I assume that you are using the term 'sacred' as a synonym for valuable. Are you saying that human life is not sacred (valuable)? If so, then I disagree.

I also find your statement to be a non sequitur. That's like saying, "If you're so worried about the spotted owls, why don't you sell your furniture and help the condors?"

I have no doubt that there are needy children in Africa and elsewhere. That doesn't mean that people can't be concerned about events closer to home, as well.

I don't understand your point here. It is well known that there are very long waiting lists for adoption in the US.

You've got be kidding me. Have you every tried to adopt a child? There's something on the order of 40 couples waiting for every 1 newborn available for adoption.

-sm

So if a woman gets pregnant by accident (or by carelessness, however you want to look at it) should that mean that she is required to become a human incubator for 9 months for some childless couple?

There are lots of children already available for adoption. They just don't happen to be the right age, the right color, the right background, etc. for most prospective adoptive parents.

There are people out there who desperately want children but for whatever reason can't have their own. And that's really sad. But that has nothing to do with with whether or not a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Neither of us said that. Lady's comment said "where are they [people who will take the baby] when the woman doesn't want her child?" The correct answer is, "everywhere".

The reason this issue is so difficult is that both sides want to throw a broad blanket over a wide range of scenarios. I don't understand how people can have such simplistic viewpoints. I find it a very difficult topic.

"Simplistic"? Not exactly. Some people just have a different opinion that you--that doesn't make their view simplistic.

Doesn't have anything to do with differing opinion. "abortion is always a moral choice" and "abortion is always an immoral choice" are both over-simplifications of a complex set of moral issues.

I wrote this big old long thing...

And it was way slanted and not what I wanted to put up here, so I put it on my blog.

I'm moving today!
It was my birfday yesterday! (Thanks to those people who wished me a Happy Birthday, you know who you are!)

Fear not! I'm still lurking, just taking a posting break.

Love you guys....

Abortion isn't a moral dilemma and it isn't murder. Nobody on earth has any claim to our bodies but ourselves, not even anything growing inside of us. I support abortion for any reason or no reason. I support abortion as a means of birth control. I support abortion if the pregnant woman wants to do it on a whim. I support it even if she has one every month. I support abortion in all circumstances because it's not my decision to make. I would hope my wife wouldn't make the choice to have an abortion, but it's her choice, not mine.

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY! It's not even a human lifeform. It does not have human life. Aborting a fetus (aka parasite) is no more murder than removing a wart, getting your tonsils out, or having a tumor removed.

This is not a simplistic view either. It's based in scientific fact.

The biological definition of the progeny as a parasite is true, even up until they are old enough to do dishes or cut the grass. Taken in the long term, the relationship can be defined as symbiosis, especially if they are raised right and pass through the whole relationship until the parent becomes the parasite.

Now, the scientific fact that you are asserting exists only in that someone believes that to be true. It is no more fact than saying that blue is blue.

Actually, that's a tautology, one of the few facts that's objective. What's subjective is whether this guy :3_eyes: is blue.
/end pedant mode

Getting your science from the Enquirer again, eh Radar?

Actually this is the problem with the whole debate and the reason it will almost always exist. Science can't say for sure when "life" begins because you can't ask a collection of cells if it is "alive" yet. I think we can all agree that if it could be categorically proven that a "soul" or "consciousness" (or whatever you want the distinction between a living cell and a living human to be) does not enter a fetus until a specific time then nobody would have a problem aborting that pregnancy prior to that time. Alternately, if it could be proven that a fetus had the same "living" qualities as a 30 year-old man at the moment of first cell division, then nobody could reasonably argue that aborting that child intentionally would not be murder.

The debate will rage. I'm not even going to state MY position on this whole thing because it won't change anybody's mind, and quite frankly, I don't know the right answer. I just wish others might admit that they don't know all the answers before they start calling pro-choicers evil murderers, (If a 15 year old girl is raped by her uncle, it isn't evil for her to want to be released from that burden. It is arrogance to assume that in the same situation you wouldn't feel the same.) or even assuming that a child is only alive based on the choice of the mother. (If a person kills a pregnant woman he can be charged with two murders. If that mother had not been murdered and had decided the next day to have an abortion, no charges against her would have been filed. Therefore, in the eyes of the law a fetus is only alive if the mother says it is. It is arrogant to believe that the timing of life is up to the mother.) At some point, both arguments are wrong.

So, as with anything, we need a compromise. But in the case of this issue there probably is no compromise that will make everyone happy without a signed agreement from God and the Surgeon General. I'm meeting with both of them this week. I'll see what I can work out. :biggrin:

I am all for adoption.

And usually it works out quite well.

However, it really is a "pig in a poke" situation.

A lot of my patients have either ceded parental rights or have had them taken away.

Many of these are babies that would be considered "high premium" on the adoption market ... cute, white, blue-eyed bundles of joy.

With a family history of mental illness and/or extreme substance abuse from both parents.

I see a lot of frustrated parents whose story starts with "Well, I adopted Timmy at birth, and it turns out that his mom was ... "

sm said:
I don't want kids so why on earth would I try to adopt one? :confused:

Sorry...apparently you guys took me literally when I asked, "where are those who say every child is a wanted child". What I meant was that I don't see a riot of people (read: pro-lifers) knocking down the doors of every woman that carries a child to term and is willing to take in those particular children. I'm addressing those pro-lifers that want to impose on a woman's private and personal decision. All I keep hearing about are couples that spend gobs of money to go overseas to adopt a child from some other nation when there are children here that need a good home.

dar said:
It's quite simple for me: abortion, as it stands now, is legal. And that to me means that absolutely no one has the power to make a decision for me about me and my fetus/baby/zygote/embryo..whatever the fuck anyone wants to call it. See, I don't have an "abortion argument": I really don't care when life begins and all of that. Harsh? Maybe, but I'm keeping it verrrry real right about now. That argument will go on until time ends, but in the meantime, if I choose abortion, then so be it.