Stanek weekend question: Can pro-lifers work with pro-choicers to promote adoption?
Abortion proponent Christina Page wrote a piece May 6 in the Huffington Post entitled, “Should adoption be a reproductive right?”
Page started by claiming pro-lifers “insist” adoption as an “easy choice” for birth mothers, a charge I’d be interested in seeing Page back up. Page went on to equate adoption with abortion, thereby providing a niche for her side:
Just like women who choose abortion, women who make an adoption plan are subject to shame, coercion, misinformation, unfavorable laws, and the politicization of their choice. It is here that the reproductive rights movement may recognize a role for itself.
Page advocated promoting open adoption laws; enforcing open adoption laws; tightening up safe haven laws so they’re not abused by medical personnel/counselors; ensuring birth mothers have separate legal representation; and making gay, single, and nonreligious adoptive parents more accessible to birth mothers.
Do you think it is possible for the pro-life movement to work with the pro-abortion movement to promote adoption?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
No. It just can’t work. They also promote the killing of babies as an option just as legitimate. It’s not possible for us to work together and actually help women.
We can promote adoption much better without their “help”. Pro-abortionists generally see adoption as much worse of an alternative than abortion, and no doubt that message would come across to women they “help”.
Well..when we have people to deal with like Ms. Page… When we do whatever we can to make a case for life, and pro-aborts do whatever they can to have an excuse to KILL…hard to say.
Considering Planned Parenthoods adoption referrals, I think it would almost be a moot point. But all the well worth it I suppose. Showing those on the side of Choice that adoption is a much better option than abortion. Show them the difference in women who give their babies up for adoption and those who abort. Both feel empty, but at least one knows that her baby is still alive and being loved just as much as they could love their baby.
So what… we would be expected to funnel our money into pro-abort campaigns for “adoption”?
no I don’t think that. but I think that we could say hey lets work on this issue together…A challenge to the pro choicer to show us how adoption is worse than abortion…It’s not really possible I don’t think…
I think it is possible for us to work together to promote adoption. I don’t know how the gay adoption issue is going to work out, though. In my opinion, it’s really not a big enough of an issue for those of us who oppose gay adoption to worry ourselves with. We should not refuse to support an adoption agency that allows gay couples to adopt. While I might prefer that gay couples not adopt, it just isn’t that big of a deal – and let’s face it, given our culture’s current state, heterosexual couples are no more stable than homosexual unions, so in terms of the child’s well-being, the sexual orientation of the adopting couple is irrelevant.
“and let’s face it, given our culture’s current state, heterosexual couples are no more stable than homosexual unions”
I agree Austin. There are reasons for this too. . . . . . .
Where’s all this shame and misinformation and politicization coming from that she’s talking about? I think birth mothers who give their child for adoption are heroes. I certainly don’t think it’s an easy choice, or one made flippantly or without heartache. But I don’t buy for one second that it’s so much easier for a woman to live with abortion rather than letting her child live and be adopted.
We cannot look at abortion and adoption as opposite sides of the same coin. They aren’t in any way opposite equals. Abortion is always morally wrong because it kills a child. Therefore, it isn’t anyone’s “choice.” Adoption may not be easy, but it is a legitimate choice. Done out of love, it is life-giving, life-preserving, life-affirming, and a blessing.
The real question is “why would we want to do that”? If it’s “to build good will”, we’ve just surrendered any real respectability to which we’d otherwise have claim. Any attempt to work with them would only lend legitimacy to their murderous proclivities. We already do adoption; let’s not let them crap it up for us.
I think the question should be, “Can pro-choicers consider working with pro-lifers to promote adoption?” And the answer is most likely no. The majority of pro-choicers already see adoption as more difficult than abortion. They really do. And they’ve done an effective job of scaring expectant moms into aborting rather than placing their children for adoption.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard, “Oh, I could never give my baby away. I’m having an abortion!” I’d be filthy rich right now. CPC workers know exactly what I’m talking about.
You even have some pro-“lifers” – one who comments here in particular – who likes to remind us how a large number of serial killers were adopted. *eyeroll*
If the pro-choice consensus is that adoption is just too emotionally difficult for the mother, do you really think they’ll promote it? They have total disregard for unborn children. The only time they mention adoption is to say, “You only care about the unborn! What about the born babies? How many have YOU adopted? Until you adopt all the “unwanted” kids, you should just shut up!”
Pro-choicers who adopt children must have major cognitive dissonance – on one hand, they are saying they value adoption and their children, and on the other hand, they believe their adopted children’s moms had a perfectly acceptable right to kill them before they were born.
The side doing the compromising should be the babykilling side, thankyouverymuch. Until they can acknowledge that abortion is WORSE than adoption, there is no common ground. Period.
I think the bigger question is whether pro-choice (read: abortion) people can work with pro-life people to promote adoption. We already promote adoption, they do not.
Planned Parenthood’s own records show, Planned Parenthood provided prenatal services to merely 7,021 women and referred only 977 women for adoption services. These numbers were a 25 percent drop in prenatal care clients and a whopping 59 percent decline in adoption referrals from the 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008. The abortion business helped only 9,433 prenatal clients in 2008, down substantially from the 11,000 women it provided prenatal care to in 2007 — showing health care given to pregnant woman has fallen substantially over the years.
As a result, 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care. That’s up from 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood getting abortions in 2008.
See http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/23/new-planned-parenthood-report-record-abortions-done-in-2009/
Steve’s comment makes me think that people like Cristina Page are going to try to use the fact that pro-choice organizations “do” adoption referrals to justify funding those organizations (read: justify funding Planned Parenthood). They will probably claim that federal tax dollars can’t pay for abortion, and hope that no one notices that those funds are used to build clinics that do perform them, etc. They will also hope no one notices that tax dollars which those organizations receive do pay for infanticide, because they subsidize the birth control pill for poor women; and since the public generally considers that to be “contraception” rather than “abortion” or “infanticide”, a lot of people will fall for it.
We need to be careful here…
I’ve never heard prolifers say adoption is an easy choice for the birth mom. Sounds like a straw man to me.
As for working together, why? Would it result in more women at risk of aborting their baby making the choice to place their baby for adoption? Would it mean more kids get a chance at life with a mom and dad? If so, I’d work alongside anyone.
But my guess is that prochoicers aren’t too interested in adoption. Until their attitudes about adoption and real numbers of adoption placements start to change, this is kind of an idea going nowhere.
Emotionally, I don’t think hardcore prochoicers are really ready to promote adoption and face what that means about the violence of abortion, about how it is a choice for kliling a human being who someone else is waiting to love.
But that some of them are talking about it is a good sign that pressure is on abortion supporters to at least talk about choices/solutions other than death.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard, “Oh, I could never give my baby away. I’m having an abortion!” I’d be filthy rich right now.
Kel, I thought of that too, reading through the posts coming down to yours. It’s certainly a case-by-case basis, but I do think some women feel that way.
Emotionally, I don’t think hardcore prochoicers are really ready to promote adoption and face what that means about the violence of abortion, about how it is a choice for killing a human being who someone else is waiting to love.
Mary Ann, I don’t think the facts of abortion are all that much at issue, certainly not compared to the arguing over the morality of it. I fully agree that the unborn, here, are human beings, living, and that abortion kills them, and that (sometimes at least) they would be later adopted by somebody who would love them. I really don’t have a problem with adoption – it’s obviously a really good thing when the relationship works out well, the parents wanting a kid and the kid wanting/needing parents.
My only question is how far the “promoting” would go.
Hey, where did Steven Tyler go?
No, there isn’t any way we could work together because Christians are always required to lower our standards and one standard I would not lower is the value of a Mother and a Father for this child. No Homosexual adoptions would be acceptable and that is a deal breaker for them.
Also, I would venture to say that adoption is like abortion in one way, if the mother knows she has support, she usually wants to keep her child (not always) but she is coerced by her parents or boyfriend into relinquishing her rights or made to think that she doesn’t have the mental or physical capability to keep her child with her and still “make it.”
Of course there are instances when adoption is a God send and should be an option, but it can be a very coercive situation as well.
PS: I am not against adoption, I just see how women can be manipulated in both fronts.
First we have to identify the differences on the pro-abortion side. There are the truly pro-choice, and then there are the hard core pro-aborts, who use the term “choice” as a cheap PR trick.
The truly pro-choice can work with us on adoption, although there might be some scraps with them about whether gays should be allowed to adopt.
The hard core pro-aborts are viciously anti-adoption. With them there can be no working together. They want as many abortions, and as much money for the abortion industry as possible. It’s all about sales with them, and adoption is a financial competition to the abortion industry. They object to, and want to eliminate, anything that decreases the number of abortions, or gives women in need real alternatives to abortion.
The truly pro-choice, we can work with. The hard core pro-aborts, no we can’t. They won’t want to work with us on adoption anyway. They just want to work to outlaw it, along with anything else that might give women in crisis pregnancies an alternative to abortion.
Ceclilia: “The hard core pro-aborts, no we can’t. They won’t want to work with us on adoption anyway. They just want to work to outlaw it”
This kind of stuff, IMO, is silly. Come on, “outlaw abortion”?
Hal, hope you see this. Seems to me the thread including Steven Tyler has vanished, and I’ve searched for your comment back to the beginning of this month and cannot find it.
I’m not even sure that was where you posted it, but I believe you said you were against abortion for sex-selection. Okay, I pretty much am too, yet that certainly raises the question of why, exactly?
Presumably, early enough in gestation, we’d both be for abortion just on the say-so of the woman or the couple involved. So, what if sex-selection is the reason?
“and making gay, single, and nonreligious adoptive parents more accessible to birth mothers.”
Birth mothers generally don’t want those folks as parents for their kids.
Doug, that is a very good question.
Here’s the money quote:
“Any attempt to work with them would only lend legitimacy to their murderous proclivities.”
Bravo!
They just want to co opt the good we do, without really promoting adoption at all. If we let them in the door, they will quickly try to take all of the credit for any good that comes of it and try to use it as a way to get more funding for their evil. They want on the adoption bandwagon to funnel funds to themselves. It is far easier to destroy organizations from the inside than from the outside. They just want in to destroy. Once folks start baby killing, one thing leads to another and before you know it, they are jay walking and backdating checks.
Doug, that is a very good question.
Hey Bethany!
“This kind of stuff, IMO, is silly. Come on, “outlaw abortion”? Well, uh, have another drink of wine, Doug…
I meant, “Come on, “outlaw adoption”?
(A few minutes later….) Oh, Bethany, now I get it – concerning sex-selection.
Yes, it’s an interesting thing, because I think there it gets into a necessary consideration of the unborn.
Once folks start baby killing, one thing leads to another and before you know it, they are jay walking and backdating checks.
Hippie, I doubt you meant it this way, but that sentence just cracked me up.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard, “Oh, I could never give my baby away. I’m having an abortion!” I’d be filthy rich right now. CPC workers know exactly what I’m talking about.
Kel,
I’m not a CPC worker and I know exactly what you’re talking about because in my conversations/arguments/debates with pro-choice/pro-aborts everytime I brought up adoption at least one person would say “Oh no, you can’t expect a woman who carried a baby and bonded to give her baby away! Such-and-such woman had a horrible experience with adoption, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…” They totally discount all the examples of adoption I give them (which is several, including relatives and friends I know who are adopted) but apparently it’s supposed to be just fine that they abort their baby.
I’m going to have to agree with the general tone of no, with qualifications.
“Work with” implies a close relationship with regards to the issue at hand, in this case adoption. And while promoting adoption is certainly a good thing, and I would love to see more abortion friendly organizations do just that, any promotion that abortion defenders do of adoption would take place in an environment that also legitimizes abortion. Any pro-lifer who worked for or with that organization would have to, at least, be willing to promote adoption in that sort of a space. By the same token, pro-life organizations–most of which already promote adoption, as has been mentioned–are not the sort that are willing to legitimize abortion. And abortion apologist working with them would have to be willing to do so in that sort of a space. I don’t see that bridge being crossed by either side.
However, if you mean “work with” in the sense of acknowledging that this is a place where common ground might be shared and the two sides may occasionally find themselves working towards similar or even the same goal from time-to-time, then sure. Obviously there is common ground to be found here, at least with some. Certainly adoption can be less stigmatized and made less painful for some women. If we happen to find pro-choice people working along those lines too, cool beans. I can’t imagine anyone getting upset about that, really.
What exactly does “work with them” mean? Does it mean that they get to run the adoption agency, counsel the women and help match babies to the adoptive parents? If so my answer would be a resounding NO! Why would we trust them to do any of that knowing what sort of thinking goes on in those camps. On the other hand if “work” with them means that we accept referrals from them for women wanting to place a child for adoption then the answer would be yes. But it would have to be a no strings attached deal. They send us the women and we do the rest. It’s never going to happen though because they probably don’t want us nut case right-wing religious zealot heterosexual marrying pro-lifers influencing the women any more than we want them influencing them.
http://www.shoutingitloud.com/
Doug wrote: “(A few minutes later….) Oh, Bethany, now I get it – concerning sex-selection.Yes, it’s an interesting thing, because I think there it gets into a necessary consideration of the unborn. ”
Good to see you, Doug. :) I am very interested in what your thoughts are regarding why you and Hal both have the same feelings about sex selection abortion vs abortion based on the decision of the mother for other reasons. Do you have any ideas why that might be?
A big part of the problem is that proaborts are more concerned about the emotional toll of adoption on themselves (remember, it’s all about ME, how will it effect ME) they love their strawmen about how we treat adoption as some cavalier choice. Next time they ask you how many you’ve adopted, ask them how many they’ve murdered and watch how quiet it gets. A huge part of why kids are waiting to be adopted in the first place is the throwaway prochoice culture that dehumanizes them to commodities before birth. Our system of adoption in the US is in need of serious reform, but it’s never going to be a priority until killng children before birth is no longer an option. When Roe is overturned the borties will change their tune on adoption pretty quickly. ‘I could never give up my child for adoption! But I could sure have it dismembered before birth!’ Insane.
