Women''s Rights are at Risk

[AGBF]

A friend drew my attention to the Planned Parenhood website because it contained so much information on policies one rarely sees discussed in the press. As you will see if you visit the site, the Bush administration has gone far beyond trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and has carried on a war against free speech (about a woman''s right to an abortion) and against contraception.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/030114_waronwomen.html

 

[Momoftwo]

What about babies rights? President Bush is concerned about everyone's rights. That includes unborn children. Not embryos or fetuses, but babies. That's what they are. Where exactly in the constitution does it say a woman has a "right" to abortion? Show me please. Every woman I know who has had an abortion regrets it for the rest of her life and carries great guilt about it. It's such a selfish move.

Also, Planned Parenthood is a for profit business. Don't forget that. They make money off of their "services" They do not exist to provide non profit service. They make a lot of money every year doing abortions.

And don't start in about saving a womans life, because the truth is, doctors have always chosen the life of the mother over the baby if that choice had to be made, which it rarely is. Abortions are not done for life saving reasons. The fact is and statistics support it that abortions are done in the majority of cases for selfish reasons, the convenience of the mother. Most are performed on women who can easily afford to raise a child, those in their 20s and 30s. Most teenagers keep their babies.

Do some research. Abortion is murder of an unborn child. That is a fact. How can you dispute that? It's not a tumor or a mole that needs to be removed, but an unborn child.

Sorry if you don't agree, but how can you dispute the facts?

 

[Maria D]

momoftwo, perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research yourself. A good place to start is here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe.html

where you can read the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade in its entirety.

Please note the following paragraphs:

"It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman''s life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century...."

and

"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.... "

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/28/2004 10:55:37 PM
Author: Momoftwo
always

Do some research. Abortion is murder of an unborn child. That is a fact. How can you dispute that? It's not a tumor or a mole that needs to be removed, but an unborn child.

Actually, that is *NOT* a fact: it is your opinion. Sperm is "alive" just as a 1-hour old embryo is "alive". It is not "fact", just your belief, that the moment a sperm joins an egg there is "an unborn child".

 

[Momoftwo]

And what does a human sperm and human egg joined grown into? Into a baby human. It's called conception for a reason. It takes the two combined. I said an unborn child has rights too and I'd rather be wrong about this one than have those who support abortion, find out that they were wrong the hard way. Surveys have shown that most people wouldn't get an abortion themselves, but they support everyone else's "right" to? What does that mean? Not to mention the high percentage of women who have had serious medical or psycholigical problems after a "legal" abortion.

There's lots of info out there from both sides. I'll bet you've never read any prolife information. I think you'd be surprised at the statistics and the stories told by men and women who have suffered after killing their unborn child. It doesn't go away. Read the story of "Roe" in Roe Vs Wade. She did not go into this wanting an abortion. The lawyers used her and the supreme court used the case to make law, which they're not supposed to do. And, now she's a prolife speaker and she had her child.

Remember, Planned Parenthood is a for profit business, motivated by money. The prolife groups that are out there to help are non profit, mostly volunteer or very low paid people who want to make sure a woman is completely informed. There's a lot abortion providers never tell you. It' s one of the most unregulated health care industries that exists.

My child can't get any other health care without my permission, but she should be allowed to make such a life-altering decision? I don't think so.

 

[JCJD]

While I would never have an abortion myself, except in the case of rape or dire threat to my survival, I cannot force other people to do what is right for me; by definition, what is right for me is not necessarily right for anybody else. Simply put, an abortion is a personal choice. A very traumatic choice that has ramifications for the rest of your life, but a personal choice nonetheless, that should be decided between the woman (and man if applicable) and her doctor, nobody else.

