quote: We say, "Have an abortion and you are a murderer!" and society says that you aren't responsible...
We say, "Have babies you can't support and you are a welfare queen!" and society says that you aren't responsible...
I don't understand why people think that these are the only two choices you have with unplanned pregnancies. There is also the option of working your butt off and paying your bills yourself. It's not always the most fun thing but it gets the job done and is a very respectful option.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think abortion is a hard choice and should never be treated lightly. However, I think it should be an available choice. I think that the acceptability of the choice to have an abortion lessens as the pregnancy progresses and I think that in the last trimester it should clearly only be done in a case where the mother's life is threatened. **
However, in the first trimester I see very little reason to condemn the choice to have an abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is a "human life" in the first trimester, at least not in the way sensationalist pro-lifers would have you believe, and I also don't believe they think so either. If a woman naturally miss-carries early in pregancy, we do not treat the naturally aborted fetus the same way we would a deceased child, or even in many cases a still-born child. We do not name it or hold funeral services for it. We do not bury it. In nearly every case (if not EVERY case) the tissue is disposed of in the same way a tumor or failed organ is disposed of. Clearly we as a society do not afford the naturally aborted fetus the same dignity, honor, or respect we do a "human life". So to claim a first trimester clinical abortion is "murder" and that the fetus at this point has "rights" is just as disingenuous on the part of pro-lifers as any slippery-slope argument is on the part of a pro-choicer who demands unrestricted abortions up until birth (if there really are any of these in a politically significant number.)
(my 2 cents)
** Where the line should be drawn in the second trimester I will agree is open to debate. I'm inclined to agree to restrictions beginning at the start of the second trimester, but I'm open to arguments why that date should be a couple of weeks later or so. Ideally I would not place restrictions on first trimester abortions, allow second trimester abortions in cases of rape or incest or health risk to the mother, and third trimester only in a case where the mother's life is threatened and there is no way to save both mother and child (if such a case even exists).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, I should point out that both societies and individuals take time to change. Rarely does a person manage to simply jump tracks and begin behaving in a radically different manner.
The pro-life position, at least in its extremer forms, is relatively new. It is also the product of a society which tends to associate sapience with visible humanity (most fundamentalists don't believe in aliens, for instance), and embryos do not look very human. As a result it is difficult to make the transition to proper behavior, especially when the larger society reinforces different behavior. Eventually, if pro-life forces were to prevail, the cognitive dissonance would produce larger-scale changes in society, but it will take time.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
If that's truly the case, then there's no reason to go on talking to YOU about this-- you've not only got your mind made up on the one side, you're firmly convinced that the other side is lying about their own opinions!
:snort:
quote: If a woman naturally miss-carries early in pregancy, we do not treat the naturally aborted fetus the same way we would a deceased child, or even in many cases a still-born child. We do not name it or hold funeral services for it. We do not bury it. In nearly every case (if not EVERY case) the tissue is disposed of in the same way a tumor or failed organ is disposed of. Clearly we as a society do not afford the naturally aborted fetus the same dignity, honor, or respect we do a "human life". So to claim a first trimester clinical abortion is "murder" and that the fetus at this point has "rights" is just as disingenuous on the part of pro-lifers as any slippery-slope argument is on the part of a pro-choicer who demands unrestricted abortions up until birth (if there really are any of these in a politically significant number.)
The folks that I know who've had a miscarriage have gone through mourning periods EXACTLY akin to people who have lost a child, Karl. Lack of a body, coffin, funeral, or gravesite made no difference.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee you guys offer your opinions pretty respectfully, I guess that's why I like hatrack. I am very proud of myself for managing to keep out of this thread except for one short post other than this. *Hugs self*
quote:Why should the mother's health be an issue at all? The outcome that is being sought by a portion of this nation is to give the rights of the fetus (at any age, not just during late-term abortions) the same rights as the mother. Both have a right to live, correct? Why not the reverse? What if the mother's health is a risk to the child's health, would we kill the mother, take the fetus out and do our best to make sure it survives (as we do with any prematurely born child?).
fil,
In my opinion, there are a number of reasons for this. But first one has to appreciate and acknowledge the reality that the majority of late-term abortions are due to rejecting the disability that has been discovered in the fetus/unborn child. The term one facility specializing in these procedures uses is "fetal anomolies."
