0 likes

   1 likes

Sounds like more actors with nothing to do who can’t stand being out of the limelight.

Like it’s going to help telling Obama to get going on this. No President has been more pro-abortion than him. What President has ever tried to force the providing of contraceptive and abortive medications on businesses, including church institutions.

If these poor actors can’t find anything to do to make themselves look useful, they might want to come up with a better cause than this.

As for reproductive rights, I don’t want to hear about them until I hear an adequate answer to the question: what about the rights of the baby, who seems to be just a bit involved in reproduction?

   4 likes

From my observations, for those who are more open-minded, FOX News made a rather convincing connection. A lot of people are questioning abortion on demand that weren’t before, or are questioning it more seriously. 

At least FOX News was actually covering the trial, BEFORE Kirsten Powers blasted the liberal media.

What pro-abortionists just can’t admit, because it’s too damaging, is that Gosnell is more rule than exception. Similar cases are coming out more since Gosnell, but there were plenty before that as well. Even the lamestream media couldn’t hide them. They are there for those who want to know. For those who don’t, it probably won’t convince them anyway.

   3 likes

   4 likes

   5 likes

May 24, 2013 at 6:52 pm

@ Mother in Texas: About adoption: Why not make it the norm?  When women go into hospitals to have babies, the babies are randomly assigned to the women who leave. Each woman leaves with another woman’s baby.It’s not like carrying for 9 months and giving birth forms a bond between that particular mother and child and that breaking that bond injures both mother and child.

Denise, what point are you trying to make? Are you against adoption?>>
(Denise) No, I am not against adoption. It might be necessary in some cases.
 
I know lots of happy adoption stories! My grandfather was adopted, he adopted two girls (my aunts), my sister had adopted four children, etc. These children had no parents. These are a mix of domestic and international adoption. There are interracial adoptions in the mix. Are you saying that a woman does form a bond with her unborn baby and therefore adoption is wrong? Or are you saying that no bond is formed? If you are saying that there is no bond formed, then you are out of your mind. I’m going to assume you meant that there IS a bond formed. So the alternative to adoption is abortion? Better to kill your baby (and break the bond) than to allow a family to adopt your baby (and actually in a lot of cases continue to see your baby)? Just spell it out please. Your sarcasm gets in the way of clarity.
(Denise) Almost everybody recognizes that the birthmother is harmed by placing her baby for adoption. They recognize this because she is conscious. It seems to me that the bond goes both ways. Even though the baby is pre-conscious, the baby is attached to the body in which he or she grew and out of which he or she came.  Adoptive mother Nancy Verrier has written, “Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child” about this. She isn’t against adoption. She believes it is important to recognize that adoption wounds the child.
 <<And you’re obviously not saying that we should be in a collective-socialist type society in which no one is allowed to care for their biological child. You seem to be saying that since this is not the case, then adoption is bad.>>
(Denise) I’m not saying adoption is bad. I’m saying adoption automatically has certain problems.  Look up “The Forensics of Adoption” to find out its strong statistical link to specific horrors. I can’t get more specific because Carla considers mentioning negative facts associated with adoption to be “ranting.” But you can google those things.
There are negative facts associated with single motherhood. I don’t know if Carla thinks mentioning them is “ranting” or not.  However, it seems to be a premise here that we must “shush” facts that point to problems with adoption, young motherhood, or single motherhood for fear of encouraging abortion.  
 
<<Look, breastmilk is best for babies. [I won't tolerate any argument against this because there are only a million studies proving it.] BUT, if a woman is unable to breastfeed her baby because she’s had breast surgery or has HIV/AIDS or if the baby is being cared for by the father or someone else because the mother has died, then obviously you give the baby formula. Formula is obviously not as good as breastmilk, but it’s better than saying “Oh, breastmilk is the only way to go – since we don’t have it we’ll just let the baby starve or kill him instead.” Ideally all children would be cared for by their own parents, but since we have situations in which parents are abusive, in jail, dead or absent for some other reason, we have adoption as the next-best loving alternative.>>

(Denise) As I said, adoption is sometimes necessary.  For example, there will always be women who will die in childbirth. There will always be mothers who die or get killed when the child is young. There are moms in prison and mental hospitals and moms who are too handicapped to care for a child. 
I don’t think adoption should be PUSHED.  I’m all for its existing. 
Some people have also suggested that “guardianship” might often be better than adoption.  A young, impoverished mother and her baby are taken in by an older, affluent, childless couple.  The childless couple get to express their maternal and paternal yearnings with both the mom and the baby. 
 

   1 likes

   2 likes

   0 likes

   6 likes