Bethany, it’s a very interesting question (sex-selection), IMO, same as for otherwise pro-lifers allowing abortion exceptions in case of rape. There are some things that are unquestionably the same, while other things in the situation are different.
For me personally, there indeed is a utilitarian aspect to it – we already see the effect of sex-selection, whether by abortion or other methods, in cultures where male kids are preferred. China, areas of India, etc. It comes down to an “is it worth it?” question and past a point for me the answer is no. Where is the greater good being served? I suppose that’s the question that most of us (hopefully) ask ourselves.
___
Jill Guidry: A big part of the problem is that proaborts are more concerned about the emotional toll of adoption on themselves (remember, it’s all about ME, how will it effect ME) they love their strawmen about how we treat adoption as some cavalier choice.
Pfft…. Has nothing necessarily to do with pro-choicers. I’ve never gotten anybody pregnant, and my wife has had a hysterectomy. Ain’t gonna be no pregnancies happenin’ here.
Many pro-lifers do understand what the impact of an unwanted pregnancy can be on a girl or woman, and good for them. In no way is it a “strawman” to note that it’s not uniformly that way for pro-lifers.
Good to see you, Doug. I am very interested in what your thoughts are regarding why you and Hal both have the same feelings about sex selection abortion vs abortion based on the decision of the mother for other reasons. Do you have any ideas why that might be?
Bethany, I haven’t found a pro-abort yet that could answer that question about “is sex-selcetive abortion ok” but it sure is fun to watch em squirm when you do.
Truthseeker, what I found really interesting was that DOUG was the one asking the question! Never seen that question coming from the other side before. :)
Doug wrote: “Bethany, it’s a very interesting question (sex-selection), IMO, same as for otherwise pro-lifers allowing abortion exceptions in case of rape. There are some things that are unquestionably the same, while other things in the situation are different.”
I agree with you (again – freaky!) that it is a contradiction to allow rape exceptions if you call yourself a pro-lifer. I do not consider those who allow exceptions for rape to be pro-life or to truly understand why abortion is wrong in the first place.
The situation of rape does not remove the reality that the baby is still innocent and still does not deserve to die.
Doug wrote: “For me personally, there indeed is a utilitarian aspect to it – we already see the effect of sex-selection, whether by abortion or other methods , in cultures where male kids are preferred. China, areas of India, etc. It comes down to an “is it worth it?” question and past a point for me the answer is no. Where is the greater good being served? I suppose that’s the question that most of us (hopefully) ask ourselves.”
Why isn’t it worth it, Doug? Why could a greater good not be being served when a person chooses to abort based on gender?
Truthseeker, it’s a good question, same as for the exception that many pro-lifers make for cases of rape. You, as much as anybody, should realize that, per the most honest post you ever made.
It’s not a matter of “squirming,” it’s realizing that the situation can and often does make a big difference. Last I saw, 80% of Americans would allow abortion in cases of rape. Well okay, if we say the half the people are pro-lifers, then that means that ~ 60% of them would make that exception. This is how we feel. That’s what the abortion debate is.
Doug, are there circumstances that would make rape okay?
Let me clarify by adding, “Are there circumstances that would make rape okay, provided that 80 percent of people agreed that those circumstances made rape acceptable”?
Also, why is rape wrong? Is it wrong because:
a.) It violates the rights of another human being or
b.) it doesn’t serve a greater good.
I agree with you (again – freaky!) that it is a contradiction to allow rape exceptions if you call yourself a pro-lifer. I do not consider those who allow exceptions for rape to be pro-life or to truly understand why abortion is wrong in the first place.
:: laughing :: Ah Bethany, there have been many other times when you and I have agreed. Probably didn’t remark on it – after all it’s the disagreements that usually prompt us to post. : D And of course I think you are a great person and one of the best mothers that are, maybe the best mothers that could ever be. : ) And your husband is one heck of a lucky guy.
As far as I can see, most pro-lifers – those who are generally against legal abortion – would still allow abortion in cases of rape, thus while I see what you think, it’s hard for me to agree that they are not truly “pro-life” just because they may disagree with you on the one point. That “wrong” you mention is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder, in the perception of “somebody.”
___
The situation of rape does not remove the reality that the baby is still innocent and still does not deserve to die.
I can dig that, but the pro-choice argument is not generally that the unborn are “guilty.” For that matter, the talk of the unborn being “parasites” and “interlopers” etc. – I regard as foolish.
____
Doug wrote: “For me personally, there indeed is a utilitarian aspect to it – we already see the effect of sex-selection, whether by abortion or other methods , in cultures where male kids are preferred. China, areas of India, etc. It comes down to an “is it worth it?” question and past a point for me the answer is no. Where is the greater good being served? I suppose that’s the question that most of us (hopefully) ask ourselves.”
Why isn’t it worth it, Doug? Why could a greater good not be being served when a person chooses to abort based on gender?
I’m not saying it would be impossible, Bethany. If, as seems to be the case in some areas of China and India (in my relatively little knowledge of the issue) there is a huge developing problem with too many boys being born, then if anything I’d say that correcting back the other way would be good, at least to some extent.
What I see actually happening is a cultural effect (the preference for boys) making the imbalance (boys over girls) worse and worse, and it’s pretty obvious to pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike that this is going to cause big problems, going to be against “the greater good,” and in view of that, I’m not surprised that Hal is against it, as am I (in general) while realizing that it’s not necessarily consistent as far as “dogma.”
Asking, can pro-lifers work with pro-choices to promote adoption is like saying: “Should normal people work alongside people that like to chop babies up into pieces and sell their body parts to promote a good cause?”.
I don’t think pro-lifers should work with serial killers that like to murder babies even if it is for a good cause like adoption. Hopefully people that aid and abet child-killers will be tried in Nuremberg style proceedings, locked up or executed. Then pro-lifers can work with pro-lifers to promote adoption.
As an adoptee, I would be in favor of working together where possible to promote adoption, as long it gave preference to married (one man, one woman) homes and did not involve anything that would tend to support abortion as an acceptable alternative. Let’s face it, couples wanting to adopt face a lot of legal and financial hurdles and I think we might be able to work together to ease some of those. Also, pro-aborts have done a pretty good job of stigmatizing the idea of giving up a baby for adoption, so if they would be willing to help with destigmatizing it, that would be good. It would certainly be an uneasy partnership, but if we could find ways to work together to save lives rather than taking them, it would be a positive step. I know I personally am very glad, for one very obvious reason, that my mother chose to place me for adoption rather than aborting me. And I didn’t turn out all messed up, either. Honors grad from a top college, successful career, happily married, generally happy life. Sure beats being dead. If someone wants to work with me to give others the same chance, I will certainly consider taking them up on it.
God says, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” And in Ephesians He says, ”Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”. I think that He knows what He’s talking about.
Hey Doug! :)
The Steven Tyler post is here: https://www.jillstanek.com/2011/05/proliferations-5-4-11/
It would gall me to legitimize their fake terms like “reproductive rights.”
Basically, pro-choicers have had 40 years to help promote adoption and instead they fight for laws like the one in New York City that are passed with the express purpose of making abortion easier than adoption. They have fought CPC’s every way they could and tried to ridicule and pigeon hole all pro-lifers. We are already working to save lives. They work to destroy them.
Doug,
It has to be more then just feeling though. My reason for the rape exception exists because it is the ONLY time a woman doesn’t really have a choice to engage in activity that could get her pregnant. That is a very clear cut material reason for the exception.
Why do you believe sex-selective abortion wronger then abortion without tesing for sex first? Sounds like you would be giving personhood/anti-discrimination rights to the unborn.
Doug,
Maybe Steven Tyler can help us answer this sex-selective abortion question. Word is that if it hadn’t been a boy child that he had killed he would not have been nearly as upset about it. He certainly didn’t care for the young girl he had injected with saline. The freak is a predator. He turns my stomach. I’ll never be able to watch American Idol again.
Truthseeker, I can’t help but be very surprised to hear that you support an exception for rape. If you are against abortion only because you believe women should be responsible for the choices they make, I guess that sort of makes sense? But if you are against abortion because it is the taking of the life of an innocent human being, then the circumstances surrounding conception of the baby should not change whether the baby should be allowed to be killed or not. The baby is still just as much of a unique human being who deserves to live, regardless of who his or her father was. I shouldn’t be killed for the sins of my father, and no unborn baby should be killed for the sins of his father.
Doug wrote:
As far as I can see, most pro-lifers – those who are generally against legal abortion – would still allow abortion in cases of rape, thus while I see what you think, it’s hard for me to agree that they are not truly “pro-life” just because they may disagree with you on the one point. That “wrong” you mention is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder, in the perception of “somebody.”
************
But just like with 2 x 2 = 4, it doesn’t matter to me whether someone doesn’t believe it equals 4. It doesn’t matter if in the perception of “somebody”, 2 x 2 actually equals 6. It will always equal 4 because that is what it truly equals. Someone’s perception of that doesn’t change the reality of the equation. Abortion is wrong because it kills the life of an innocent human being who did nothing to deserve death. If someone perceives it differently, that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
**************
___
I had written:
The situation of rape does not remove the reality that the baby is still innocent and still does not deserve to die.
Doug responded:
I can dig that, but the pro-choice argument is not generally that the unborn are “guilty.” For that matter, the talk of the unborn being “parasites” and “interlopers” etc. – I regard as foolish.
************
Doug, whether or not they regard them as “guilty”, they regard them as worthless enough to kill based on a whim or circumstance.
*****************
____
I wrote:
Why isn’t it worth it, Doug? Why could a greater good not be being served when a person chooses to abort based on gender?
Doug responded:
I’m not saying it would be impossible, Bethany. If, as seems to be the case in some areas of China and India (in my relatively little knowledge of the issue) there is a huge developing problem with too many boys being born, then if anything I’d say that correcting back the other way would be good, at least to some extent.
What I see actually happening is a cultural effect (the preference for boys) making the imbalance (boys over girls) worse and worse, and it’s pretty obvious to pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike that this is going to cause big problems, going to be against “the greater good,” and in view of that, I’m not surprised that Hal is against it, as am I (in general) while realizing that it’s not necessarily consistent as far as “dogma.”
*********************
So you are not truly against sex selective abortion then. You are only against it if you feel that it creates some sort of imbalance but you would be happy with sex selection that balanced it the other way (ie kill the boys). Why is an imbalance a negative thing, Doug?
*********************
Just to repeat the previous questions I asked…
“Are there circumstances that would make rape okay, provided that 80 percent of people agreed that those circumstances made rape acceptable”?
and
Also, why is rape wrong? Is it wrong because:
a.) It violates the rights of another human being or
b.) it doesn’t serve a greater good.
Also, I do find it interesting that you don’t consider the woman’s right to choose when it comes to sex selective abortion, but you consider her to step outside of herself and consider the greater good in that situation.
Why don’t you want women to step outside of themselves and consider the greater good that would come from allowing their child to die versus killing them – In any circumstance?
The baby being allowed to live always serves a greater good, just as allowing a born baby or toddler to live obviously serves a greater good than killing it.
Also, I do believe Hitler believed he was working for a “greater good” when he killed the Jews and the “unfit”. Sometimes people do very evil things in the name of the “greater good”.
The comment thread has definitely veered off from being related to the article. Page’s piece is so full of lies and misconceptions, I can’t even begin with them, I feel, or else I’ll write a comment longer than the original article.
No, I won’t work with people who see abortion as legitimate, nor who see safe haven laws as harmful to women, nor who think that abortion has served to improve a birth mother’s adoption choices. Basically Page offers absolutely NO improvement on the already loathsome pro-choice position. She only wishes to expand the number of households she deems ENTITLED to an adopted child. If we have 10 families who wish for a child but only 2 babies alive to be adopted, Page offers nothing. Instead, she only wants the competition between those families to become more polarized. She offers NOTHING that would decrease abortion. I’m disgusted and NO I won’t work with people like Page who only want the killing to continue and who have a grudge against heterosexual families.
I don’t see how the two sides can reconcile even if they tried their darndest. Pro-choice at it’s heart considers the opinions of the mother to out-rank every other factor, while the best adoption scenarios are those where the child’s needs take highest or shared-highest priority. Pro-choice adoption (and unfortunately too much of the adoption-minded world in general) remains fixated on what the adults want.
It’s LIFE that is precious. We can either err towards making circumstances favorable to the wishes of an adult who can build their own opportunities and has more options or we can err towards giving those most vulnerable their very best chance at a solid start.
I don’t see pro-aborts and pro-lifers as being able to find common ground on the many factors necessary to nurture healthy adoptions.
Truthseeker, I can’t help but be very surprised to hear that you support an exception for rape. If you are against abortion only because you believe women should be responsible for the choices they make, I guess that sort of makes sense?
Bethany, it is more than that and I just can’t reconcile it completely myself so I appreciate the dialogue. It is not just believing people should be held accountable for their choices. It is also a belief that people should not be held accountable for the repercussions of actions that they vehemently opposed and that were unwillingly forced upon them. And, at the risk of sounding like a proabort (just saying this makes my skin crawl) I would never personally encourage an abortion but I would not deny one under certain circumstances. Yuck. I feel so dirty just saying that. I think I need a shower now.
Let me clarify Bethany, Rape is the ONLY exception for me and even then the window is very limited.
The life of the mother exception to me is on completely different grounds and only a valid exception in those circumstances when the intention is not to kill the baby and the baby dies as a result of actions necessary to save the life of the mother.
Doug said:
“It’s not a matter of “squirming,”
Doug, your greater good theory doesn’t hold water (pun intended) unless you think it is ok to force women to give birth to children because society deems it to be for their greater good. Maybe you could clarify.
‘crickets’
Truthseeker, I understand that it is terribly tragic when a woman is raped. However, how does victimizing another human being possibly help her?