Frankly, if a woman or couple doesn't want a kid with disabilities, they face less stigma by aborting than by giving the child up. If they end the pregnancy, they can portray the act as one of kindness, saving the child from a tragic life or they can also misrepresent the disability as a lethal one.
If they abandon the baby, they have to be honest with themselves, their families and their friends about their motives.
Not suggesting there's any solution here - but I think these dynamics play a powerful and underdiscussed role in late-term pregnancy termination.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to what Scott said I’d add, as someone who’s worked as a hospital chaplain, that if the miscarriage happens in the hospital and the tissue/fetus can be recovered, a funeral is an option. And one that many people choose. Casket, stone, name, and all. In the first trimester, a death certificate is not required, nor does a funeral director need to be involved, but the parents can fill out a form requesting that the remains be released to them.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, I specifically did not write that there is no mourning. I know there is mourning. But are you seriously asserting that there is no recongized difference in mainstream society between a miscarriage and the death of a post-partum human being?
quote: If that's truly the case, then there's no reason to go on talking to YOU about this-- you've not only got your mind made up on the one side, you're firmly convinced that the other side is lying about their own opinions!
That's an easy way out of a reasoned rebuttal. I expected better from you of all people. I don't think I make a habit of being unreasonable and I don't think my words showed closed mindedness at all. I made and assertion and showed why I believe so. You are free to show me where my thinking is wrong and I think I've shown on this forum that I'm pretty accepting of reasoned arguement. I have not stated that the other side is "lying" about anything. I may think they are deluding themselves, and I have pointed out some evidence of that very fact. I'm sorry if my wording has offended you as that was not my intention. However, I don't think I've been as harsh as you seem to think, and I don't think I deserve the dismissal as not worth talking to.
DKW, can you tell me what percentage of people choose the option to honor, bury, and mark the grave of a miscarried fetus? (Honest inquiry for information)
I have known many people who have suffered miscarriages and none of them who have chosen that option. I don't think there is any society stigma against people who don't choose that option. I'd hazard a guess that most people don't choose that option. And the fact that a death certificate isn't required is further proof of my original point. Where is the social outcry against this oversight? There is none precisely because we (as a society) de-facto recognize a difference between an early term fetus and a human being.
posted
"I think abortion of a first-trimester fetus is murder."
"No you don't. You're being disingenous."
Isn't this the gist of your argument?
There is a vast difference between the intentional destruction of a pre-term fetus, and a miscarriage. NOT in terms of the state of the fetus being destroyed, but in terms of the emotion put into the situation. THAT is where the 'murder' part comes from.
If you die tomorrow from West Nile, people will mourn. If a right-wing fanatic kills you, people will mourn AND be outraged-- because of the act committed against you. Murder isn't casual, it isn't random-- it's an act against you, yourself, your personhood. And because of that outrage, the mourning will be naturally deeper.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Karl, I don’t have any statistics. Anecdotally, I’d say that at hospitals where it’s offered most people do, but at hospitals where it isn’t offered few people think to ask, or are in the mental state to push for it if the doctors/nurses aren’t supportive. Conventional wisdom used to be that the less the parents thought about it the sooner they’d “get over it.” (Somewhat related note -- My mother wasn’t allowed to see her six-month stillborn baby girl 35 years ago, because the doctors thought it would be “better for her.” Thank God that sort of paternalistic nonsense is fading.)
Of the cases I know about at the hospital where I worked, all of the families named the baby and had some form of memorial service, whether or not there was anything to bury. (The exception, of course, would be miscarriages so early that the woman didn’t even know she was pregnant.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who wish to evaluate the claims about the extreme flexibility of the "health of the mother" definition, you won't find it in Roe v. Wade.
The case that dealt with those issues was Doe v. Bolton.
Here's a relevant excerpt from the decision:
quote:We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.
Pro-choicers tend to portray "health of the mother" as a narrow definition. Pro-lifers contend its a definition you can drive a truck through.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I think abortion of a first-trimester fetus is murder."
"No you don't. You're being disingenous."
Isn't this the gist of your argument?
No.
"A fetus is a human life from the moment of conception. Killing it is just like killing a two year old."
"Really? I think you are being disengenuous. Have you considered that in practically no other way are they considered equal in law or even in society in general? If you drive with your child not in a carseat and he is injured you can be found guilty of negligence. If a pregnant woman engages in extreme sports causing her to miscarry she is not charged with similar negligence. If you do not feed your child you can be charged with abuse, but if you smoke or drink while pregnant leading to miscarriage you are not prosecuted. If your 2 year old dies you hold a funeral and bury him. If you miscarry, in most cases you do not. ** Do you disagree with these examples?"
