, sincerely, but I'm failing to see the logic here. Many MURDERERS don't even receive an eighteen year sentence, and they're not responsible for a child in the meantime. This just strikes me as a recipe for disaster, and one that, if it could possibly be avoided, should be avoided from a utilitarian point of view. Under those circumstances, surely having both comprehensive sex education AND access to birth control would be an unmitigated good, not to mention the option of abortion if all else fails?

Edited July 31, 2012 by prairiecrow

[hazeh]

Even through agencies adoption can be a huge hassle. My parents adopted my little sister when she was 18 months old through and agency. She's not white, has health issues, and was adopted to white lesbian moms. There was issues with her foster mother and the adoption and then the social workers on the case were being incredible incompetent (except for ours, thankfully). It took us almost a full year to actually adopt this child, and we weren't even the first choice in family for her social worker. We only got to adopt her because the previous adoptive family backed out after problems with the foster mother.

 

And it took us two years to get placed with any child at all, since even in California, workers were hesitant to place a kid with a family that had gay parents (even though I was a perfect example of how great of parents they were). The only reason Tava got matched with us in the first place was because one of my moms is a nurse.

 

It can takes years to get a house certified for adoption, it takes a lot of money, and it takes incredible will power. Especially when the biological parents' rights haven't been terminated yet (which is something we also had issues with a little bit). Adoption is NOT an easy process at all, for child and adoptive parents alike. Some people are lucky enough to make it through with out too much issue. But for the majority, the system is too screwed up and often has negative impacts on the children.

 

Take my aunts and uncles, for example. About ten years ago, my grandparents started to foster older children. They ended up with a sibling set of four all ranging in ages and adopted them after about six months. But I cannot even begin to describe to you the issues these kids had gone through in their lives. It is emotionally and mentally damaging for those kids. One of them ended up getting himself killed too, and he was 19. (He was my buddy...)

 

So no, the adoption system is not a bunch of sugar-coated sprinkles and rainbows. It's straining, its hurtful, and its screwed up.

[lightbird]

I recently read Sex and God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality, a book by Darrel W. Ray.

It mentioned how the most religious areas in the United States have the highest consumption of pornography and the highest numbers of unwanted pregnancies and/or abortions. Which probably has been mentioned, but I thought it interesting how the book mentions that the main difference between engaging in sex between religious and unreligious people is the guilt associated with the fact, not the prevalence of sexual activity.

 

One woman contributed a story about how she would risk getting pregnant by not using any contraception, because using any would mean that she planned on "sinning", whereas if she avoided contraception, she could lie to herself about how she succumbed to passion, and according to the author it seems like a common case amongst the religious in the USA, especially fundie Christians. I don't know whether I want to be sad or just facepalm. .____.

 

Anyway, that book was one darn good read and I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in how religion affects sexuality.

Edited August 1, 2012 by lightbird

[CatCreature]

Hm, I went to see if I'm able to buy that book in my country. I can but I ordered four books yesterday so I'm putting this one on my wishlist. It wasn't expensive so I might buy it later.

 

Thanks for the tip.

[Kestra15]

Look at all the people on Welfare, and have child after child, why should my hard earned money have to take care of them for thier ignorance!!!

Look at it this way then; your money goes towards the abortions for health reasons.

[~Kat~]

Look at it this way then; your money goes towards the abortions for health reasons.

I am sick of paying for losers, who do not want to be responsilbe. I was responsible. I have 2 grown adult children now. My husband and I would have liked 3 children but we new at the time we could only afford 2.

 

I will not make excuses for the losers who will not do birth control and then cry when they can not afford to take care of it, or have an abortion, which I am against becasue they did not use protection. These type people only live for the moment and expect others to pay for them and think the world owes them as well.

 

I need my money for my own health problems, not to help for irrespoonsible losers.

[Kestra15]

I am sick of paying for losers, who do not want to be responsilbe. I was responsible. I have 2 grown adult children now. My husband and I would have liked 3 children but we new at the time we could only afford 2.

 

I will not make excuses for the losers who will not do birth control and then cry when they can not afford to take care of it, or have an abortion, which I am against becasue they did not use protection. These type people only live for the moment and expect others to pay for them and think the world owes them as well.

 

I need my money for my own health problems, not to help for irrespoonsible losers.

My sister is not a loser. She was faced with a choice; take the abortion and terminate her child, or she *and* the child dies. She took the abortion and that decision haunts her heavily.

 

You have argued before that going to church and being Christian makes you a good person - how can you make such sweeping statements about how good your way of life and your beliefs are, and then make such damning, insulting statements?

[brairtrainer]

^this

 

In my area though yes we have low-income people having kids younger and keeping them they actually typically have the average amount of kids for a household.

 

Also if anybody is getting an abortion its the upper-middle class that are getting abortions here and more for their sanity than anything. There are several sterotypes that come with abortion, and just as with all sterotypes they are not true 100% of the time.