You have seen the many post abortive women, and how abortion traumatizes and scars them for life. Even if you don’t consider the little one in the womb in this circumstance, how could you deny that abortion does not solve her problem? It doesn’t de-rape her? It only causes her to go into MORE agony and depression. Not to mention, the baby is no less of a human being based on the fact that his or her father was a rapist. I am sure you are aware of people like Rebecca Keissling who were conceived by rape, and have shared their stories. These people deserved to live.
Abortion never, ever fixes the problem. Rape victimizes women, and abortion just rapes them again.
Bethany, I agree. And I would hope we could convince the rape victim of same. But for a second I would like to focus on what steps can be taken to help a rape victim minimize the post-rape consequences by possibily “preventing” pregnancy from the rape. I have been doing some thinking on this and I have a couple questions. Maybe you could get a doctor to answer a couple quesions for me?
1) How long prior to ovulation does emergency contraception have to be taken in order to stop ovulation? ie, how long does it take for it to take effect?
2) How long before and after ovulation can the Leutenizing Hormone (LH) be detected in a womens system and is there any other possible way to determine when a women has ovulated? My goal would be determine what kind of window we have to work with to try and help prevent ovulation. And I ask about the possibility of measuring the LH level because I wonder if that could be used to determine if the woman has recently ovulated in order to make sure that the emergency contraception doesn’t inadvertently result in the death of an already fertilized egg.
Interesting fact. Womens bodies help to naturally prevent pregnancy from rape by stopping ovulation when they get stressed. It makes me think that those rare cases of pregnancy from rape likely occur soon after ovulation.
Truthseeker, it is impossible to make sure we prevent every pregnancy. Sometimes women are going to become pregnant as a result of rape. But killing the baby is not the answer, and many times, the baby could just be the thing that gives her healing. I have read MANY stories of women who were raped, kept the baby, and realized the baby was a precious gift who brought healing to their hearts.
A lot of women have said, “I was able to forget the rape, but I was never able to forget the abortion.”
Abortion traumatizes women, no matter what the reason is for the abortion. And most abortions on women who were raped are coerced- they aren’t done out of the woman’s free will. These women are raped, then raped again by being led to believe their only good option is abortion.
Instead of trying to figure out how we can prevent pregnancy from rape (not always possible), we should instead focus on how we can encourage these women who are raped and become pregnant. We should be working on helping to support them, counsel them, help them in ways they need help to get through the pregnancy after what happened to them. Most women who are raped and become pregnant as a result WANT to keep their baby but feel like they’re doing something wrong because of the constant pressure of everyone around them.
Look at how this little girl (11 years old, raped by her stepfather) has had to fight women’s groups who say she “should” have an abortion, even though she clearly wants to keep her baby:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/23/year-old-mexican-rape-victim-wants-baby/
Abortion is not SUPPORT. These people who want her to abort were not offering her a solution. They are offering her something that would destroy her life (and kill her baby).
Abortion offers no hope. It offers no comfort. It offers nothing but death and misery.
You seem to have bought into the idea that pregnancy and a baby hurt women- when it is the rape that hurts them, not the baby. Just think of how hard it must be to fight to keep your baby from a rape when everyone, even those who claim to be pro-life, think that you SHOULD have an abortion after being raped. This is coercion. Where is the real support for these women? It is nearly non-existent.
TS,
Like Bethany, I too am quite surprised at reading this. I know you are a very faithful and devout Catholic and that you live your life according to the teachings of the Church, and so I find your position on abortion in the case of rape troubling. Now given some other things you have said, perhaps there is a distinction that needs to be made. It might be the case that while you can’t seem to argue and convince yourself that abortion is evil in teh case of rape, you nevertheless hold that it is evil in the case of rape. That is okay. You don’t need to be able to have an argument in order to believe that something is true. That is where faith comes in. Even though you may not be able to articulate why abortion in rape is wrong, you know that it is wrong because you believe it has been revealed by God as wrong. THAT really is faith because your justification for believing something is not your own argument, but the fact that God revealed it to you.
So if that is the case, TS, then at least I have no problem with that. But in case it isn’t, I want to argue, if nothing else strictly from the point of view of being in line with the Catholic Church, that one is putting themselves in grave, grave danger of sin while being a Catholic and holding that abortion in the case of rape is morally permissible. I don’t say any of this to judge or to act like I”m better than anyone, TS, but only to warn because I care about souls, especially fervent souls like yours.
That being said, supporting abortion in the case of rape and Catholicism are incompatible. Paragraph 2271 of the Catechism reads
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law
This shows that abortion is intrinsically evil; that is, there is NO circumstance under which it is acceptable. Simply the act of doing it is grave, unlike killing someone in general, which could be self-defense or murder.
I think one of the main problems is the fact that you seem to base your anti-abortion position on the fact that the woman and man chose to engage in sexual intercourse. If you look at the Church’s documents condemning abortion, this is NEVER a reason it gives for declaring abortion evil. As Bethany pointed out, abortion is evil because it takes the life of an innocent human being. The idea that it is wrong because people chose to have sex is playing directly into teh hands of pro-choicers who say that all we want to do is punish women who have sex.
Indeed, consider two pregnant women. According to the view that abortion is morally permissible in the case of rape, one woman may be allowed to directly kill her unborn child and the other woman is not. Why? because one woman did not choose to have sex and the other woman did choose to have sex. It is difficult in this situation to see how we can argue that we are not attempting to punish the woman who had sex. For in both cases, teh unborn is completely innocent and is exactly the same being morally. But we may kill one of them because the mother made a certain decision and we may not kill teh other because the mother did not choose to make a decision.
The fact that these two situations are not at all morally different can be further illustrated by considering what it it is that makes an action moral or not. The Catechism of teh Catholic Church lays out the following conditions to judge the morality of an action. Paragraph 1750 reads
“1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
– the object chosen;
– the end in view or the intention;
– the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.”
None of these three criteria changes when considering abortion in the case of rape or consent. The action (direct abortion) remains the same. The end (a dead child or ridding yourself of being pregnant) stays the same. The circumstances are still the same even though the pregnancy was brought about in different ways. There is no change in circumstances. We still have two women who have an unwanted pregnancy and who wish to kill their unborn child. The fact that one didn’t engage in an action that brought about the situation does not change the situation of undergoing an abortion. Thus there is no moral difference between teh two situations and abortion is either evil in both cases or neither case.
TS, I hope you’ll consider some of the things Bethany and I have written. This is a very serious issue, and I of course sympathize with the fact that rape is the most horrific and traumatizing experiences that anyone can undergo. But there simply is no difference in teh action of abortion when taken as a result or rape or consent. The unborn is still an innocent human beiong with dignity and moral worth whose protection needs to be solidified. God love you.
Congratulations, Truthseeker, you are pro-choice. You believe that a woman should have the ability to choose whether or not she has a baby. Unlike Doug or Hal, you understand when this choice normally occurs: when a woman makes a conscious decision to engage in an act that could result in the conception of a human being.
I am pro-fetal-rights. I do not think that there is ever a situation that justifies ending the life of an unborn child unless he or she is killing (or perhaps seriously and permanently injuring) his or her mother. Whether the mother chose to conceive that child is irrelevant. Rape is awful. But one injustice does not justify another. To me the absolutely essential issue is that the child has a right to life. To you the mother’s ability to make the decision is more important. If the child’s right to life is more important, abortion in the case of rape would not be an option. If the most important thing is the mother’s choice, then no matter how strongly one feels about the right to life of the child–and I know you feel strongly about it–the right not to be pregnant of a woman who did not consent is stronger.
Here are some scenarios for you:
A woman is kidnapped and raped repeatedly but eventually escapes. When she escapes she is 18 weeks pregnant and wants an abortion. Should she receive one? Why or why not?
A woman reports her rape and is treated with emergency contraception. She becomes pregnant anyway, and realizes this 3 weeks later. She wants to have a chemical abortion. Should she receive one?
A woman has sex with her husband and later that same night is raped. Tests show she has ovulated. She might or might not be pregnant, and the baby might or might not be her rapists’. Does she have a right to emergency contraception? Can she wait until the placenta is well-developed enough for a DNA test (10 weeks http://www.webmd.com/baby/chorionic-villus-sampling-cvs)? How do you reconcile the fact that she wished to become pregnant, and may be, with her wish to be pregnant with her husband’s child and not her rapist’s? What if there are two embryos with different fathers (theoretically possible)?
I assume that if it were possible to find and remove the embryo and give it the chance to implant in an adoptive mother’s womb, that would be acceptable? That your objection is to the use of her body for pregnancy, not to whether the child exists?
Just trying to help you think things out.
Doug: Do you have a problem with a lesbian couple who plan to have only girls, and will terminate any boys they conceive?
Adoption is not a reproductive right.
For a woman who is pregnant and chooses not to raise her child, adoption is certainly a legal choice she can make. Usually children are better off in their biological families, but sometimes the situation is very bad, or a woman wants better for her child than she can provide, and she has the option to place her child for adoption. This choice is usually difficult and often requires selfless sacrifice, and many times people do say awful things about mothers who make an adoption plan for a child. We do need to stand up for the rights of these women and their children–adopted children have a right to all the information possible, and to relationships with their biological families whenever possible (and safe). Women need to be fully informed about open adoption, foster care, and parenting as options, to receive counselling, and to be evaluated for depression before making such a major choice. A woman planning an adoption for her newborn or young infant needs to be evaluated for depression before making such a huge choice, and deserves accurate information about the services available should she choose to parent and the possibility of openness in the adoption. She needs to know that if she just can’t care for a child right now, but will be able to soon, she can use foster care and retain her parental rights. Some of these discussions might make adoption rarer, but that’s okay. Mothers have a right to choose adoption. This is not a reproductive right, but a legally protected option for a mother.
For a person or a couple who want to add a child to their/his/her family, adoption is an option that is available and can be a wonderful blessing to both parent(s) and child(ren). But it is neither reproduction nor is it a right. Adoption is much more about the child being adopted than the parents. I do not have a right to adopt a child. If no children were abandoned, no parents made an adoption plan for their child, and no children were removed from unfit parents because there were no unfit parents, there would be no children to adopt. (This is the world pro-dismemberment-choicers thought abortion would create, so that explains some of their resistance to adoption.) If it is possible that there might not be children to adopt, there cannot be a right of a parent to adopt a child. When studies show that children are most well-adjusted in families with a mother and father, it seems clear that this should be the first choice for placement. If no two-parent traditional family can be found for a particular child, then another arrangement can be considered, because the child’s need for permanency and love outweigh political considerations–the same reason a committed heterosexual married couple should receive preference over a committed homosexual couple. Kids are not an opportunity to make a political statement. And when I read that two homosexuals raising a blond-haired, blue-eyed adopted toddler son are the “parents of the year”, I know that the selection, and probably the adoption, happened just to make a political point. Because there are couples out there who are raising older children, disabled children, difficult children, large numbers of children, and recognizing those families would be far more noble. So while children have a right to a family, a family does not have a right to adopt a child–or to a child at all. Adoption is probably too difficult, and shouldn’t cost so much or require such a large income. Reforming adoption to make it easier for prospective parents to adopt is laudable, but adoption is not a right.
Adoption is a right for children who needs families. Income standards, family size limits, and high price tags that stand in the way of a child receiving a family are not in that child’s interest. If there is a family who can take that child, and it will be a safe and healthy family, then things which stand in the way are infringing on that child’s rights.
Can we work with those who advocate the death penalty for unwanted children? Well, insofar as we can both advocate adoption practices that are fair and humane for birth mothers and adoptees, yes. In that we can both campaign against stigmatizing birth mothers and adoptees, and make sure that women know adoption is an option. And any progress towards pro-dismemberment people making more information (and realistic information) about adoption, parenting, and foster care available, and presenting these as viable choices, is progress indeed. But we can never partner with them in a way that involves legitimizing the killing of children if they prefer that option to parenting, adoption, or foster care.
Instead of trying to figure out how we can prevent pregnancy from rape
Bethany,
I agree that abortion would only hurt the rape victim more. IMO there is no worse experience a woman could then abortion. But why does that make you not want to try and figure out how to help rape victims “prevent” a pregnancy due to rape?
Truthseeker, you are seeking to do the impossible. Not to mention that your mindset here is that pregnancy is a punishment and that it is something to be avoided at all costs, which is exactly the kind of mindset that would lead one to have an abortion in the first place.
Truthseeker, if you agree that abortion only hurts the victim more, why would you ever advocate for abortion in the rape circumstance? What possible reason could there be for that?
I do believe and agree with you all that EVERY procured abortion done with the expressed intent of killing the baby is evil.
Can any of you give me other examples other then the rape scenario where people SHOULD be held accountable for the repercussions of actions resulting from another person’s violation of their person?
Truthseeker, you are seeking to do the impossible.
On the contrary Bethany. I am trying to determine exactly what IS possible. Wouldn’t you want to help a woman ‘prevent’ a pregnancy from rape if it was possible to do so?
I do believe and agree with you all that EVERY procured abortion done with the expressed intent of killing the baby is evil.
Then you should be against all abortions in the case of rape. Because after a pregnancy caused by rape, the intent is to kill the baby.
Can any of you give me other examples other then the rape scenario where people SHOULD be held accountable for the repercussions of actions resulting from another person’s violation of their person?
You are forgetting the unborn child when you ask this question. You grossly misunderstand why abortion is wrong. It is not wrong because of what the woman chose to do or chose not to do before the abortion. It is wrong because it kills a human being who did not deserve to die.
You are asking “where are people accountable for the repercussions of actions resulting from another person’s violation of their person?”- and at the same time you are advocating that the BABY should be held accountable for the father’s attack on his or her mother!
Thanks for throwing those scenaios at me ycw. The more scenarios I consider the clearer things will become.