THAT is the gist if my arguement, which, while I don't claim it is flawless or particularly brilliant, I do claim is not close minded and has some merit.
** Note, DKW's input has led me to believe that this might be more prevalent than I previously believed, but (anecdotal evidence of my own) I have never known anyone who has done this. I have never seen a marker in a cemetary for a miscarried child. And I am talking about 1st trimester here. Not second or third. My point is that in practice society in general does recognize a difference between a fetus and a child, and even between a 1st trimester fetus and a more developed one. For example, my mother's first child was carried to term but stillborn. He is buried in a cemetary in NC. My mother had 2 other miscarriages for whom there was no such observance, but both of them were first trimester, and probably even within the first month of conception.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, there have been cases in Florida where a car wreck killed both a pregnant woman and her unborn child and the driver was charged with 2 counts of murder.
In any case, I think a woman should be charged with something for doing something that she knows would jeopardize her unborn child. I'm not sure where I would draw the line on that. Drugs, smoking, etc. should bring about charges, but I'm not sure about sports.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know there are rare cases where charges are brought. It is arguable, too, whether this is due to true violations of law or due to political attempts to set precedent for fetal legal status. Was there a conviction?
quote: In any case, I think a woman should be charged with something for doing something that she knows would jeopardize her unborn child. I'm not sure where I would draw the line on that. Drugs, smoking, etc. should bring about charges, but I'm not sure about sports.
What if she smoked and miscarried in the first trimester? Should proof of causality be required? What if she was unaware she was pregnant? By your standard does this excuse her or should she still be charged? Why and with what? "I didn't know a child was there" wouldn't excuse her if she killed one while drunk driving.
Why drugs and not sports? What if she's abnomally fat and eats at McDonald's 7 times a week?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what I wonder about adoption, though? I think people who adopt are wonderful, really. But every single one of the couples that I know, or any of my friends/family knows who have had problems with infertility have always tried to concieve through in-vitro, etc. Adoption is always their LAST option. Is that why we have so many children sitting in foster care, especially the older children? I mean, if everyone chose adoption instead of abortion, would the numbers work out? Just wondering.
posted
I didn't mean it was the last resort for all couples, as I said, just for the ones I know. I know there are couples with biological children that adopt as well. Still, my question is: if all women choosing abortion chose adoption instead, would there truly be homes for all of these children?
Our old landlords had a big mormon family of 6 or 7 kids of their own. When the last one left the house for college, they went and adopted 6 more kids. One was from India, and the other 5 were from Ethiopia. Of the 5 from Ethiopia, there were two sets of siblings. They ranged in age from about 5 to 9.
They are probably the happiest family I have ever met.
It is not uncommon for mormon families to have a large biological family, and then adopt one or two for their younger children.
Edit: Yes, I believe there would be ample homes to adopt all the aborted children.
And even if there weren't, wouldn't it be better for them to be raise in an orphanedge than not at all?
posted
Why is no one answering my question? I'm not trying to flame here, and I'm certainly not saying that b/c kids are in foster care that women should run out and get abortions. I know that people with biological children adopt, but that wasn't my question.
space opera
edit: after your edit - but if there are ample homes, why are so many children unadopted now? Again, this is just a question, not an attempt to start a debate
[ June 04, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I can't remember, but I'll see if I can find out. I agree that it was at least party and possibly mainly, an attempt to bring about fetal rights.
quote:What if she smoked and miscarried in the first trimester? Should proof of causality be required? What if she was unaware she was pregnant? By your standard does this excuse her or should she still be charged? Why and with what? "I didn't know a child was there" wouldn't excuse her if she killed one while drunk driving.
Why drugs and not sports? What if she's abnomally fat and eats at McDonald's 7 times a week?
I can't answer all those, but I don't think the drunk driving is a good example. With drunk driving, you are doing something which you know could injure or kill others.
My problem is that pregnant women who do drunks, drink excessively, etc. can be condemning their children to a lifetime of physical and mental problems and nothing is done about it.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expect that a big part of the reason more people don't adopt is because it can be very difficult and take a LONG time, sometimes years, to get approval for adoption, despite what you see on Sex in the City or Friends.