 

I understand your point and why you stick by it ~kat~. I just think that your wide generalizations and your sweeping statements are not helping your argument.

[lightbird]

I am sick of paying for losers, who do not want to be responsilbe. I was responsible. I have 2 grown adult children now. My husband and I would have liked 3 children but we new at the time we could only afford 2.

 

I will not make excuses for the losers who will not do birth control and then cry when they can not afford to take care of it, or have an abortion, which I am against becasue they did not use protection. These type people only live for the moment and expect others to pay for them and think the world owes them as well.

 

I need my money for my own health problems, not to help for irrespoonsible losers.

...because contraception doesn't always work and because some people can't handle pregnancy, whether for physical and psychological reasons?

 

I'm not sure where you come from, but if you're from the States, you should be grateful that at least SOME health/family planning isues are covered by tax money, with your appalling lack of universal health care over there. As well as your appalling sex education, often coloured by religious bias, which teaches abstinence only and little about the various contraception options.

 

Not everyone is lucky enough to actually be taught about these things.

 

And I agree with Kestra, I thought that Christians were supposed to be compassionate and abstain from judging other people. :b

Edited August 2, 2012 by lightbird

[prairiecrow]

I am sick of paying for losers, who do not want to be responsilbe. I was responsible. I have 2 grown adult children now. My husband and I would have liked 3 children but we new at the time we could only afford 2.

 

I will not make excuses for the losers who will not do birth control and then cry when they can not afford to take care of it, or have an abortion, which I am against becasue they did not use protection. These type people only live for the moment and expect others to pay for them and think the world owes them as well.

 

I need my money for my own health problems, not to help for irrespoonsible losers.

I notice you haven't addressed the questions I raised. Let me post them again:

 

So, you're saying that you'd condemn the mother (I notice you seem to only be talking about women here ) to a minimum eighteen year sentence for the crime of sexual immorality and ignorance? (And perhaps also for being poor, since I seem to detect more than a hint of disgust in your tone toward people who aren't at least middle class; please, let me be wrong about that!)

 

Plus, you'd trust a woman who couldn't (in your opinion) figure out birth control with the task of raising a happy, healthy child?

 

I do apologize, sincerely, but I'm failing to see the logic here. Many MURDERERS don't even receive an eighteen year sentence, and they're not responsible for a child in the meantime. This just strikes me as a recipe for disaster, and one that, if it could possibly be avoided, should be avoided from a utilitarian point of view. Under those circumstances, surely having both comprehensive sex education AND access to birth control would be an unmitigated good, not to mention the option of abortion if all else fails?

 

I'm sincerely interested in hearing your responses.

 

ETA: I should also point out that I'm using the phrase "sexual immorality and ignorance" above to mirror what I see as being ~Kat~'s point of view.

Edited August 2, 2012 by prairiecrow

[FyreT1ger]

I'm not sure where you come from, but if you're from the States, you should be grateful that at least SOME health/family planning isues are covered by tax money, with your appalling lack of universal health care over there. As well as your appalling sex education, often coloured by religious bias, which teaches abstinence only and little about the various contraception options.

 

This wasn't directed to me, but I am from the States and went to a required sex ed class in high school. In this class, abstinence was never mentioned at all. It was practically expected that teenagers would have sex and most teenagers did as expected, at least along those lines. Even though this class went through all the different types of contraceptives, not one which can ever be 100% effective, there were still STDs and pregnancies at this school. Another thing to remember is that NO contraceptive of any kind can prevent STDs.

 

What troubles me the most is that because of the expectation, some young people, boys or girls, might feel pressured to have sex even if they themselves aren't emotionally or psychologically ready for such. They might feel that something is wrong with them if they don't. This pressure can increase the number of teen pregnancies and possibly even abortions.

 

Abortion itself can't be entirely safe either, just like major surgery and could lead to other complications on top of whatever psychological or emotional trouble the pressured teenager already has. Doing this multiple times, as those who could use as their main birth control, increases the risks on all accounts. A teenager who felt uncomfortable in the first place probably wouldn't do that, but I don't think most women getting abortions are teenagers.

[hazeh]

 

Abortion itself can't be entirely safe either, just like major surgery and could lead to other complications on top of whatever psychological or emotional trouble the pressured teenager already has. Doing this multiple times, as those who could use as their main birth control, increases the risks on all accounts. A teenager who felt uncomfortable in the first place probably wouldn't do that, but I don't think most women getting abortions are teenagers.

Pregnancy and childbirth are more dangerous than abortion. Of course like you said, it's never going to be a 100% safe procedure, but for the most part it's pretty safe. So I think that if that was an issue, abortion would win out in terms of better choice almost always.

[Sorrowgrave]

Another thing to remember is that NO contraceptive of any kind can prevent STDs.

there's a chance that if condoms are used as intended and no fluids are exchanged then "yes" they techically do

but if the condom breaks, is used improperly or just fails then yeah it doesn't prevent.