“You are forgetting the unborn child when you ask this question. You grossly misunderstand why abortion is wrong.”
No I am not forgetting the child. In fact I understand that the rape victim becomes a perpetrator if/when she procures an abortion so lets move on from there.
Bethany,
You seem to be unwilling to even consider the possibility of preventing a rape victims pregnancy. I’ll ask again. Wouldn’t you want to help a woman ‘prevent’ a pregnancy from rape if it was possible to do so?
Truthseeker, no, I would be more concerned with getting her justice from her attacker.
Trying to prevent every pregnancy resulting from rape is impossible, and is the justification that many use for emergency contraception, which is not prevention but abortion itself if the woman is pregnant. Conception happens pretty quickly if it’s going to happen at all and it is really a huge stretch to even imagine a scenario where you could prevent a pregnancy from occurring every time a woman is raped. Pregnancies can’t even be prevented 100 percent when a woman is using birth control pills or other methods of prevention.
Now, instead of diverting the conversation, I want you to address my questions to you now. This is very important, if you consider yourself pro-life.
I’ll be away from the computer for a little while but will answer anything else when I get back.
Truthseeker, if you agree that abortion only hurts the victim more, why would you ever advocate for abortion in the rape circumstance? I have been very clear that I would not ‘advocate’ any abortion. You are either not understanding my answers or not reading them carefully enough.
What possible reason could there be for that?
To respect a woman’s rights against being used by a rapist.
Truthseeker – thank you for being honest and wrestling with the rape exception for abortion. I am fully pro-life – but honestly the LAST thing holding me back from that was the rape exception. Then I read a book of women affected by abortion – by David Reardon. He had convincing statistics regarding rape and abortion, about how women heal from their rape better if their children live, and of course the moral argument regarding not killing humans, even in difficult circumstances.
Have you ever seen Rebecca Kiessling’s website? She is a woman conceived in rape. She is the face of what we are missing when we allow abortion in cases of rape. If you ever get to see her in person, please do. She is a powerful witness, as is Gianna Jessen regarding the face of humanity, and what we lose when we abort.
I also know a local family here – where parents adopted a child conceived in rape. She is a dear – about 6 years old now, and her mother did a very brave thing to allow her to live, and allowed her to be adopted. This family loves this little girl – and she is now gracing the planet with her presence.
Look any rape-produced person in the eye. When you say there should have an exception for rape, etc, you are essentially saying that those children/adults should be allowed to be dead via abortion. Sobering, yes, but true.
Think, pray, love.
Like I said – that was the last thing to fall for me, and I have met many woman who said they did heal better from their rape by allowing the child to live. Bringing up that child themselves is another matter – one that they can decide. And that is where adoption can be a good option.
Again – think pray, love.
And Bobby – great post (as others here), when one is in conflict with the Church’s teaching – one can attest that the Church knows what she is talking about and teaching, and assent to the Teaching. After all – she is trying to protect life and souls. Think about it. I’ll be praying for you!
“Truthseeker, no, I would be more concerned with getting her justice from her attacker.”
That seems uncaring. We should all at least be able to agree that the BEST outcome of rape would be to prevent pregnancy if possible. And I am not looking for 100% success I’ll take 1 % if possible. The rape victim deserves our best efforts. And NO, that does not include ‘advocating’ rape.
The BEST outcome IMHO
The woman receive the best possible care. Counseling, therapy and loving folks to help her deal with the rape.
The perp be caught, convicted and sentenced.
The innocent child conceived in rape be allowed to live.
There are commenters here that have survived rape. Please hear them.
Truthseeker, I agree that preventing a pregnancy from occurring after rape would be a laudable goal.
Another theoretical possibility, especially before implantation, would be to remove a newly conceived embryo and allow that embryo to be adopted by another woman or couple.
Or, removing the eggs before conception could occur–surely this should be possible if eggs can be removed for IVF or egg donation.
The problem with EC for prevention is: it may not work; or it may work halfway–it may not prevent ovulation but succeed in preventing implantation. It is virtually impossible to tell which was the case. For this reason I don’t know if I could in good conscience accept EC even if it were certain I had not yet ovulated.
Truthseeker, I understand where you are coming from. The problem is that not every woman has a detectable LH surge before ovulation. Sperm can live up to 5 days in a woman and the egg, though it is only able to be fertilized for about 24 hours (if that) there is no way to pinpoint EXACTLY when ovulation has or will occur even with use of ultrasound. You run the risk of killing an already conceived individual rather than preventing conception in the first place. I am not comfortable with that.
I would be okay with cleaning out the vulva and maybe swabbing (after the rapist’s DNA sample was taken so he could be convicted) the vulva with a spermicide. But ingesting any kind of synthetic hormone to “prohibit” ovulation is dangerous to the mom (hurts her future fertility and raises her risk of blood clots, cancer) and puts a child potentially at risk (there is not way to guarantee conception has been prevented and implantation has not).
I am not pro-“getting pregnant from rape”. That seems obvious but I have to state that because the pro-aborts would jump all over what I am about to say. I do think it telling though that of the 3 women I know who survived rape the one who is doing well got pregnant by rape and had her baby girl. The other two who are still struggling from the rape did not have babies. One did not get pregnant and the other got pregnant and aborted. All life is created by God. No human life is a “mistake”. I sometimes wonder if God knows the mother better than we do (ya think?) and creates those children for the express purpose of comforting and growing the mother past the horrible experience of rape. Rather than a punishment they are to be a salvation.
remember – how can we make love win, for everyone in the situation. We want the situation where love wins! ;)
but honestly – regarding prevention – unless the woman’s body is putting out signals that there has not been any ovulation, EC is risky since it can cause the death of the very early embryo. Remember – in all things the action must be licit.
Thanks jfi,
Rebecca’s story is very moving.
“Can any of you give me other examples other then the rape scenario where people SHOULD be held accountable for the repercussions of actions resulting from another person’s violation of their person?”
TS, you have to be careful here. We are not claiming that the rape victim be “held accountable” for the evil action of the rapist. We are not claiming the rape victim needs to actively engage in service or pay a fine or do jail time or anything like that. They may not TAKE the action of directly ending the life of an innocent human being. It is not holding someone accountable for an action to demand that they not kill someone.
But to give you some scenarios, consider the following. Suppose a woman is living a very remote part of Alaska where there is no civilization for dozens of miles. One day, she hears a knock at the door and finds a small baby laying at her doorstep. No one is around, and she won’t be able to make it into town for several days to give the baby to teh proper authority. Now, should she be allowed to neglect the baby? I think any reasonable person would answer no. Even though this is not her action, she has a duty as a human being who is teh only one able to take care of this weaker human being for several days. This is similar to women who find themselves pregnant in the case of rape. True they did nothing to bring this on, but they have a moral duty to not kill the baby, as the baby is exactly where it should be in teh order of nature. A fetus belongs by design in the womb of a woman and any removal of it would constitute violence.
I don’t see that adoption should necessarily be a “work with” or “work against” situation. We should encourage adoptions. We should work to increase adoption while decreasing abortion. If some abortion proponents should also be working for the same goal, that is acceptable and a good thing I suppose. I see no reason to discourage it, certainly.
Thanks Truthseker. Now every time you hear or think of the rape/incest exception – please envision Rebecca’s face and think of her fate and others in a similar situation. Does she deserve to live? Can you make your way to allow others like her to live?
Baby steps, no pun intended. Let it all sink in. We are here for you! ;)
MaryRose – I hope we can all work together – as long as PP and other abortion providers are not in the driver’s seat regarding adoption – after all they have many incentives to keep those adoption numbers down and more money incentives to push abortion.
If their track record improves and they actually devoid themselves of abortion or any money-incentives to that – then great. But as partners, as long as a non-abortion-supporting agency promotes adoption and has free-access to abortion-minded and otherwise pregnant women – great again.
I have been very clear that I would not ‘advocate’ any abortion. You are either not understanding my answers or not reading them carefully enough.
Truthseeker, you yourself said that you allow an exception in the case of rape. If you are not against abortion in that case, then you are for it in that case. You said yourself you would not deny a woman an abortion under those circumstances, implying that abortion can be a moral good or a necessary evil.
To respect a woman’s rights against being used by a rapist.
A woman who has been raped has already had her rights violated by the rapist. The baby has not violated the woman, the rapist has. Aborting the woman’s baby does NOT protect her from the violation she has received. And it does not show her or her child respect.
Sydney 11:20, thank you for that post. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said there.
I thought this part you wrote helped explain exactly my feelings in response to what Truthseeker said:
” I am not pro-”getting pregnant from rape”. That seems obvious but I have to state that because the pro-aborts would jump all over what I am about to say. I do think it telling though that of the 3 women I know who survived rape the one who is doing well got pregnant by rape and had her baby girl. The other two who are still struggling from the rape did not have babies. One did not get pregnant and the other got pregnant and aborted. All life is created by God. No human life is a “mistake”. I sometimes wonder if God knows the mother better than we do (ya think?) and creates those children for the express purpose of comforting and growing the mother past the horrible experience of rape. Rather than a punishment they are to be a salvation.”
That seems uncaring. We should all at least be able to agree that the BEST outcome of rape would be to prevent pregnancy if possible. And I am not looking for 100% success I’ll take 1 % if possible. The rape victim deserves our best efforts. And NO, that does not include ‘advocating’ rape.
But the problem still stands, Truthseeker. Even if you were able to reduce the number of pregnancies due to rape, you would still allow abortion for those who became pregnant despite our best efforts, am I correct?
Bethany,
Can you see a difference between permitting something and advocating it? Ugh, I feel like a pro-abort just saying that. I think I need another shower now.
Advocate means to support something (or to speak, plead, or argue in favor of).. You support, and argue in favor of abortion due to rape. That is advocating it.
Either way, how is one better than the other? Either way, you are okay with a baby being killed. Is the baby any less dead whether you reluctantly permit or wholeheartedly advocate it?
Yes Joy. “Baby” steps are a good thing. Rebecca makes a good case for making abortion illegal in the case of rape.
You support, and argue in favor of abortion due to rape.
Where did I do that?
Either way, how is one better than the other?
One encourages abortion as the best choice and the other does not.
Truthseeker, I am not trying to be mean at all. I am just very, very confused at how you are able to rationalize your position. I have seen you argue against abortion for years, and so strongly and I have always admired that. You seemed to truly understand why abortion was wrong, and you fight so well against it. When you say that somehow rape is different, and the baby is somehow less worthy of protection because of the circumstances surrounding his or her conception, that really makes me wonder about whether you truly are pro-life or not. And I truly just don’t understand how you could with all of your knowledge of abortion and what it does to a baby and to a woman, could still feel that somehow abortion could be a moral good in a situation like rape- even though you yourself admit it doesn’t even help solve the problem in the first place. I just don’t get it. I am very, very confused by all of this.
Whether you consider abortion to be the “best choice” or not, is the baby less dead if you permit it, even reluctantly?
What about all of the people who say, “Abortion isn’t the best choice, but I still think it is just a necessary evil”, regarding abortions for any other reason or circumstance? Do you think their position is more valid because they don’t see it as the “best choice”?
The rape victim deserves our best efforts. And NO, that does not include ‘advocating’ rape.
That was a typo. Should have read The rape victim deserves our best efforts. And NO, that does not include ‘advocating’ abortion.
But it should include preventing a rape pregnancy if possible.
You support, and argue in favor of abortion due to rape.
Where did I do that?
You’ve been doing it the whole time we’ve been discussing this. Unless you have changed your mind and have decided that abortion after rape is 100 percent wrong.
TS, pro-choicers say all the time that they aren’t really for abortion, they’re just for choice. That may be true. But they still think it should be legal, and if all those people who supposedly didn’t like abortion and wouldn’t ever get one and thought it was wrong but didn’t want to trample on another’s “rights” just stood up and said “This is wrong; we shouldn’t ever kill babies!” there would be no support for abortion. But the pro-abortion lobby has them convinced that just about every abortion is a sad, hard case, and they don’t dare restrict access less an abortion be denied to some woman who really needs/deserves it.
Every child is precious, from conception onward. Our primary duty is to protect life, not to protect choice. Choice is good, and deserves protection, but when one person’s choice and another person’s life are at odds, we must side with life.
It’s never okay to kill a baby. We need to stand on this.
Is it okay for a woman who was trying to get pregnant to kill her child if he or she has the wrong father? Is it okay for a couple undergoing IVF (or IUI) to kill the baby if they find out they are not the parents? Is it okay for the husband of a woman who has just survived rape to influence her toward killing her baby? Is it okay to force a quick decision when she will feel the consequences for a lifetime? Is it okay for a parent to make that decision for a minor child? Why do only some children have a right to life–what makes them different? If a man’s semen is stolen, or he is taken advantage of when he cannot consent, can he demand an abortion? Is he liable for child support?
Take a breath – think of all that is being said. Advocate for life, in every instance – even when circumstances are hard and even overwhelming.
God’s grace can help. So an we. Doing the right thing is always the right thing. Jesus never said it was going to be easy. ;)
Trust and love big. Remember Rebecca’s face and story.
Bethany,
read my lips “I don’t think abortion is a moral good” in the case of rape.”
This rape exception issue is just a skeleton in my pro-life closet. I have said myself throughout the discussion that I am unable to personally justify a rape abortion exception as a choice. That is precisely why I am dialogueing it.
Are you hoping that someone here will be able to convince you one way or the other, because you are in a state of indecision on the issue? I hope some of the arguments put forth by everyone here will help you to decide…because it is so very important.
Yes Bethany. And I agree it is so very important. And I think opposition is actually healthy. It might be a voice like mine that leads somebody like you to consider an even more comprehensive rape treatment including assistance “preventing” pregnancy from rape if possible. imo that would be a moral good.
Truthseeker, what is very important is that you are not considering the unborn child in the same way you do in other abortions. Can’t you see it is a clear contradiction of what you say you stand for?