So, to anyone who cares to answer - are pro-life groups working to change laws/requirements that make adoption so difficult? It would seem like it would help their cause.
posted
Adoption requirements are stringent because it is necessary to ensure that children go to good loving homes (and even these measures aren't a guarantee). I don't think anyone wants to be responsible for changing the laws and then having something awful happen.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I like the adoption option far more than abortion, I must admit that adoption is not a quick and easy solution. Anyone who thinks so might ask Dan_Raven about the process sometime, for instance.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:While this applies to the gist of Dog's argument, it doesn't even speak to the unborn child being a separate human life deserving of the protection of the law.
Sorry so late to post responses, but here goes...
It doesn't speak to it because so far, there is no legal recognition of an unborn fetus/baby being a separate human life. Maybe they should do that?
How about this. The moment someone is known to be pregnant, the do all thing things that we do when the child is born. We apply for a SS card, when we do taxes, we put the unborn down as a dependent (if unborn by the end of a tax year). Then the cluster of cells is now a child, bam!
Jeb "the other" Bush tried something similar to this in Florida a while back. A disabled woman was raped in an institution and became pregnant. The woman had no ability to make decisions about what to do but did have a guardian, who opted to allow the baby to come to term. Jeb got directly involved and attempted to get the unborn fetus a GUARDIAN! If that isn't giving legal status to an unborn fetus, I don't know what is. Because he did it and not some intermediary, it could only be read as political. So maybe more than just the title of "human life" should be bestowed on the unborn. They need legal status, too.
quote: I don't know where you got the notion that the government should act as the almighty enforcer of karma, but it wasn't from conservatism.
I never said it was conservatism that started it, but it surely has been conservatives of late that look to the government to enforce karma, as you put it or, more specifically, dictate a certain version of morality. One only has to look at the gay marriage ban, any attack on a woman's reproductive choices, declaration of what is or isn't a religion, etc. I have no doubt liberals would do the same sorts of things if in power, but the conservatives certainly are holding their own with it right now.
quote: I don't understand why people think that these are the only two choices you have with unplanned pregnancies. There is also the option of working your butt off and paying your bills yourself. It's not always the most fun thing but it gets the job done and is a very respectful option.
Most people who are not or have not been "working poor" rarely do understand this. A great book from a couple years back (and now a play that I just saw) is called "Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America" by Barbara Emmerich.
The author goes "undercover" as it were to attempt to live on wages earned in typical minimum wage circumstances, such as a waitress, Wal-Mart clerk, housecleaner, etc.
She couldn't do it. She did it for a year or so and flamed out, even with having the spare credit card and a car already in hand.
I work to support this population of folks as well, in that I work with adults and children with disabilities on their own or in their families in innercity Cleveland. It isn't as easy as "just working hard" at all.
Things cost more if you are poor. I don't just mean that you don't have enough money to buy stuff (which is true) but it helps to look at where people live and how they can spend money. Most folks can't afford a car, so getting jobs means finding a place you can walk to or that is near a bus route (Cleveland has little in the way of trains). So you make your $7.00 an hour and have to make a living off of it. Many folks can't afford to get decent housing as they can't save up for the deposit, first and last month's rent and moving fees. So they take whatever they can.
They aren't able to shop for furniture or household goods at the "discount" stores that litter the suburbs because the bus doesn't get out there. Even if it did, how is a person to get that less costly stuff back to their home? So they shop near by. I helped open an office for my agency in one such low income neighborhood. As a rule, we had planned to save our agency money AND support the local neighborhood economy by purchasing furniture and office supplies near by.
Boy, did we learn a lesson. All the local furniture stores were overpriced crap or rent-a-center vultures. We opted to save money and make our purchases in the suburbs where we could find deals, deals, deals that are not accessible to the local economy. We rented a truck to move it, because we could.
Shopping and moving food is tough, too. I come home with a trunk load of fairly priced food because I have a car and can choose to shop at whatever place is having the cheapest deals.
A person who lives in the innercity can't take home gobs of food to feed a reasonably sized family and have only what they can walk to or bus to to choose from. Hope they like shopping daily because that is the only way to do it.
I am not making excuses for people, just pointing out that simply "Working hard" is only the beginning of it. Lacking an environment that would easily support the working poor, how would simply "working hard" help out?