 

 

and where did you go?

at my school they have a former Cathical school teacher giving the kids the sex is bad scare tech

[~Kat~]

Kestra15

 

If your sister was going to die, I have already said in earlier posts I can agree with abortion. I am sorry for your sister, hugs.

 

I am not sure how your sister got pregnant, but if someone is going to engage in intimate relations, be a responsible person and take precautions so you do not bring an unwanted baby into this world. They do not deserve to die because their parents chose to be irresponsible. Yes, I understand some of the methods can fail, but at least someone who is trying to prevent becoming pregnant, I can respect.

 

There is also adoption. It seems like no matter what soloution I put on here, someone is going to play devils advocate. Someone will say, but look at some of the kids who get adopted and abused. Well look at it this way, blame the irresponsible people for being intimate. Make them wake up, and abortion would go away for the most part. People can justify and use things to their advantage to suit them, lol.

 

brairtrainer

 

Thanks.

 

When people are about to do something, they know they should not be doing in the first place, this is not a generalization to me. If you can not take care of a child, well be responsible then. I am married, and I took precautions as we were not ready for a baby yet, come on, people need to wake up and get real here. The younger generation needs to grow up, and if they are going to play with fire, be aware. RIGHT IS RIGHT AND WRONG IS WRONG, what is so hard to understand about that!!!

 

lightbird

 

When these people decide to get a little bit more Christian that have these poor babies aborted, then I will not judge so harshly. Read above and it will answer some of your questions. People growing up, do ask where puppies, kittens and babies come from, come on.

 

I am compassionate to those that want to do right and try to help themselves and lead a better life, and bring theirselves up, not trash theirselves for a moments pleasure. There are some things that are called Morals and Ethics, look it up in the dictionary. Some of the younger genereation, not all, are lacking greatly in that area.

 

I taught both my boys about the bees and the birds from A to Z, I also taught them how to prevent having a baby as well. You know, it is just not the parents to consider, their are grandmothers and grandfathers, you see where I am going with this?

 

I am not talking about backward countries like Ethiopia. I live in the USA and we are not backwards that is for sure.

 

prairiecrow

 

You cna not compare a pregnant person to that of a murderer, please, that is a poor analagy. Does not matter if you are poor, middle class or rich, getting pregnant happenms all the time and they all have abortions, lol.

 

Read all the above I have posted please.

 

Funny, I never got pregnant till I wanted a baby, and same goes with others. Maybe I am and the others are Unique for not having an abortion or getting pregnant till we wanted to be. Just kidding.

 

FyreT1ger

 

My ex FIL was a dr, and he said abortion and multiple abortions are bad for a womans body. You are so right when you talk about surgeries and being put under. All sorts of things can happen, loss of life, a dropped foot and the list goes on, but I am sure most people are not aware of this.

 

 

Shiny Hazard Sign

 

It is all dangerous, anything can go wrong when delivering a baby or abortion or having any type of surgery. You have blood pressure, and the list goes on. Abortion does not win out at all.

 

 

 

[KageSora]

Maybe if we actually taught kids about sex and birth control in school (since parents are clearly not up to the task), and did so comprehensively, as well as stopped thinking that anybody who has sex who isn't married to somebody of the opposite sex and is attempting to have a child, then they'd actually be able/willing to use birth control.

 

 

Some places they know about it but refuse to buy it because of the judgmental glares and comments the get from people mentally condemning them for daring to have sex. Or who judge them because they think birth control is the work of the devil. Or who assume a girl is a because she's buying birth control when she actually uses it for medical reasons like helping with her periods.

 

Maybe, if more people stopped thinking "Sex is only for making babies!" and started comprehending the fact that sex has multiple purposes, they'd actually not be so nasty towards people who are having sex--and then they'd teach them about it properly, too.

 

And then, when they actually can get access to birth control and proper education on the matter without being judged badly, there will be less abortions.

Edited August 3, 2012 by KageSora

[~Kat~]

Maybe if we actually taught kids about sex and birth control in school (since parents are clearly not up to the task), and did so comprehensively, as well as stopped thinking that anybody who has sex who isn't married to somebody of the opposite sex and is attempting to have a child, then they'd actually be able/willing to use birth control.

 

 

Some places they know about it but refuse to buy it because of the judgmental glares and comments the get from people mentally condemning them for daring to have sex.  Or who judge them because they think birth control is the work of the devil.  Or who assume a girl is a because she's buying birth control when she actually uses it for medical reasons like helping with her periods.

 

Maybe, if more people stopped thinking "Sex is only for making babies!" and started comprehending the fact that sex has multiple purposes, they'd actually not be so nasty towards people who are having sex--and then they'd teach them about it properly, too.

 

And then, when they actually can get access to birth control and proper education on the matter without being judged badly, there will be less abortions.

I agree with you.

 

You made some excellent points,

Edited August 3, 2012 by ~Kat~