Basically, TS, your position is that sometimes the woman’s right to choose is more important than the child’s right to life.
I’m sorry if it’s annoying but I feel I must keep pushing this with you. I think of all people you should understand why abortion is absolutely wrong in the case of rape.
YCW, you hit the nail on the head.
What if aliens invaded us and raped our women to use as incubators for a race of predators to take over the earth. Then would the rape exception be ok? Ah HAH!! Got you there.
Oh my goodness, TS. I can’t believe you are doing that.
Okay, I’ll bite. If aliens invaded us and used women as incubators for their species, then what was growing inside the woman would not be HER baby, and it would not be a human being. Therefore, removing it would not be killing a human life at all. It would be the equivalent of removing a tape worm.
now that I’ve answered your clearly ridiculous and unrealistic question, maybe you could try to think about what you are saying here. Are you implying that a child conceived by rape is equivalent to an alien predator?
Well, if the offspring had DNA from their mothers and would develop the sort of free will that makes them human rather than an animal or a biological machine, then no, abortion would not be okay. And if that weren’t the case, then the parallels are too tenuous for it to apply for the current situation.
oh.my.goodness. Truthseeker! Did a rabid pro-abort bite you and infect you or something? ALIENS? Come on! If you are jumping to such wild “what if” analogies then you know you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Bottom line is that abortion after rape makes the TRAUMA WORSE. If you are really worried about the woman not having to suffer repercussions for what the rapist did then why are you so anxious to sentence her to a lifetime of guilt and regret? What if she dies during the abortion? So her rapist lives and she dies? That is just to you? What if she finds out later she can’t ever have another baby because the abortion destroyed her reproductive organs? Is that justice?
The baby aside (which I think you can see that the unborn is a human being no matter how they are conceived) I think you are focused on the woman. And thats fine. What I’m telling you is that there are countless testimonies of women who aborted after rape who say “IT HURT ME MORE! It made the rape WORSE to abort!” and women who did not abort after rape who say “My child helped to HEAL ME.”
Read Victims and Victors. Great book. Tackles this very thing. Abortion hurts women. period. Whether they were raped or not raped. Why would you want a woman who has already been hurt by rape to be hurt again by abortion? Makes no sense to me.
I don’t see a chance of common ground between us and proaborts on the adoption issue although it is another good sign that they are on the defensive.
TS, I have been raped twice by men I knew well. I did not talk about these rapes for many years and could not even say the word in counseling for quite awhile. I don’t think most rape victims immediately go for help — I was in shock for weeks after each and still deal with post traumatic stress issues.
I can remember thinking after both rapes that if I were pregnant, I would just have to give up the baby for adoption. Abortion was not an option — on some level I knew that abortion would be more wrong than those who harmed me.
These rapes have changed who I am forever. But I am still here. I am strong. I am a great wife, daughter, mother and co-worker. I have contributed much to others and have much more to contribute.
Children conceived during rape are just as innocent as their mothers and do not deserve the death penalty because of the violent actions of angry men.
I pray that you change your view on this topic.
OK. I concede. Thank you for the exorcism. It shouldn’t take more then a few more prayers and my rape exception will be gone from me for good.
You are a tough bunch to argue with. No wonder pro-aborts can’t last on this site. lol.
Praxedes, I understand that most rape victims don’t come forth right away. But if we could come up with the science to help them prevent pregnancy from rape and then make the victims aware it was available then maybe more would seek this kind of assistance. It would be worth the scientific research to have an option like this available to help rape victims.
Praying for you, TS!!
Do not flirt with the dark side.
Thanks for the prayers ALL. They are hitting me like a dynamo.
TS–glad to help.
;). sending hugs, too!
I would no longer fight for a legalized rape exception!! Hallelujah. I have seen the light. The only thing legalizing a rape exception would do is hurt a rape victim by having society participating in hurting her even more by commiting an abortion on her.
I still am hungry for more information on how quickly EC can stop ovulation. Can anybody convince me that if the victim had a negative result on a pregnancy test she should be denied EC? The victim would never know even if an egg were fertizied in the 24 hours after taking EC so the psychological scars would be far less then those suffered when a woman actually terminates a known pregnancy. This is a finer point because EC leaves the possibity, however remote or unintended, of causing an embryo to miscarry but would not leave the women with scars of knowing she has terminated a pregnancy. Thoughts? I understand this would be a very limited scenario but if it ever came up I would want to be prepared with the best advice possible.
“oh.my.goodness. Truthseeker! Did a rabid pro-abort bite you and infect you or something? ALIENS? Come on! ”
Sydney, the aliens was just a joke cause I didn’t have a leg to stand on. Thanks for all your input. I will read that book you recommended to get more knowledgeable on the subject though. Thanks for your input.
Bethany, I never thought I’d bump heads with you. But once in several years is a pretty good track record. And if I can borrow a phrase from Bobby who borrowed it from Fulton Sheen. God love you.
Well – we are back to the reality of what is versus what people see, feel or want. If EC can cause an early chemical abortion (or forced miscarriage) which causes the early human’s death – then the reality of that result is that it still causes death, is still purposeful and it’s still wrong.
How about a different example. How about during the WWII, Jews were rounded up, stripped of the possessions and their power, and herded into concentration camps. Americans did not know. Did it happen? Were there purposeful actions (death, harm, etc) against the Jews even though those overseas don’t see or know or are aware?
If other humans are not aware – does that mean the hurt/abuse/death did not happen? If it makes you feel better, can one deny atrocities like they don’t happen?
We just have to think these things through. Feelings are not the measurement of real.
What happens for real, even if you can not see it, feel it or know about it, is what happens for real.
yes – and God love you! Love that…
Bethany,
You may be right that I have a greater comparative concern for the woman relative to the baby in a rape case then I do in a consentual sex case. It may or may not be justified but I admit that I do.
Sorry, You are so WRONG — telling women to make the baby go away promotes Abortion.
If you want to stop abortions then help women Mother their babies.
DO NOT TELL WOMEN TO Make the Baby Disappear.
Phony pro-lifers will tell you stories because they want to get a baby for themselves.
REAL PRO-LIFERS support mothers – and know that GOD DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES –
GOD DOES NOT SENT EMBRYOS TO THE WRONG UTERUS.
I agree Joy. And we definitely don’t want to deceive ourselves about the real consequences of our actions. But until I know how long it takes for emergency contraception to stop ovulation I guess I won’t be able to make a most educated decision on the subject. God love you too.
Truthseeker, my thoughts are that a life lost is a tragedy whether anyone knows about it or not. They just recently arrested a couple (can’t remember what state) for abusing their two kids. They had birthed a child at home in the trailer and then killed him years later and buried his little body in the back yard. No one even knew that child existed! Was it any less of a tragedy?
EC can kill a newly conceived human being. Human life begins at conception, do you concur? I believe life lost at any stage is a tragedy. I think innocent human life murdered at any stage is wrong.
Knowing that she COULD have aborted a child leads to psychological damage trust me. I was on the pill for years. I did not know it could cause an abortion. I may have aborted my children unknowingly. It hurts. It haunts me at weird times. I DO think about it! I may not have the level of grief Carla has because I just don’t know for sure but let me tell you… it takes away peace. I look at my adorable blue eyed, chubby cheeked boy and think “did I kill another baby just as precious as him?” Oh it hurts! It stabs me in the heart!
Thats my two cents, anyhow.
Delia, you are misunderstanding me. I would not tell the woman to make the baby go away. I am talking about scenarios where the rape victim is NOT pregnat yet so there is no baby yet at this time. Again, this conversation is already predicated on a negative pregnancy test and immediate medical treatment.
Truthseeker, okay about the aliens! lol. I am glad to hear you weren’t serious! I thought you were losing your marbles! Its hard when you can’t see faces or hear inflection on the internet! I was just admonished tonight by another pro-lifer for being too passionate when I chastised a pro-lifer who said she knows SGK gives money to PP but she doesn’t care. It doesn’t really go to abortion anyhow. I was told I was not “speaking the truth in love” even though I didn’t personally attack the poster I just stated facts. Eh, what can you do? No one can see my face or hear my tone of voice.
Glad to have this discussion with you. There is no harm in asking the questions in your heart. You feel what you feel, ya know? By discussing it openly you are showing yourself to be open to thinking a different way and thats good, ya know?
I’ve never butted heads with Bethany but I have butted heads with Carla a few times over the years. Let me tell you, I think twice before matching wits with Carla! I gulp deeply, say a prayer and dive in! ;-) I really love Carla!
Thanks Sydney. And I am sorry that the birth control pushers were not more honest with you about it.
I really love Carla!
So do I Sydney
Sorry, You are so WRONG — telling women to make the baby go away promotes Abortion.
If you want to stop abortions then help women Mother their babies.
DO NOT TELL WOMEN TO Make the Baby Disappear.
Phony pro-lifers will tell you stories because they want to get a baby for themselves.
REAL PRO-LIFERS support mothers – and know that GOD DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES –
GOD DOES NOT SENT EMBRYOS TO THE WRONG UTERUS.
Yes Delia, And thank you for remembering to put God into every decision. It is only with God’s grace that we can even share in His procreative ability. God teaches us to respect life and not to kill.
That is not enough to make me rule out EC use but until I know how long it takes for EC to stop ovulation and a few other facts about our capabilities to measure when ovulation takes place I would err on the side of caution and counsel against a rape victim taking EC. Even if we do not currently have the scientific ability to make a positive determination of these facts I would assume that we could if society cared enough about rape victims and about the life issue to invest the resources then we probably could make that determination based on facts instead of feelings.
God be with you all. And thanks again everybody for the prayers.
It has to be more then just feeling though. My reason for the rape exception exists because it is the ONLY time a woman doesn’t really have a choice to engage in activity that could get her pregnant. That is a very clear cut material reason for the exception.
Truthseeker, I agree that it’s a clear-cut reason, but it is a feeling – it’s you feeling such-and-such way because it was against the woman’s will.
Why do you believe sex-selective abortion wronger then abortion without testing for sex first? Sounds like you would be giving personhood/anti-discrimination rights to the unborn.
Part of it is the imbalance it can lead to, as in China & India, i.e. too many boys for the amount of girls there are. To an extent, I feel like it should not matter what sex the baby is. While I would not have abortion be illegal on that score alone, I also don’t think that that alone is a good enough reason for choosing abortion.
Maybe Steven Tyler can help us answer this sex-selective abortion question. Word is that if it hadn’t been a boy child that he had killed he would not have been nearly as upset about it.
I don’t believe what he says about how he felt at the time, in the first place. I might guess that he’s trying to appear more “respectable” now since he’s got a TV gig. Or he may not remember correctly. He and Joe Perry were known as the “Toxic Twins” for their incredible drug use, and I would bet he’s mischaracterizing things.
young christian woman: Congratulations, Truthseeker, you are pro-choice. You believe that a woman should have the ability to choose whether or not she has a baby. Unlike Doug or Hal, you understand when this choice normally occurs: when a woman makes a conscious decision to engage in an act that could result in the conception of a human being.
I don’t even know if that’s really true or not. Some women feel it’s a “baby” from conception, some others feel that takes place in later stages of gestation, or after birth. If you mean choose whether to have a baby or not, while having sex (with varying degrees of birth control being used, or not) that alone doesn’t necessarily determine it – she may not get pregnant anyway. And, if pregnancy does occur, she may choose to have an abortion, even if she considers it a “baby.” I’m saying that “when this choice normally occurs” may not only be where you are saying it is.
Do you have a problem with a lesbian couple who plan to have only girls, and will terminate any boys they conceive?
Yes, on balance I don’t see sex-selection as a good enough reason.
Doug: “It’s not a matter of “squirming,” it’s realizing that the situation can and often does make a big difference. Last I saw, 80% of Americans would allow abortion in cases of rape. Well okay, if we say the half the people are pro-lifers, then that means that ~ 60% of them would make that exception. This is how we feel. That’s what the abortion debate is.”
Truthseeker: Doug, your greater good theory doesn’t hold water (pun intended) unless you think it is ok to force women to give birth to children because society deems it to be for their greater good. Maybe you could clarify.
‘crickets’
No, it’s not a matter of crickets. : P
As stated, the situation can and often does make a difference. Neither I nor most anybody would necessarily agree with society on every given thing. Would I think it was for the greater good if society forced women to give birth? Not sure I would. For sure, we are a vast distance from any such condition where I would think it was worth it to do that.
By far, most people don’t think it’s worth it to force women to give birth in cases of rape. Personally, I see many more situations than that where it’s not worth it.
Doug: “That “wrong” you mention is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder, in the perception of “somebody.”
Bethany: “But just like with 2 x 2 = 4, it doesn’t matter to me whether someone doesn’t believe it equals 4. It doesn’t matter if in the perception of “somebody”, 2 x 2 actually equals 6. It will always equal 4 because that is what it truly equals. Someone’s perception of that doesn’t change the reality of the equation. Abortion is wrong because it kills the life of an innocent human being who did nothing to deserve death. If someone perceives it differently, that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.”
Two different things, though, Bethany. We have an agreed-upon system of mathematical definitions and processes. In base 10, then yes, indeed 2 x 2 = 4.
If everybody agreed on the right/wrong/good/bad of abortion, then we wouldn’t be having the discussion, but of course that is not the case.
____
“I can dig that, but the pro-choice argument is not generally that the unborn are “guilty.” For that matter, the talk of the unborn being “parasites” and “interlopers” etc. – I regard as foolish.”
Doug, whether or not they regard them as “guilty”, they regard them as worthless enough to kill based on a whim or circumstance.
Or they are leaving the determination of worth up to the pregnant woman or couple who are involved.
____
“I’m not saying it would be impossible, Bethany. If, as seems to be the case in some areas of China and India (in my relatively little knowledge of the issue) there is a huge developing problem with too many boys being born, then if anything I’d say that correcting back the other way would be good, at least to some extent.