Bringing this home to pregnancy and abortion... most working poor have little access to quality health care where good, informed decisions can be made. And adding another mouth to the table only makes the above situations even more difficult. There is a derth of quaility and affordable day care in poor neighborhoods. Even with it, day care can cost as much as rent and people are having a hard enough time getting by without that. So what next? You have babies babysitting babies. I have more than one time came across a 6 year old babysitting their 2 year old sibling so I doubt that it is so uncommon.
I am not saying that having a late-term abortion is a better option (since that is the title of this thread and we really aren't talking pre second trimester abortion) but with the working poor, this IS the other option.
quote:The folks that I know who've had a miscarriage have gone through mourning periods EXACTLY akin to people who have lost a child, Karl. Lack of a body, coffin, funeral, or gravesite made no difference.
I think it depends how long into the process it happens, to be honest. My wife and I suffered a miscarriage about 10 years ago. It was very early on, we didn't know we were pregnant and it happened so fast (from discovery of pregnancy to the bitter end). We did mourn, but it wasn't the same as losing a child to us.
A great friend of ours lost a child in the second month of pregnancy. It was very difficult and they mourned for a while but soon were pregnant again and are doing well. By a while, I mean a few weeks. Again, they hadn't a lot of time to "connect" with the child, etc.
A co-worker of mine had saw her baby born and die within hours of that event. It took her over a year to mourn that and mourn in a significant, can't-look-at-other-babies sort of way.
I am not trying to downplay mourning miscarriage vs. living babies but to say they are exactly the same is a bit of a stretch. My wife found in her discussions with other women that miscarriage is not at all uncommon and while absolutely no fun they aren't typically life-stopping events that she thought they could be. Tough to work through, hard on a relationship maybe, but in no way equal to the loss of a living, breathing little baby.
Just my experiences and those around me, though. Obviously can't speak for all on this.
quote: In my opinion, there are a number of reasons for this. But first one has to appreciate and acknowledge the reality that the majority of late-term abortions are due to rejecting the disability that has been discovered in the fetus/unborn child. The term one facility specializing in these procedures uses is "fetal anomolies."
I did not know this at all. I was wondering who would do late term abortions. Interesting point. Working in the field of disabilities, I can appreciate this information. There is a huge stigma against those who give up their disabled kids for adoption. Especially if a) they have other kids without disabilties and b) if they try and have another non-disabled baby. Wow. Interesting point.
posted
Cuyahoga County, where I live, currently has THOUSANDS of kids awaiting adoption. They range from birth until mid teens. I don't know the statistics of abortions in this country, but with adoption needs so high, I can't see the situation improving if suddenly every unwanted pregnancy became an unwanted baby.
We tried adoption twice. Once before our first child was born and we tried again last year, before deciding that having a baby would be a more reasonable option for us. We aren't a poor family, but to adopt from a good and reputable agency (Cathlic Charities) it would cost us around $10,000. We were happy to adopt a "special needs" baby (which can range from sibling groups, kids with disabilities and simply a child who is not white) and that only would be around $7500. It would take about 6 months for a completed home study (a part I do agree with, only about $1500 of the cost) and then some classes (also cool). The remaining costs are for paying hospital bills (if for newborn baby) for the birth mother and gobs of legal fees (for the lawyers, wheee).
And then you wait. We weren't really interestd in adoption an older child but thought up to 1 year would be fine. But that is a long wait time. And if a new born, there is no guarantee you would keep the baby. A birth parent has the right to come take the baby back within a certain amount of time under our system (which I believe is reasonable, but still harsh).
I wish we had the money to do this. We both work and have some money put aside but it is to help out with our current home and child. How weird would it be to go into debt to get a child, thinking of the day when your new child is "paid off" like some car. Yeesh. I would think society would support making sure kids find their ways into good, permanent homes at any cost.
quote:They aren't able to shop for furniture or household goods at the "discount" stores that litter the suburbs because the bus doesn't get out there. Even if it did, how is a person to get that less costly stuff back to their home? So they shop near by. I helped open an office for my agency in one such low income neighborhood. As a rule, we had planned to save our agency money AND support the local neighborhood economy by purchasing furniture and office supplies near by.
Boy, did we learn a lesson. All the local furniture stores were overpriced crap or rent-a-center vultures. We opted to save money and make our purchases in the suburbs where we could find deals, deals, deals that are not accessible to the local economy. We rented a truck to move it, because we could.