Momoftwo - I understand, appreciate, and accept your personal views concerning this issue. However, you cannot make this decision for me, for your neighbor, or for anybody but yourself. If you believe that God blessed the human race with free will, you have to accept this. Even God won''t control our decisions!! So what gives me the right to control yours, or vice versa? Nothing. This country was founded on the promise of religious freedom, including the right to have no religious views whatsoever (atheism, agnosticism...). Therefore, in order to be constitutional, the US government must not impinge upon the rights of any people, and until everyone agrees on when human life begins, we must have safe legal abortions available.

Until this country does something to reduce the DEMAND for abortion services, we will still need to provide this medical service. And, as Momoftwo alluded to, as long as the country allows abortions, it also needs to provide adequate counseling and medical care for those people who need it following an abortion.

However, the medical problems experienced by women who undergo a legal abortion are nothing compared to the medical complications resulting from a desperate and illegal abortion. Women would use metal hangers to try and abort a pregnancy, or take dangerous herbal combinations that can result in brain damage, or undergo abortions by unqualified people in unsterile conditions, developing sometimes fatal bacterial infections and/or sterility from surgical mutiliation. People will find a way to abort if they feel strongly enough that it is the best decision under the circumstances! If your sister or daughter was one of these people, wouldn''t you like to know that she had a qualified doctor perform the procedure under sterile conditions, and she was provided with adequate follow-up medical, psychological, and perhaps faith-based care? Or would you rather she die from internal bleeding from the botched hanger abortion, became a vegetable from the drugs she took, or killed the newborn in the bathroom at her high school prom? These are not easy decisions, but I personally would rather she got real medical care.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[glitterata]

I personally know over a dozen women who have had abortions, and every single one of them is glad.

 

[JCJD]

Date: 10/29/2004 4:25

7 PM
Author: glitterata
I personally know over a dozen women who have had abortions, and every single one of them is glad.

And it is for these women and others like them that this country needs to keep abortion legal, safe, and accessible. It is for those who are not glad afterwards that abortion providers need to provide references for psychological counseling and perhaps faith-based counseling too.

 

[ForteKitty]

Suppose a woman is 4 months pregnant with her child. She goes for an exam, and finds out that her baby has no brain. It will not survive on its own, yet her body has not miscarried. Do you think she should be forced to carry that baby any longer?

Just a thought...

 

[JCJD]

Date: 10/29/2004 6:25:59 PM
Author: Feydakin

This is what society does.. We set rules of conduct for everyone.. While not the same, we have all sorts of rules that keep people from doing what they think is right (theft, murder, etc.) while the majority of society thinks it is wrong.. We do enforce our wills on everyone.. Look at assisted suicide.. Why is that illegal when abortion is legal?? At least with AS the person dieing has a say in it..

But until the majority can agree on a single specific moment between conception and birth that life begins, we can''t answer this question. But the nations''s top scientists, religious leaders, politicians, and judges can''t even decide this! Until we all can, it seems logical that individuals have the right to decide this. Plus, the Constitution provides for religious freedom, so since there do exist religions that believe life begins at birth, but not before, and therefore do not condemn abortion as murder, that throws a wrench in the workings, as the saying goes.

You bring up a very interesting point with AS.... Here''s another weird phenomenon. Why is it wrong (in some peoples'' minds) for doctors to perform abortions, but right (in some peoples'' minds) for pro-life activists to kill said doctors? It''s like, Don''t kill the unborn! But I''ll kill it if it grows up to be an abortion provider! Where''s the logic in that???

I don''t know why my text is outlined in purple. I can''t seem to change it either......

 

[Momoftwo]

Date: 10/29/2004 6:34

8 PM
Author: ForteKitty
Suppose a woman is 4 months pregnant with her child. She goes for an exam, and finds out that her baby has no brain. It will not survive on its own, yet her body has not miscarried. Do you think she should be forced to carry that baby any longer?

Just a thought...

Just a thought, that is such a rarity that it's just the kind of obscure argument that pro abortion forces use. I know someone who carried a baby like that until she went into labor naturally just a few weeks after diagnosis. She loved that baby just as much as the two she delivered healthy, but wanted nature to take it's natural course. Before Ultrasound, no one knew that beforehand and it didn't make the birth any harder emotionally.