What I see actually happening is a cultural effect (the preference for boys) making the imbalance (boys over girls) worse and worse, and it’s pretty obvious to pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike that this is going to cause big problems, going to be against “the greater good,” and in view of that, I’m not surprised that Hal is against it, as am I (in general) while realizing that it’s not necessarily consistent as far as “dogma.”
So you are not truly against sex selective abortion then. You are only against it if you feel that it creates some sort of imbalance but you would be happy with sex selection that balanced it the other way (ie kill the boys). Why is an imbalance a negative thing, Doug?
I really am against sex-selection abortion, per se, though I would not have abortion be illegal on that score alone. However, given the social conditions in a few countries where sex-selection is having a large impact, I think that worsens things to a greater degree. If nothing else, in the long run those countries may feel forced to try some social engineering to erase some of the imbalance, just as China felt compelled to do something to slow down the population increase. Not saying that would be a good thing, necessarily, either. As far as the imbalance being a negative thing, such a preponderance of one sex over the other means that, in this case, the boys often have a heck of a time finding a mate, and that’s a real pain.
____
Just to repeat the previous questions I asked…
“Are there circumstances that would make rape okay, provided that 80 percent of people agreed that those circumstances made rape acceptable”?
Not in my opinion.
and
Also, why is rape wrong? Is it wrong because:
a.) It violates the rights of another human being or
b.) it doesn’t serve a greater good.
I think both of those apply, Bethany. And there just is not a good enough reason for it, IMO. Contrast that with killing Joe Blow – most of the time it will be said to be a rights violation, but if Joe is coming over the wall at you in wartime, then it may be seen to be for the greater good to take him out.
____
Also, I do find it interesting that you don’t consider the woman’s right to choose when it comes to sex selective abortion, but you consider her to step outside of herself and consider the greater good in that situation.
Why don’t you want women to step outside of themselves and consider the greater good that would come from allowing their child to die versus killing them – In any circumstance?
The baby being allowed to live always serves a greater good, just as allowing a born baby or toddler to live obviously serves a greater good than killing it.
I do consider what the woman wants – and it may be the cultural thing of having a boy first. I don’t agree with that, especially given the possible social consequences in the long term. As the imbalance of boys over girls grows in some areas, I’m sure that people will see that the great good is not being served by having so many boys. Not saying it will change overnight nor that a given man/woman/couple will change their preference for having a boy, but in the end I’m sure it will make a difference.
I don’t see it as a necessary good to have every single pregnancy continued, *especially* if it’s against the will of the pregnant woman.
“Can anybody convince me that if the victim had a negative result on a pregnancy test she should be denied EC? The victim would never know even if an egg were fertizied in the 24 hours after taking EC so the psychological scars would be far less then those suffered when a woman actually terminates a known pregnancy. This is a finer point because EC leaves the possibity, however remote or unintended, of causing an embryo to miscarry but would not leave the women with scars of knowing she has terminated a pregnancy. Thoughts? I understand this would be a very limited scenario but if it ever came up I would want to be prepared with the best advice possible.”
TS, I also regret taking birth control, for the same reason Sydney does.
And I have had the experience, many times, of not being sure whether I was pregnant but having symptoms that led me to believe I was having a very early miscarriage. When I have lost my children between 10 and 16 days, before a pregnancy test would necessarily be accurate, before one could see anything that one could definitively identify as a baby, I mourned. I didn’t know, but I would rather mourn for nothing than let one of my children pass from this world unknown and unloved. Some people might think that makes me crazy, but that is what God has put in my heart to do. Living with the uncertainty–mourning but not being sure I have anything to mourn–is not easy. I can’t that what is easier for me is easier for everyone, but it’s really hard for me to not know how many children I have. To constantly doubt myself. I also lost a child at 21 days. I had a positive pregnancy test that time around, because she stuck around long enough for more hormones to get into my system. Miscarrying at 21 days was more physically painful. In a way miscarrying when I knew I was pregnant was more emotionally painful. I knew my baby was alive, and I loved her already. But looking back at her death I don’t feel ambivalence or self-doubt. I had a baby, and I lost her, and I love her. If I had to choose, I would rather know for sure. So if I took EC, and possibly killed a baby, I can’t think it would be anything but traumatic.
Also, sperm only survives for a long time in the right conditions. If ovulation isn’t imminent, it’s unlikely the sperm will survive–conditions in the woman’s body have to be right. The sort of cervical fluids that allow the survival of sperm are only present for a few days before ovulation–it’s really not common to have that even 5 days before (though it’s possible). So probably most of the time, delaying ovulation wouldn’t matter, because the sperm won’t survive anyway. It probably is possible to delay ovulation when those fluids are present, but if they’re not, conception is not possible. Just putting it out there–sperm can only survive that long in the right circumstances.
Doug, no one is forced to give birth. Birth happens on its own. We propose prohibiting the killing of the fetus. One way or another, the fetus will leave the woman’s body eventually. The question is whether that will be by force or naturally, and at what time. If pregnancy takes its natural course, no one is forcing anything. An abortion, induction, or C-section would be “forced.”
And more is involved in abortion than forcing the fetus out of the womb. The fetus is first killed, and usually dismemberment is involved. Please explain why the woman requires the right to dismember her child. Please explain why the child is not a living human being, or why if he is one he has no rights (such as the right not to be dismembered, or the right to child support).
Truthseeker, I appreciate your thoughts about the rape exception. I’m so thankful that you have decided not to support it anymore!
I’m sorry if I ever came across too harshly at all.
(I’m also happy to know that alien statement was a joke- I really wasn’t sure at the time!)
“…if I can borrow a phrase from Bobby who borrowed it from Fulton Sheen.”
Darn right I stole it from Fulton Sheen! :)
Two different things, though, Bethany. We have an agreed-upon system of mathematical definitions and processes. In base 10, then yes, indeed 2 x 2 = 4.
Doug, whether or not it is agreed on by everyone, the fact remains. If I have two pencils, and I add two more pencils, I will have 4 pencils. Every single time. No matter what. There is no way that I could end up with any other number of pencils. There will always be 4.
Some things in life are just not subjective. Abortion is one of those things. The fact that some people don’t want to accept the fact that abortion is the unjust killing of human life does not change the fact that it is.
The fact that some years ago, people didn’t want to accept that beating your slave to death was wrong didn’t change the fact that it was wrong.
The fact that some people don’t think abusing animals is wrong, doesn’t change the fact that it is wrong.
****************
Doug, whether or not they regard them as “guilty”, they regard them as worthless enough to kill based on a whim or circumstance.
Or they are leaving the determination of worth up to the pregnant woman or couple who are involved.
Oh Doug, please. This is just semantic word play. You are well aware that the end result is the same.
I could easily say that someone who was pro-rape was just “leaving the determination of worth up to the man involved”, but you would know better than that. This word play nonsense fools no one.
****************
I really am against sex-selection abortion, per se, though I would not have abortion be illegal on that score alone. However, given the social conditions in a few countries where sex-selection is having a large impact, I think that worsens things to a greater degree. If nothing else, in the long run those countries may feel forced to try some social engineering to erase some of the imbalance, just as China felt compelled to do something to slow down the population increase. Not saying that would be a good thing, necessarily, either. As far as the imbalance being a negative thing, such a preponderance of one sex over the other means that, in this case, the boys often have a heck of a time finding a mate, and that’s a real pain.
Okay so the truth is that you are not REALLY against it, you just see some negative implications of it in the larger picture. It is really such a shame that you can’t see the negative ramifications of all abortions on society as a whole. Abortion does nothing to help anyone. It only creates misery for everyone involved.
****************************
I think both of those apply, Bethany. And there just is not a good enough reason for it [rape], IMO.
Who says that? Honestly!
Who says that the reason against rape is “there’s really just not good enough reason for it”?
So if you could see some situation where a woman might “deserve” rape, it might change your point of view? That’s what this statement implies. This is a really, really weird thing to say.
*************************
Contrast that with killing Joe Blow – most of the time it will be said to be a rights violation, but if Joe is coming over the wall at you in wartime, then it may be seen to be for the greater good to take him out.
Not a great analogy for abortion. An unborn baby doesn’t attack the pregnant woman, and there is “not a good enough reason” to kill the baby for what he or she did, which is to simply exist. It does not serve a greater good to kill the defenseless.
**************************
Doug,
correct me if I am wrong here but you seem to have a different reason for legalizing sex-selective abortion then you do about legalizing other abortion. Typically you would give the woman the right to choose wether or not carry the baby. But now you say that society should have a right to trump the woman’s choice and force her to either give birth or terminate a pregnancy based upon society’s varying needs/determination of an imbalance. Sounds like in places like China you would be understanding of a government forcing the termination of men children in order to bring a balance back to the population. It sounds like you are saying that society can trump a women’s right to choose based upon their need for males or females. Am I missing something here cause the reason given for abortion being legal at all in the US is that society cannot trump the woman’s choice regarding wether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Bethany,
No problem with the bumping heads. I was asking for it. But if you ever hear me talking about aliens or alternative universes in order to make my case on abortion then I am either joking or it is an imposter. lol
Sydney and TS.
I love you too!
You know, as an adoptee I really take exception to all the stuff about serial killers and killing of adoptive parents. By the way, I am also a reliability engineer, so a significant part of how I make my living is dealing with statistics. For that reason, I would like to point out a caution with regard to the percentages being quoted. You have to be very careful when using percentages based on a very small sample size, as a very minor variation in the raw numbers can cause a large change in the percentage. The population of serial killers and killers of parents is small (thank the Lord), and if you take the portion of them who are adoptees, that would be fewer yet. It would only take a variation of a very few to have a large effect on the percentage. In other words, without some kind of test to show that the difference in percentage is statistically significant at 95% confidence or better, and based on the obviously very small sample size, I don’t put much confidence that any of the claims that you are making have been proven to any reasonable degree. If you disagree, then provide a valid study showing the conclusion with a high enough statistical confidence to be convincing. Otherwise, stop throwing numbers around that could be very misleading.
Tim,
I apologize for that. I have tried to catch Denise Noe’s comments and delete them.
They serve no purpose.
Thanks, Carla. I just didn’t want people taking her numbers as “gospel.” In my job I’ve seen too many instances where something looks really big based on percentage until you look at the population size and realize it’s really small and the raw numbers weren’t that different. If you have two bowls of marbles, for instance, each half red and half blue, and you pull 3 from each bowl, you could get 1 red and two blue from bowl 1 and 2 red and one blue from bowl 2, and “conclude” that bowl 2 contains 33% more red marbles than bowl 1. That’s the risk when you’re looking at a very small population or sample size. Most people don’t realize that. I think Denise is falling for that fallacy, so I’m glad you’re keeping an eye out for her.
Perhaps if you are truly “pro-life,” you should not “promote adoption” but promote a situation making it easier for females pregnant under negative circumstances to be able to raise their babies.
We do both, Denise. Pregnancy Resource Center anyone?
Your comments about adoption and serial killers will be deleted from here on out.
It would make more sense if you would stop posting the link after I have already asked you to stop.
I won’t be reading the link and am still scratching my head as to WHY you continue to post it??!! It serves
no purpose here and adds nothing to the discussion.
Would adoption work better if it could be done pre-natally? That is, if the fetus could be transplanted from one woman to another. Should we work for research that would make this feasible?
Denise, I believe that is theoretically possible. I would be in favor of this because then there would be no reason for abortion.
I sincerely believe that even if the technology was available (to transplant the unborn from one womb to the other successfully), many women would still choose abortion over adoption, for basically the same reasons that they choose it over adoption today (“I couldn’t bear knowing my child was in another’s care and not knowing how they were doing, etc”). For some reason, to some people, killing is somehow more palatable than the adoption option, no matter what.
Also, the surgery required to do it would probably be dangerous to the mother, there would be complications and so forth. And it would probably be extremely expensive… It probably would meet with much resistance if it were a reality. In theory it sounds like an awesome thing, but I think we’ve got to deal with reality as it is.
I totally agree, Bethany.
Bethany, abortion has risks too, so that doesn’t seem like the issue. If this procedure were available, there would be no reason for abortion to occur. The fetus would have the right to life and the woman would have the right to bodily autonomy and there need be no conflict. With the existence of this procedure abortion could be outlawed with no good arguments from the pro-dismemberment crowd on why it’s necessary.
YCW, I agree with most of your posts wholeheartedly, but on this one I have to disagree. They don’t have any good arguments now. There is no good reason for abortion to occur, right now.
The people who promote abortion just use the same regurgitated lies to promote it, and I truly believe that even with that technology, they would still find some way to promote abortion. They desire death. They don’t care about women. They desire the money that abortion brings to them.
They don’t care about women, or their bodily rights- that’s not their issue, they only pretend that it is. What they want is abortion. They will work tirelessly to find a way to promote abortion no matter WHAT alternatives are out there.
That is why there are still people who have abortions in the late second and third trimester, when the baby could still survive outside of the womb. If it were only a matter of bodily autonomy, then there would be no such thing as live birth abortions, because women would just have a c-section and deliver those babies to willing adoptive parents.
Also, there was recently a woman who I heard about through facebook. She had an adoptive couple ready to adopt her baby, but when they found out that the baby had spina bifida, they backed out. There was an email sent out by the girl’s aunt, saying that if anyone would step up and be willing to adopt the child, she would not be aborted. (the woman was 20 weeks or so). Otherwise, the abortion was scheduled the next day. Over 30 couples offered to adopt this baby, including my husband and I. The woman ended up choosing abortion anyway. Even though 30 couples had said they would be willing to take this girl in and give her a good home. Some people will not choose life regardless of their options.