(Just a quick note.)
No kidding! I lived in a dirt-poor neighborhood in Detroit, and in a mostly-poor neighborhood now in downtown Dallas. The grocery stores are far away. The close businesses are fast food and very, very overpriced convenience stores, and just across the main thoroughway is the most expensive mall in town. There is absolutely no place to shop for food that doesn't require a car that wouldn't cost at least twice what I pay at a big grocery store.
Detroit was even worse - there were grocery stores, but they were very, very expensive. It's infuriating.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Space Opera, I heard and totally agree with your view of things. I know a fair amount of families who will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to get pregnant but won't give adoption a thought. Many people who adopt do so because they support adoption. Many have kids (at least in the groups I attended). My wife was adopted and we had hoped to continue that tradition in our family but just can't do it now. It is sad. My wife (now mid-30's) was adopted in Ohio as a newborn. The cost was less than $25. And a photo with the judge! By today's standards, her parents wouldn't have been able to afford her and the second child they adopted a year or so later. Where would he be now?
But I agree, there is still some stigma to adoption. Blood, it seems, is so much more important that loving and raising a little baby, regardless of who gave birth to it.
This happens even with women who have dangerous pregancies. I knew a woman who had a dangerous pregnancy where she would have to spend the last 4 months of it in bed (due to health risks to mom and baby...baby would literally fall out if she stood up for any length of time)! Yet, she wanted a second child and did this risky thing again, risking not only her life but the life of the unborn child! I think that is just silly, when there is a healthy little baby out there just waiting for such a family to move into.
Tag along with that the still-prevalent stigma of mixing ethnicities. It is getting a LOT better, but still. In fact, I think it seems more of a stigma for white families to adopt black kids than mixing ethnicities. Most of the several thousands of non-adopted kids in my county are black. Yet there is a booming business of international adoptions for parents will pay $25,000 or more to fly to China or Eastern Eurore or Korea to adopt an infant while little black babies grow up in a variety of foster homes. Can't understand it, but that is pro-choice for you.
posted
I always wanted to adopt twelve kids of different ethnicities and have a rainbow at the dinner table. That sounds so silly but I still hope to do it one day. Seriously, the rainbow part is kind of a joke, but I think a family with so many cultures in it would be a special kind of family, and I would hope it would encourage others to stop worrying about what color their kids would be. I don't understand how people can claim to be unbiased, but then balk at the idea of having a person of a different race in their family. Especially when the number of non-white (non-American) kids out there that need families get ignored in favor of being on a waiting list for three years to get an American kid.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, wait a second-- I was under the impression that your various Social Service agencies won't allow/discourage a caucasian family to adopt, say, an african-american child.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the posts about adoptions seem to miss the fact that there are essentially two different adoption systems. The reason there are so many unwanted children waiting adoption is that they entered the system as older children--essentially, as "damaged goods." (And incidentally, it costs virtually nothing to adopt one of these children. In fact, generally speaking, the state pays you.) There is a shortage of healthy infants. And that is why there are, simultaneously, thousands of kids awaiting homes, and thousands of parents awaiting children. Would this demand for children be enough to match the numbers if all aborted children were put up for adoption? Beats me. Truly, though, if it were, would most people who abort want to carry a pregnancy to term anyway? I don't think they would, because they wouldn't want the inconvenience and discomfort.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I believe that there would be more than enough homes for non-aborted babies. There is a HUGE demand for adoptable babies.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the cross-cultural adoption thing . . . they care because, all things being equal (i.e., if possible) it might be nice for kids to be raised with a knowledge of and pride in (and a sense of belonging to) their own subculture. Granted, not everybody agrees with this. If you adopted your children when they were very young, you wouldn't have twelve cultures at the dinner table, just one: yours. Children who are visibly different from the dominant culture will suffer the burden of discrimination, and so many believe that it would be nice if they also could reap the benefit of their unique heritage--the sense of belonging that could help make up for never truly belonging to white America. Of course, that is not always a choice, and being adopted by a family of a different background is better than not being adopted at all. Practically, what ends up happening, since most children in the foster system are minority, and there is a dearth of healthy caucasian children, is that caucasian families are allowed to adopt minority children if they want to, but minority parents are virtually never allowed to adopt caucasian children,
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sorry. The point is that, well, that is what choice is all about. I can hardly take a stand supporting pro-choice but then really go off on the people that don't choose the way I would! I am just pointing out my astonishment at some choices people make but realize at least they can still make these choices.