That said, that is a medical issue. No brain equals no life. You can induce labor and deliver the baby and allow it to die naturally as there is no life in a brainless body. That is a fact, and that is not considered abortion and never has been.

The fact is, doctors have always been allowed to induce labor early due to situations like that one where there is 0% chance of life or when the mother's life is in imminent danger. I have issue with aborting children who have any medical problems. My response to that is always, so if your healthy child was injured when he/she was 4 or 14, in such a way that made their life less than it should have been, would you get rid of them then? What's the difference, that they lived 4 months before birth, 4 years or 14 years after?. Where would you stop? Downs Syndrome, hearing loss, blindness, multiple physical handicaps, increased chances of mental illness?

ALso, don't presume that most pro-lifers think it's okay to take the life of an abortion doctor. That's not true. We prefer changing their hearts.

And, please show me a documented case of a woman who has ever used or had used on her a wire coathangar. Everything I've ever seen on this topic says that it was an idea invented by pro abortion proponents to make the situation seem dire. There are also quite a few women walking around who are now infertile due to botched "legal" abortions done by doctors. Those arguments are just the propoganda pushed by the pro abortion industry, and yes it is an industry.

 

[ForteKitty]

OT-- but what''s with the between the sentences?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/29/2004 7:15:12 PM
Author: Momoftwo

Date: 10/29/2004 6:34

8 PM
Author: ForteKitty
Suppose a woman is 4 months pregnant with her child. She goes for an exam, and finds out that her baby has no brain. It will not survive on its own, yet her body has not miscarried. Do you think she should be forced to carry that baby any longer?

Just a thought...

What''s the difference, that they lived 4 months before birth, 4 years or 14 years after?. Where would you stop? Downs Syndrome, hearing loss, blindness, multiple physical handicaps, increased chances of mental illness?

And, please show me a documented case of a woman who has ever used or had used on her a wire coathangar.

Since you have no first hand experience with raising said child, you know of not what you think. You have no idea of the hardships. Most of which revolve around the pain you experience through that child.

It doesn''t take a leap of faith to assume that coat hanger like metal utensils were inserted to abort the fetus.

And, "the women''s right to choose" movement is *not* an industry.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/29/2004 6:19:48 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 10/29/2004 4:25

7 PM
Author: glitterata
I personally know over a dozen women who have had abortions, and every single one of them is glad.

I think that scares me more than anything else I''ve read here..

Steve

I think this was to counteract that most women have emotional scares the rest of their life which would somehow incapacitate them. I know people who have had abortions. And, while they are affected (especially after having their own children), they realize they made the right decision - albeit not a gleeful one.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/30/2004 3:55:13 PM
Author: fire&ice

I think this was to counteract that most women have emotional scares the rest of their life which would somehow incapacitate them. I know people who have had abortions. And, while they are affected (especially after having their own children), they realize they made the right decision - albeit not a gleeful one.

Geez, it scares me when I agree with you so often!

I had many friends, especially when I was much younger, who had abortions-some two or three times. None of my friends, all of whom later had children, expressed regret. None of them ever had abortions after the first trimester, either.

Deb

 

[ForteKitty]

Birth control doesn''t always work. My friend was on birth control pills (Yasmine, i believe), and her bf used a condom... She always took it on time and i don''t think the condom broke, but she ended up pregnant anyway. She kept the baby because her psycho mom threatened to kill her and her boyfriend if she had an abortion... said it''s against their Catholic religion. The baby now has no father (he took off to another state), a mother that''s never home (she works to support her baby and her parents), and a grandmother that thinks she''s the baby''s mom. I dunno... that kid is so screwed up.