Bethany, I don’t believe there are good reasons for abortion, either. But there are reasons that sound good for pre-viability abortions, and these are the ones that pro-abortion people use. If there were a way for a fetus to survive and the woman to not be pregnant, the entire bodily autonomy argument is gone. There’s no argument outside of that for killing the fetus. Would people still want to choose death? Probably. But if we could make abortion illegal–based on the premise that a woman still would not need to stay pregnant, so her “rights” are upheld–then we save most of the children (and honestly, most wouldn’t choose prenatal adoption). And everyone would know that abortion was about killing the baby–including the many people who believe the tired talking points of those who oppose fetal rights right now.
YCW and Bethany,
Perhaps the following distinction might help? Christ Kaczor discusses the ethics of artificial wombs in his latest book “The Ethics of Abortion” and he argues that artificial wombs, if developed and if it were as safe to extract the baby from the mother and implant it into the artificial womb as was any standard surgery, would end the INTELLECTUAL abortion debate. In other words, we would still have all the same problems that Bethany is referring to, but all the arguments that intellectuals use to defend abortion would no longer apply. I do think this is correct. I think that if there were artificial wombs, then there would be no argument that for abortion that had any intellectual merit whatsoever. But people would still try to justify it based solely on emotional and social reasons. In fact, I think a good way to state this is that if artificial wombs were ever created, then most abortion defenders would look like Robert Berger. “poor woman” this, “malnourished child in poverty” that. But we would not see any Dougs or SoMGs anymore.
Bobby, you are so very good at explaining things. That really helps clarify what I was trying to say but could not articulate.
Ha! Well, I only stole it from Chris Kaczor. If anyone is interested, I have a review of his new book on amazon. It’s great, an excellent resource for all pro lifers.
young christian woman: If pregnancy takes its natural course, no one is forcing anything. An abortion, induction, or C-section would be “forced.”
And more is involved in abortion than forcing the fetus out of the womb. The fetus is first killed, and usually dismemberment is involved. Please explain why the woman requires the right to dismember her child. Please explain why the child is not a living human being, or why if he is one he has no rights (such as the right not to be dismembered, or the right to child support).
Well, sometimes the pregnant woman does not want “the natural course,” and yes – agreed that the unborn are living human beings, but rights have not been attributed to them, and the point of the Roe decision was that the states don’t have a good enough reason to restrict the pregnant woman’s freedom, to a point in gestation, and I agree with that.
Doug, whether or not it is agreed on by everyone, the fact remains. If I have two pencils, and I add two more pencils, I will have 4 pencils. Every single time. No matter what. There is no way that I could end up with any other number of pencils. There will always be 4.
Some things in life are just not subjective. Abortion is one of those things. The fact that some people don’t want to accept the fact that abortion is the unjust killing of human life does not change the fact that it is.
Bethany, mathematics is an agreed-upon system, and there is no such agreement on your statement of “wrong,” for abortion. I see it as more unjust to take away the legal freedom that women now have, there, and while many people agree with you, many people also agree with me.
____
B: Doug, whether or not they regard them as “guilty”, they regard them as worthless enough to kill based on a whim or circumstance.
D: Or they are leaving the determination of worth up to the pregnant woman or couple who are involved.
B: Oh Doug, please. This is just semantic word play. You are well aware that the end result is the same.
I could easily say that someone who was pro-rape was just “leaving the determination of worth up to the man involved”, but you would know better than that. This word play nonsense fools no one.
No, it’s not just semantics. In no way is it necessarily a “whim” to decide to have an abortion, but I would agree that the circumstances make a huge difference, often, rape being a good example that makes a difference to most people.
I agree that the fetus (for example) still dies in an abortion, regardless of the motivation, and the question is really if we as a society have a compelling need to force the continuation of the given pregnancy or not. I say no. Yes, you could say something about people being “pro-rape,” but how many people do you actually see that are that way? Pretty much a meaningless hypothetical, eh? The fact that the unborn are inside the body of a person makes a huge difference. On rape, really isn’t significant disagreement. On abortion, the certainly is.
_____
Okay so the truth is that you are not REALLY against it (sex-selection abortion), you just see some negative implications of it in the larger picture. It is really such a shame that you can’t see the negative ramifications of all abortions on society as a whole. Abortion does nothing to help anyone. It only creates misery for everyone involved.
No, I’m against it, per se, i.e. all other things being equal. Not that I would deny women abortions on that score, because things aren’t equal, otherwise, IMO. But on a gut-basic level I don’t like the idea of sex-selection, just as many people would not forbid abortion in cases of rape, all the while still not liking abortion. I do see negative implications when the sexes get out of balance, indeed, but it also seems too bad to me on an individual basis to choose abortion because the sex of the unborn is one thing or another.
While I agree that on a case-by-case basis, there may be negative ramifications to abortion, I also see negative ramifications to not letting the woman decide as we now do. It’s not true that “abortion does nothing to help anyone.” You are grossly generalizing from the particular, there.
____
Who says that the reason against rape is “there’s really just not good enough reason for it”?
So if you could see some situation where a woman might “deserve” rape, it might change your point of view? That’s what this statement implies. This is a really, really weird thing to say.
Well, you’re the one that brought up hypothetical people being “pro-rape.” You asked if rape was wrong, including among your given possible answer choices, “it doesn’t serve a greater good.” I don’t see what a woman could do to “deserve” rape.
The rapist, and a very few other people among the population, might be on the side of rape. Who do you see saying that the greater good would be served by having rape not be a crime? Pretty much nobody, in general. In general, we hold that the woman being raped is not for the greater good, is wrong, should be illegal, etc. And while there is not such an overwhelming consensus, huge numbers of people hold that taking away the freedom that women currently have as to abortion is not for the greater good, is wrong, that it should be illegal (same as the decision in Roe). This is saying that there’s not a good enough reason for it, that the state does not have enough of a compelling interest; rather that the state’s compelling interest is in maintaining the liberty of the woman.
____
“Contrast that with killing Joe Blow – most of the time it will be said to be a rights violation, but if Joe is over the wall at you in wartime, then it may be seen to be for the greater good to take him out.”
Not a great analogy for abortion. An unborn baby doesn’t attack the pregnant woman, and there is “not a good enough reason” to kill the baby for what he or she did, which is to simply exist. It does not serve a greater good to kill the defenseless.
The point is that the situation can and often does make a huge difference. Not saying unborn babies “attack the woman,” but they are inside the woman’s body, and that’s what makes the difference, versus them not being inside. You were talking about rape, and I don’t see justification for rape. Almost always, the justification for killing Joe Blow won’t be seen either. However, as above, the situation can make a difference.
he argues that artificial wombs, if developed and if it were as safe to extract the baby from the mother and implant it into the artificial womb as was any standard surgery, would end the INTELLECTUAL abortion debate. In other words, we would still have all the same problems that Bethany is referring to, but all the arguments that intellectuals use to defend abortion would no longer apply. I do think this is correct.
Bobby, I do too. That would take care of the woman not wanting to be pregnant. I’d say that the procedure would need to be no more time-consuming, etc., than abortion, or better yet, for the sake of discussion it’d really be best if it was the equivalent of “waving a magic wand” and having the baby then be in the artificial womb.
The issues of the cost and finding ways and people to care for the added number of kids would remain, and they would be substantial….
you seem to have a different reason for legalizing sex-selective abortion then you do about legalizing other abortion. Typically you would give the woman the right to choose whether or not carry the baby. But now you say that society should have a right to trump the woman’s choice and force her to either give birth or terminate a pregnancy based upon society’s varying needs/determination of an imbalance. Sounds like in places like China you would be understanding of a government forcing the termination of men children in order to bring a balance back to the population. It sounds like you are saying that society can trump a women’s right to choose based upon their need for males or females. Am I missing something here cause the reason given for abortion being legal at all in the US is that society cannot trump the woman’s choice regarding wether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Truthseeker, I didn’t say society should be able to force the continuance or ending of a pregnancy based on the sex of the baby. I do see the big problems in places like China and India from an inbalance in the sexes, but I wouldn’t trump the woman’s choice based on them. That said, I do regret the cultural reasons for the imbalances and that people would choose abortion on the basis of the sex of the baby.
You know, overall I’m looking at things as if the gov’t should leave well enough alone in the absence of a compelling need. At the present time I don’t see a good enough reason to make abortion generally illegal. If there was enough need for both males and females, then I’d feel differently. Not sure what those circumstances would be.
I wonder what’s going to happen in places like China. Very hard to change a culture, in this case to cut down the preference for male children. However, just as they felt they had to do something about the rate of population increase, they may at some time feel they have to change the balance of the sexes….
Yes, you could say something about people being “pro-rape,” but how many people do you actually see that are that way?
I see the two guys that raped me that way. Legalize rape and watch ’em come out of the woodwork.
Few believed that the killing of preborn children would ever become legalized to say nothing of becoming so supported by common, intelligent folks. Folks just like you, Doug.
Killing and supporting the killing of humans is just as wrong as raping and supporting rape. Both are shameful, shameful behaviors.
Doug says:
Well, sometimes the pregnant woman does not want “the natural course,” and yes – agreed that the unborn are living human beings, but rights have not been attributed to them, and the point of the Roe decision was that the states don’t have a good enough reason to restrict the pregnant woman’s freedom, to a point in gestation, and I agree with that.
Well, Doug, if the court decided today that “rights have not been attributed” to you, would you agree with that? As I’ve mentioned before, I’m an adoptee. When I was in the womb of my birth mother, I was just as much me as I am now. I was a living human being, as you state. Killing me then would have been morally no different from killing me today. As for the Supreme Court, it also gave us the Dred Scott decision that declared that African-Americans were not fully human and did not have rights attributed to them. Roe v Wade is just another instance of the same kind of thinking by the courts. They are wrong on that. It is indisputable that they were wrong on Dred Scott. It is just as indisputable that they were wrong on Roe. The courts have a really bad record on cases where they declare whole groups not human. Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. This is a matter of fact, not opinion, and it doesn’t matter how many people say otherwise. To your credit, I see that you recognize that the baby in the womb is a living human being. How then can it be morally OK to kill that living human being? How can there be a “right” to take an innocent human life?
One reason females seek abortions may not be concern about what could happen after the birth but that the PREGNANCY ITSELF is felt as unacceptable. I asked a woman who sought and got an abortion when it was illegal if she would have been more likely to carry to term had there been more honor for birthmothers who give their babies up for adoption during that time period. She said the status of adoption was “quite irrelevant” because she “just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.” She said the problem was “the pregnancy itself.” She elaborated that “in some wildly hypothetical alternative universe” in which she had carried to term, there would have been “no relinquishment” and “no stigma.” She was unconcerned with stigma as her own mother wasn’t the least bit upset at learning of her pregnancy. Again, it was that she found the state of being pregnant unacceptable that led her to seek and have an illegal abortion.
“young christian woman: If pregnancy takes its natural course, no one is forcing anything. An abortion, induction, or C-section would be “forced.”
And more is involved in abortion than forcing the fetus out of the womb. The fetus is first killed, and usually dismemberment is involved. Please explain why the woman requires the right to dismember her child. Please explain why the child is not a living human being, or why if he is one he has no rights (such as the right not to be dismembered, or the right to child support).
Doug: Well, sometimes the pregnant woman does not want “the natural course,” and yes – agreed that the unborn are living human beings, but rights have not been attributed to them, and the point of the Roe decision was that the states don’t have a good enough reason to restrict the pregnant woman’s freedom, to a point in gestation, and I agree with that.”
I agree that the court has not acknowledged the rights of unborn children. I think we’re all smart enough to know that’s not the issue. The question is whether children should have rights before birth.
Why don’t you feel that this certain class of living human beings are deserving of rights? Why don’t you feel that they are entitled to the protection and support of their parents?
If parents choose after birth to not be a parent to their child, they are still required to pay for the child’s support until their rights are terminated or the child reaches the age of majority. Is it really that different to require that a pregnant woman supports her child with her body? A man might not need to work to support himself, but might need to work to pay child support and support himself at the same time. He is still using his time and his body to support his child, though not in such an intimate way. Why shouldn’t the state be able to require a mother to support her unborn child for the duration of pregnancy? We aren’t talking about an interloping stranger; we are talking about her child. Unwantedness or unpreparedness are not excuses we accept when women refuse to care for their born children.
Why is it okay for the state to protect a child after a certain point, and what is that point? If the point is viability, and the child is not born at 24 weeks, and the mother no longer wants to be pregnant, is she required to continue caring for her baby? Is she allowed to birth early (based solely on her wishes)? If the state can force her to carry her child until closer to term, but viability is the point when the child gains rights, why would it be wrong for the state to force a woman who was 19 weeks pregnant to continue her pregnancy?
Bethany, mathematics is an agreed-upon system, and there is no such agreement on your statement of “wrong,” for abortion. I see it as more unjust to take away the legal freedom that women now have, there, and while many people agree with you, many people also agree with me.
2 x 2 doesn’t equal 4 just because people agree it does, Doug. It doesn’t equal 4 because we all agreed it would. It would still equal 4 regardless of any other belief system that said it equaled 6, or 7. Killing a human being who has done nothing to deserve it is wrong. An opposing view does not change this as being the reality of the situation.
____
I agree that the fetus (for example) still dies in an abortion, regardless of the motivation, and the question is really if we as a society have a compelling need to force the continuation of the given pregnancy or not. I say no. Yes, you could say something about people being “pro-rape,” but how many people do you actually see that are that way? Pretty much a meaningless hypothetical, eh? The fact that the unborn are inside the body of a person makes a huge difference. On rape, really isn’t significant disagreement. On abortion, the certainly is.
You are just unable to grasp this point- and it is such a simple point, Doug. It doesn’t matter whether rape is “significantly disagreed upon” or not for my point to be valid. Your argument has nothing to do with mine.
By the way,I, unlike you, am not a “majority rules” kind of person. I think some things are wrong whether the majority believes it is not- such as in the case of slavery or the holocaust. By the logic you use here, you would have defended both slavery and the holocaust had you lived in those times, since there was a consensus among a great number of people that certain others were less human than others, and therefore not worthy of protection- not to mention , the law was on their side.