posted
I don't think there is anything contradictory, hypocritical, or wrong in sayig that somebody has a right to do something, and then telling them that it's still wrong to do it. Just because you have the right doesn't make it right.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Fil, it's normal for husband and wife when they love each other to try having a child of their own first. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heck, they do this even when they don't love one another. It is their choice, of course, but I am astonished at what lengths, costs and risks people will go through to make sure they raise a child with some or all of their genes. It is of course their choice and I can't fault them to make it, but I can still scratch my head. I totally am into some amount of problem solving when the ol' natural method of begatting doesn't work. My wife had to use some low-grade fertility assisting medication (Clo-med?) but that was cheap and, one child later, apparently did the trick when time simply didn't. In fact, I was set to have an appointment with doctor to see if it was me that wasn't contributing, as it were...one day before the appointment, I got the call that my wife was pregnant, saving me a bit of running around (literally... the process wasn't at all like on sit-coms...thankfully). Also, for complete disclosure, this was a week after we had signed on with an adoption agency and began the process of getting our first home study.
But normal left the building when it is costing thousands upon thousands of dollars and the health risks are mounting to the point where mother and child are at severe risk. Again, it is a choice to be made but one that I would think wouldn't stack favorably with adoption being a great alternate choice. But live and learn.
posted
I agree fil. I sometimes scratch my head to at the lengths people will go to in order to have a biological child. I suppose that it's just something within our culture; I'm not really sure. My husband and I have 2 children, but biologically they're mine from a previous marriage. I can't count the number of people who've asked him if we're going to have another so that he can have one of his "own." Mr. Opera considers our children to be his "own," and when we have another child it will be b/c we want one, not to fill some biological niche.
posted
Why is it the USA, or at least our media, can have NO middle ground? It's either a culture war for no choice vs. late term... instead of a middle path of allowing abortions up to the 13th week or whatever. Or a culture war for no gay marriage vs. gay marriage... instead of civil unions as a third option on the scale between married and single.
Of course...in the end our "culture wars" are nothing but tiny fluctuations. We are pretty homogenous as a people. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is why I believe that there would be more than enough homes for non-aborted babies. There is a HUGE demand for adoptable babies.
I really wonder. I am surprised there aren't more organizations that offer to help a mother-to-be through the rest of a pregnancy (I mean, since this thread is about late-term abortion, we are only talking weeks to a couple months) and then take the child off the mother's hands immediately (with the allowed time period for the mother to change her mind, of course). That would seem, to me, a more positive and pro-active response than some activities the pro-life movement has chosen. I am all about choice but if there isn't anything reasonable to choose from, you take the one that makes the most sense at the time.
posted
Silver, I think there can only be middle ground if people are on the same page. At least in the abortion debate, it is tough to even nail down the parameters of the discussion. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice can be complimentary to some (to me...I am globally pro-choice but personally pro-life) and anathema to others (Some pro-life figure if you are pro-choice, you are pro-abortion). To some it is a civil rights discussion about the rights of the unborn and to others it is a civil rights discussion about the sanctity and sovereignity of the human body.
So how can one find middle ground? It like a football game played by two teams but on separate fields!
quote:Those activities don't get as much coverage as protests.
I figured that there would be such alternatives. But you are right, protests are much sexier for news coverage. Same with positive aspects of Planned Parenthood. It is easy for the media to simply focus on one aspect of their services but forget that a lot of what they do is done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It would be neat if PP would get together with these other places (the ones that offer to help find a baby a home) more often.
posted
Silver, not to pick on religion, but I think this is a root to it as well. Many of the current hot topic arguments today revolve around issues primarily dealt with in religious venues. And in those venues, there are no middle grounds (unless you are Unitarian, of course...but that is another thread). I mean, most churches have a "you are with us or against us" mentality due to the static nature of their beliefs. If the Bible says gay people are sinful and such, where is the middle ground? There isn't one. From the other hand, why should gay couples be the flexible ones if those that hate them aren't? Same with abortion...either the thing in the womb is a little person or it isn't in the eyes of many. Same with the folks against capital punishment. Human life is either sacred or it isn't, even if someone violates that trust by killing someone. Killing someone doesn't bring back the victims, etc. Not a lot of wiggle room, there.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