 

[Momoftwo]

The fact is , that''s not the baby''s fault. So , don''t get rid of the baby to fix what''s wrong with the parents. Plenty of people have children they want and then screw them up. That''s not an argument for abortion. It is an argument for mandatory parenting classes though.

Also, believe it or not abstinence is also a form of birth control that''s 100% effective. And before someone goes off about how that''s not realistic, I know people who do just that. There is some self control involved. Also, why would you sleep with someone you didn''t see a future with anyway? That says a lot about someone''s lack of self esteem.

Yes, people make mistakes but why compound it by destroying a baby? That''s what adoption is for. There are waiting lists of people wanting babies. And if you think having an abortion is easier than giving your baby up to loving parents, you''re wrong.

The statement that women are so thrilled to have had abortions scares me. It is an extremely selfish move.

 

[ForteKitty]

I hope you don''t really expect unmarried people who are in their 40''s to be refrain from sex... that seems pretty unrealistic. Besides, she was married for a year to the father after she found out she was pregnant, but her family drove him insane and away. Don''t blame him... they''re psycho.

People should all be temporarily "fixed" until they want kids. (and in some cases, permanantly fixed)

 

[Momoftwo]

What about the rest of what I wrote?

You play, you pay. If you want the reality of sex, be prepared for the reality of life. Pregnancy is one result and the only birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence. That is a fact. The pill is like 98% and condoms are like 80%. Accept the responsibility is what I''m saying. Don''t blame the baby for being conceived. And don''t forget the fact that sexually transmitted disesases are rampant among those using condoms since they have a 20% failure rate, and not just for pregnancy.

And, I do blame him to a certain extent. He should have been a real man. If her family was that bad he should have moved his family away. That was his responsibility. But you can''t blame the child for any of this. He/she didnt'' ask to be concieved so why should he/she be done away with for the convenience of the parents. That just isn''t right. All children are wanted by someone. Did you know there''s a waiting list to adopt Down''s Syndrome children? And there are families that routinely take children in with multiple disabilities because they feel all babies and children have a right to life and a family that loves them unconditionally.

Fact: The result of human conception is a human baby. Period. The heart starts beating in a matter of days after conception, before women even know they are pregnant. How is that not life? The ones that judge in this battle of prolife and pro abortion are those that think it''s okay to do away with an unborn baby because it''s a "problem".

Also, fact, statistics show most abortions are done on women in their 20s and 30s who can afford to raise a child. Teenagers tend to keep their babies. And the rate of teenage pregnancy has been dropping in recent years in conjunction with the teaching of abstinence. They learn you don''t have to sleep with your boyfriend to keep him if he''s worth anything, and if he leaves, he wasn''t worth it. It''s called self-esteem.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 10:54

4 PM
Author: Momoftwo
What about the rest of what I wrote?

You play, you pay.

Fact: The result of human conception is a human baby. Period. The heart starts beating in a matter of days after conception, before women even know they are pregnant. How is that not life? The ones that judge in this battle of prolife and pro abortion are those that think it''s okay to do away with an unborn baby because it''s a ''problem''.

Gee, can I come live in your perfect world?

Your view and/or opinion of what contsitutes life is *not* fact. In fact, a heartbeat does not mean someone is alive. Did you know that often the heart will beat after death as a reflex action? A person''s heart is their brain. But then, I know an awful lot of adults who don''t have a heart. My God is a forgiving one. My God knows I am not without flaws. My God knows that it is not *I* that sits in judgement of others.

One of things about black & white thinkers is that they take facts and don''t consider situations surrounding it. Has it occured to you that teenagers keep their babies because they don''t have either the life experience or the cognitive development to fully understand what it takes to raise a child? Has it occured to you that teenagers (for the most part) *do* have parental involvement in the decision?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 10:44:36 PM
Author: Feydakin
''accidents happen''.. That''s how we got our wonderful daughter..