While I agree that on a case-by-case basis, there may be negative ramifications to abortion, I also see negative ramifications to not letting the woman decide as we now do. It’s not true that “abortion does nothing to help anyone.” You are grossly generalizing from the particular, there.
No, I’m sorry. I disagree. There is no woman that abortion helps. There is no child that abortion helps. Abortion helps no one.
You might say, well a woman will feel relief after abortion and can get on with things she wants to do – well, maybe Susan Smith felt relief after drowning her two children in a lake…she thought she was freeing up time to be with her lover…does that mean that killing them was actually helpful to her or anyone else? What about the children? I think you know that it wasn’t any more helpful than an abortion is to any person. And even if it WAS it wouldn’t excuse killing them!
____
Well, you’re the one that brought up hypothetical people being “pro-rape.” You asked if rape was wrong, including among your given possible answer choices, “it doesn’t serve a greater good.” I don’t see what a woman could do to “deserve” rape.
The rapist, and a very few other people among the population, might be on the side of rape. Who do you see saying that the greater good would be served by having rape not be a crime? Pretty much nobody, in general. In general, we hold that the woman being raped is not for the greater good, is wrong, should be illegal, etc. And while there is not such an overwhelming consensus, huge numbers of people hold that taking away the freedom that women currently have as to abortion is not for the greater good, is wrong, that it should be illegal (same as the decision in Roe). This is saying that there’s not a good enough reason for it, that the state does not have enough of a compelling interest; rather that the state’s compelling interest is in maintaining the liberty of the woman.
Congrats. You are the KING of not getting the point- either that or intentionally distorting the argument and changing it into something it wasn’t meant to be.
To what extent does open adoption address problems in adoption? I’ve read birthmothers complain that open adoption is like a pretty box of candies — that is empty because openness isn’t legally enforceable. Should it be?
What is the right amount of contact between birthmothers and adoptees?
Open adoption should be legally enforceable, at least for children who are too young to make their own decisions. The right amount of contact is what all the parties feel comfortable with. This should include the opinions of a child old enough to have an opinion, and after the child is an adult it should be between him or her and his birth family.
Open adoption means that (at minimum) the birth family does not have to wonder where her children are or what they are doing.
It is worth noting that not just the birth mother but also siblings, grandparents, and other relatives can have a relationship with an adopted child.
Open adoption also provides adoptees with a connection to their family of origin, helps prevent unrealistic fantasies about their birth families, and helps give them a connection to their roots for information we take for granted–medical history, development history of parents, etc.
young christian woman says:
May 13, 2011 at 9:08 am
Open adoption also provides adoptees with a connection to their family of origin, helps prevent unrealistic fantasies about their birth families, and helps give them a connection to their roots for information we take for granted–medical history, development history of parents, etc.
(Denise) Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!!!!!!! That nails it!
“Yes, you could say something about people being “pro-rape,” but how many people do you actually see that are that way?”
Praxedes: I see the two guys that raped me that way. Legalize rape and watch ‘em come out of the woodwork.
Few believed that the killing of preborn children would ever become legalized to say nothing of becoming so supported by common, intelligent folks. Folks just like you, Doug.
Again, there is no significant disagreement about rape, while the case is much different with respect to abortion. Abortion, at least for part of gestation, has been legal much more than illegal, going back through our history into English common law. That it became illegal in the US had much to do with doctors feeling that midwives were encroaching on what the docs thought was their rightful territory – it wasn’t that abortion was really “forbidden,” it was just that then it required the say-so of two doctors, which suited the docs just fine.
The reason that so many people support legal abortion is due to consideration of the pregnant woman or girl.
Tim: Well, Doug, if the court decided today that “rights have not been attributed” to you, would you agree with that? As I’ve mentioned before, I’m an adoptee. When I was in the womb of my birth mother, I was just as much me as I am now. I was a living human being, as you state. Killing me then would have been morally no different from killing me today. As for the Supreme Court, it also gave us the Dred Scott decision that declared that African-Americans were not fully human and did not have rights attributed to them. Roe v Wade is just another instance of the same kind of thinking by the courts. They are wrong on that. It is indisputable that they were wrong on Dred Scott. It is just as indisputable that they were wrong on Roe. The courts have a really bad record on cases where they declare whole groups not human. Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. This is a matter of fact, not opinion, and it doesn’t matter how many people say otherwise. To your credit, I see that you recognize that the baby in the womb is a living human being. How then can it be morally OK to kill that living human being? How can there be a “right” to take an innocent human life?
Tim, agreed that we are all the same organism from conception. However, had your mom or mine had an abortion, then there never would have been a “you” or “me” to have any awareness, to know or care about anything. Agreed that the unborn are innocent, but the pro-choice argument is not that they are “guilty.” The right to have an abortion is on the woman’s part – and while the Supreme Court did not “declare the unborn to not be human,” they did say that the states didn’t have a compelling enough reason to restrict the liberty of the pregnant woman, as some were trying to do. Same with the Court cases reversing Dred Scott, the finding was that the states did not have a compelling enough reason to restrict the liberty of the slaves, among other things.
young christian woman: I agree that the court has not acknowledged the rights of unborn children. I think we’re all smart enough to know that’s not the issue. The question is whether children should have rights before birth.
Yes – the issue is how we treat the unborn and how we treat the pregnant women.
_____
Why don’t you feel that this certain class of living human beings are deserving of rights? Why don’t you feel that they are entitled to the protection and support of their parents?
If the parents want to protect them and support them, then I’m all for it. I think that a miscarriage can be a very sad thing. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then I’m for allowing the woman to end it, to a point in gestation.
_____
If parents choose after birth to not be a parent to their child, they are still required to pay for the child’s support until their rights are terminated or the child reaches the age of majority. Is it really that different to require that a pregnant woman supports her child with her body? A man might not need to work to support himself, but might need to work to pay child support and support himself at the same time. He is still using his time and his body to support his child, though not in such an intimate way. Why shouldn’t the state be able to require a mother to support her unborn child for the duration of pregnancy? We aren’t talking about an interloping stranger; we are talking about her child. Unwantedness or unpreparedness are not excuses we accept when women refuse to care for their born children.
The difference, whether you give it much weight or not, is that the unborn are inside the body of the woman. It is not simply about the state requiring support for the unborn baby or not, it’s also about how the state treats the woman, and whether or not it lets women keep the freedom they now have in the matter.
____
Why is it okay for the state to protect a child after a certain point, and what is that point? If the point is viability, and the child is not born at 24 weeks, and the mother no longer wants to be pregnant, is she required to continue caring for her baby? Is she allowed to birth early (based solely on her wishes)? If the state can force her to carry her child until closer to term, but viability is the point when the child gains rights, why would it be wrong for the state to force a woman who was 19 weeks pregnant to continue her pregnancy?
The point with viability is that the baby can then, in theory, live outside the womb. Of course it’s no perfect solution – there are enormous problems and costs with very premature birth. 19 weeks isn’t viability – I don’t know where the 50/50 point is now but I’d think it’s around 23 or 24 weeks. After that time, “is she required to continue caring for her baby?” I don’t know about that – don’t know if there have been many cases of delivery being done at that point, for that reason (she doesn’t want to be pregnant).
“Bethany, mathematics is an agreed-upon system, and there is no such agreement on your statement of “wrong,” for abortion. I see it as more unjust to take away the legal freedom that women now have, there, and while many people agree with you, many people also agree with me.”
2 x 2 doesn’t equal 4 just because people agree it does, Doug. It doesn’t equal 4 because we all agreed it would. It would still equal 4 regardless of any other belief system that said it equaled 6, or 7. Killing a human being who has done nothing to deserve it is wrong. An opposing view does not change this as being the reality of the situation.
Totally wrong. “4” is what’s been agreed upon as the mathematical definition of that quantity. Were we to go with base 3, for example, rather than base 10, then 2 x 2 = 11. Again, it’s the agree-upon definition, the quantity. In any event, this is talking about physical quantity, physical reality, and that is a much different thing than opinions of morality. If there is a given number of objects present, then I will agree with you on that. But your statement of your belief as to the morality of abortion is not any necessary reality – that’s internal to you, whereas the physical existence of the objects is external.
____
“I agree that the fetus (for example) still dies in an abortion, regardless of the motivation, and the question is really if we as a society have a compelling need to force the continuation of the given pregnancy or not. I say no. Yes, you could say something about people being “pro-rape,” but how many people do you actually see that are that way? Pretty much a meaningless hypothetical, eh? The fact that the unborn are inside the body of a person makes a huge difference. On rape, really isn’t significant disagreement. On abortion, the certainly is.”
You are just unable to grasp this point- and it is such a simple point, Doug. It doesn’t matter whether rape is “significantly disagreed upon” or not for my point to be valid. Your argument has nothing to do with mine.
Sure it matters – you are using a meaningless hypothetical to try and prove a point, and it has no basis in the real world.
_____
By the way,I, unlike you, am not a “majority rules” kind of person. I think some things are wrong whether the majority believes it is not- such as in the case of slavery or the holocaust. By the logic you use here, you would have defended both slavery and the holocaust had you lived in those times, since there was a consensus among a great number of people that certain others were less human than others, and therefore not worthy of protection- not to mention , the law was on their side.
That too is wrong, Bethany. There’s nothing that says I would necessarily agree with a given majority opinion. But when we come to rape – has it ever actually been legal and not considered a crime? I do not think so.
_____
Abortion helps no one.
Again, this is just an unsupported statement from you. Millions of women who have had abortions disagree with you.
_____
You might say, well a woman will feel relief after abortion and can get on with things she wants to do – well, maybe Susan Smith felt relief after drowning her two children in a lake…she thought she was freeing up time to be with her lover…does that mean that killing them was actually helpful to her or anyone else? What about the children? I think you know that it wasn’t any more helpful than an abortion is to any person. And even if it WAS it wouldn’t excuse killing them!
Smith was/is a kook. In no way am I defending what she did.
_____
“Well, you’re the one that brought up hypothetical people being “pro-rape.” You asked if rape was wrong, including among your given possible answer choices, “it doesn’t serve a greater good.” I don’t see what a woman could do to “deserve” rape.
The rapist, and a very few other people among the population, might be on the side of rape. Who do you see saying that the greater good would be served by having rape not be a crime? Pretty much nobody, in general. In general, we hold that the woman being raped is not for the greater good, is wrong, should be illegal, etc. And while there is not such an overwhelming consensus, huge numbers of people hold that taking away the freedom that women currently have as to abortion is not for the greater good, is wrong, that it should be illegal (same as the decision in Roe). This is saying that there’s not a good enough reason for it, that the state does not have enough of a compelling interest; rather that the state’s compelling interest is in maintaining the liberty of the woman.”
Congrats. You are the KING of not getting the point- either that or intentionally distorting the argument and changing it into something it wasn’t meant to be.
Baloney. Your “pro-rape” scenario has no realistic application. Meanwhile, the facts are that many people are saying that the life of the unborn is the most important thing (pro-lifers) and others are saying the freedom of the woman is the most important (pro-choicers).
That too is wrong, Bethany. There’s nothing that says I would necessarily agree with a given majority opinion. But when we come to rape – has it ever actually been legal and not considered a crime? I do not think so.
If “majority rules” has no say so in your argument, why would this matter, Doug?
Smith was/is a kook. In no way am I defending what she did.
Why not, Doug? She might say that killing her children “helped” her. If she believes it helps her, why is she any different than a post abortive woman who says abortion “helped” her?
Doug says: Tim, agreed that we are all the same organism from conception. However, had your mom or mine had an abortion, then there never would have been a “you” or “me” to have any awareness, to know or care about anything. Agreed that the unborn are innocent, but the pro-choice argument is not that they are “guilty.” The right to have an abortion is on the woman’s part – and while the Supreme Court did not “declare the unborn to not be human,” they did say that the states didn’t have a compelling enough reason to restrict the liberty of the pregnant woman, as some were trying to do. Same with the Court cases reversing Dred Scott, the finding was that the states did not have a compelling enough reason to restrict the liberty of the slaves, among other things.
Doug, right from your first two sentences, you are contradicting yourself. If I was the same person from conception (your first statement), then your second statement cannot be true because there cannot have been a time after conception when there was no “me.” You go on to agree that the unborn are innocent, yet you go on to defend killing them if the woman chooses to kill them. After that, you make the flatly false statement that the Supreme Court did not declare the unborn not to be human. In point of fact, in the very text of the Roe decision, it is stated that the decision depends on defining the unborn as not persons under the law, and that if the weight of evidence ever were such that the personhood of the unborn were established, the Roe decision would be invalid. Finally your last statements regarding the Dred Scott decision. You apparently are not familiar with this case. The case was that of a slave who was brought into a free state by his “owner” and who then sued for his freedom based on the fact that he was now in a free state. The Supreme Court rejected his petition, ruling that he was not a person, but was merely property, and that his “owner” could not be deprived of his “property.” Chief Justice Taney famously made the statement that blacks had no rights that whites were bound to respect. Your last statement that the court said the states had no compelling interest in restricting the liberty of slaves is the exact opposite of what the court actually said. The Dred Scott decision declared blacks were property and not persons. The Roe decision declared that children in the womb were property and not persons. Bad idea then, bad idea now. Wrong then, wrong now. Some people agree with Roe. Some people agreed with the Dred Scott ruling. Defending abortion because some think it is OK is no different from defending slavery with the same argument. You say it is wrong to “force a woman to continue a pregnancy,” yet you refuse to address the fact that the alternative you are supporting involves the intentional killing of an innocent person. Is homicide really a better option?
By the way, Doug, the Supreme Court never did overturn the Dred Scott decision. It took the 13th and 14th amendments to do that. If it had been left up to the Supreme Court, the Dred Scott decision might very well still be regarded as “precedent” and slavery might well still be legal. Fortunately, we will never know how that might have turned out.