Steve

Hey, I resemble that remark! My parents always say that sometimes accidents can be happy ones!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 10:54

4 PM
Author: Momoftwo
; All children are wanted by someone. Did you know there's a waiting list to adopt Down's Syndrome children? And there are families that routinely take children in with multiple disabilities because they feel all babies and children have a right to life and a family that loves them unconditionally.

This is simply not true. Perhaps families on a waiting list to adopt will consider adopting a child with special needs. They aren't on a waiting list to do so.

Have you thought about the pain that would be involved with carrying said child to full term only to give it away? Talk about emotional scars. And, you have absolutely * no clue* to what kind of life challenges these children will face, not to mention the family.

Yep, all children are wanted by someone. Isn't it nice that homeless children in China, Romania, etc are finding welcoming homes in the U.S. Yep, all children should be born here in the US; so, we can forget about those other countries with many unwanted babies.

Sorry, the pro-life argument that there are so many couples waiting to adopt a child doesn't fly with me. Sounds like women *should* be breeders.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2004 10:27:58 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 10/30/2004 10:54

4 PM

Author: Momoftwo

All children are wanted by someone.  Did you know there's a waiting list to adopt Down's Syndrome children?

This is simply not true. Perhaps families on a waiting list to adopt will consider adopting a child with special needs. They aren't on a waiting list to do so.

You have absolutely no idea how much I wish what you said were true, momoftwo! To paraphrase a line from the old movie, "Children of Paradise", if every child were wanted by someone the world would shine like the sun!!!

Fire&Ice is right about there not being any waiting lists for children with special needs. In fact, these children are often "advertised" here in the United States like homeless animals in shelters...to no avail. In many countries not only they, but their healthy brethren, live on the streets. Only the lucky make it to orphanages, let alone homes.

Then there are the homes where children-the biological children of the people living there-are abused in horrible ways. I am expecially sickened by mothers and fathers who systematically starve one child in front of his or her siblings, forbidding others to share food with him. By whom are these children wanted?

Finally, there are laws that keep people of one race from adopting children of another here in the United States. A white family cannot, easily, adopt a child with any African-American "blood" (i.e. one who appears to have any black features). That is another barrier to every child finding someone to love him.

It is all well and good to say that somehow each homeless and abused child COULD be matched up with a loving human...but if it is impossible to perform that matching, children born into bad circumstances will remain in them.

Deborah

PS-Congressman Barney Franks said that conservatives' concern for children begins at conception and ends at birth. I only wish the conservatives fought as hard for children after birth as they do for fetuses.

 

[Momoftwo]

You don't know what you're talking about.

What "laws" are you talking about. It has been policy with many agencies, but not the law. White families can and do adopt black and biracial children all the time. I personally know two familes who have. Historically agencies tried to place children with same race homes, but black families are less likely to adopt and there are plenty of other families wanting a child.

Also, anyone with a beating heart is alive. Maybe not the "quality of life" that you decide, but they're still alive. And because you think there's so many abusive homes you'd rather see someone kill their unborn child than have it? The fact is abusive parents for the most part never considered abortion. Abuse is not about not wanting a child, it's about not being able to parent due to many different things. So that has nothing to do with this issue. Abuse is another issue entirely.

The most selfish thing someone can do is have an abortion. The most selfless act is to give birth to a child and place him/her for adoption with a family that wants them.

And what does this say, it's from a downs' syndrome website, which is what I specifically mentioned:

There is a specific waiting list for people who wish to adopt children with Down Syndrome. Contact

A.K.I.D.S.
(Adoption Knowledge and Information on Down Syndrome)
27 Eagle Court
White Plains, NY 10606
(914) 428-1236ANd here:

Adoption Awareness Program Down Syndrome Association of Greater Cincinnati

The Adoption Awareness Program of the Down Syndrome Association of Greater Cincinnati has provided information and support to birth parents, adoptive parents and adoption agencies throughout the United States since 1981.

Our goal is to ensure that every child born with Down syndrome has the opportunity to grow up in a caring family. We are contacted frequently by genetics counselors who are working with birth parents who are making difficult choices after receiving a prenatal diagnosis. We are contacted by social workers who are providing information to families:

who have recently given birth and are considering out of home options for their child. We are contacted by birth families who for various reasons find parenting a child with Down syndrome more than they can handle. We are contacted by agencies who have custody of school age and older children with Down syndrome who are growing up in institutions or foster care.

In each case we provide positive information on Down syndrome as well as the assurance that there is a list of families waiting to adopt. The Adoption Awareness Program presently has a waiting list of over 100 families with completed homestudies waiting to adopt. In 1981, our program assisted 4 families in making adoption plans for their children born with Down syndrome. In 2003, our program receives an average of 4 calls per week requesting information on making adoption plans for a child with Down syndrome.
Most of the adoptive families registered with us have had some connection or experience with an individual with Down syndrome sometime in their life. They may be a birth parent themselves. They may have had a sibling with Down syndrome. They may be a professional who has had a client with Down syndrome. Their decision to adopt is directly related to a positive life experience.

If you are interested in learning more about adopting a child with Down syndrome or would like to know more about the Adoption Awareness Program please contact Robin Steele, Adoption Coordinator, Down Syndrome Association of Greater Cincinnati at 513.761.5400 or via email at [email protected].

If you want more facts, check out this site. http://abortionno.org/Resources/adoption.html.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/31/2004 2:41:38 PM
Author: Momoftwo
You don''t know what you''re talking about.

Also, anyone with a beating heart is alive. Maybe not the ''quality of life'' that you decide, but they''re still alive.

The most selfish thing someone can do is have an abortion. The most selfless act is to give birth to a child and place him/her for adoption with a family that wants them.

And what does this say, it''s from a downs'' syndrome website, which is what I specifically mentioned:

There is a specific waiting list for people who wish to adopt children with Down Syndrome. Contact

If you want more facts, check out this site. http://abortionno.org/Resources/adoption.html.

No, it is *you* who doesn''t know what you are talking about. Perhaps AGBF shouldn''t have used the term "law". But, it''s certainly in *many* agency *laws* preventing white couples from adopting black children. And, it''s grand that some people you know were able to somehow circumvent this. I know many who have not. That is why some have adopted from Russia (a strong group in my area).

No, it is *your* view that someone with a beating heartbeat is alive. It''s not the medical definition. Why do you think the 1st trimester is a demarcation?

And, again, you know *nothing* you have *no clue* about bringing into the world children with special needs/etc.

It''s your *opinion* that abortion is a selfish act. Operative word *your* opinion.

And, I''m certainly not going to abortionNO for an unbiased "fact" about anything. I love the wording "specific waiting list". Doesn''t take a rocket scientist to see the double talk in that one.

It''s is precisely all this type of rhetoric that leads to my believing in the "industry" of a women''s right to choose.

 

[Momoftwo]

No, you''re wrong. Keep reading.

Specific waiting list refers to people who specifically want to adopt special needs children. And, no one circumvented any laws or rules to adopt these children that I know. They were adopted through Fairfax County, VA. Ever heard of the multiethnic placement act of 1994? It says in part:
[FONT=Arial,]

[FONT=Arial,]MEPA-IEP applies to any state or other entity that receives funds from the federal government and is involved in some aspect of adoptive or foster care placements. All state and county child welfare agencies involved in placements that receive federal title IV-E and title IV-B funds are subject to MEPA-IEP. The Act also applies to other public or private agencies involved in placements that receive federal funds from any source, whether they receive the funds directly or through a subgrant from a state, county, or another agency. This means that a child placement agency that receives no funding from either the federal foster care or child welfare programs under titles IV-E or IV-B, but does receive financial assistance from other federal programs, including the Adoption Opportunities Act, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), and the Title XX, is subject to MEPA-IEP.[/FONT]

The 1996 IEP amendments to MEPA confirm that any delay in placement based on impermissible factors is illegal. As explicitly stated in the earlier 1995 HHS and OCR Guidance, the widespread pre-MEPA policy and practice of "holding periods" in order to make a same-race adoptive placement of a child in agency custody are impermissible and clearly violate the federal law.

A state or other entity covered by MEPA-IEP may not:[/FONT]

• 
  

  [FONT=Arial,]delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child involved.[/FONT]

How do you know I dont'' know anything about special needs children? And obviously they are wanted.

The abortion industry is a profit driven one of providing abortions without providing all the facts. You''re given less info before an abortion than you are before getting liposuction.

So, what is life? The first trimester rule you speak of was just an arbitrary number picked in that it''s the safest time for the mother to have an abortion, obviously not for the baby though.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/31/2004 6:42:42 PM
Author: Momoftwo
No, you''re wrong. Keep reading.


How do you know I dont'' know anything about special needs children? And obviously they are wanted.

The abortion industry is a profit driven one of providing abortions without providing all the facts. You''re given less info before an abortion than you are before getting liposuction.

So, what is life? The first trimester rule you speak of was just an arbitrary number picked in that it''s the safest time for the mother to have an abortion, obviously not for the baby though.

Well then tell me your personal experience with said special needs children. And, no, I''m not going to believe your sources. Don''t even go there. You know of not what you think you speak.

So, my "women''s right to choose" is industry driven as well.

On only one thing my husband can agree with Hillary Clinton. Abortion should be legal, safe & rare.

Funny, the few that I know who have had abortions have had counseling prior & a waiting period.

 

[Nicrez]

I hate to admit it, but I know of a coworker I once had who had gotten an abortion 3 times. She was very young when she had her first one. The last two were with her boyfriend of 5 years...

Each three times she was given a two page pamphlet, and asked if she had questions. Initially she was nervous and the doctor explained HOW the procedure went, but options where not explained. She went to Cornell Med Center twice, and the first time was a second tri-mester abortion in a Planned Parenthood clinic. Their information was just as lengthy, and each procedure was quick. Not much info give, it's more like a here's a pill and come back in a week, or sit here, stay still, and come back for a check-up, and that's it...

She to this day cries on ocassion about the issue she has with her past abortions, as she was religiously raised. Her friend who wasn't, also had one and feels no remorse, or sadness. She took a more scientific point of view of birth, where as this person I know, began to believe they where children with souls. I think these are only issues when you believe that conception=life. Otherwise, it is simply a procedure.

I believe that too many people use abortion as a method of birth control, especially women who could afford to have children and are of the age. It IS a known fact that the majority of abortions are NOT welfare women, but married young women who are employed. If awareness of prevention was more widespread, I would hope that abortion wouldn't be such a hot button topic.

I can take no stance on such an issue honestly, as I understand there are cases of where it may be OK, and cases where honestly, it's an abuse of a right. Each side has it's argument, and to judge anyone who has had an abortion is not within my power of morality. I was raised catholic to respect every life, including one at conception, but where is that respect when I am judging a life of a woman who makes her own decisions? In the end, those who do wrong, according to their beliefs will be judged, weather it's an abortion or a Pro-lifer who kills a clinic doctor.

But I honestly, don't know why the government is so involved in the funding of such things, whe if a woman has the right to choose, she should bear the expense of the procedure, or the "burden" of her actions. Sad that most men don't always help in that "burden", but perhaps our tax dollars should go into the PREVENTION and not the treatment. You can put a band aid on the wounds, but wouldn't it be better (and cheaper in the long run) to prevent more wounds from happening?

 

[AGBF]

Adoption laws vary from state to state. A homestudy done in one state may be invalid in another. I was not talking through my hat. I know that in some venues it is impossible for a white couple to adopt a healthy black baby at birth. Black social workers feel it is not good for black children to be raised in white homes.

The National Association of Social Workers (of which I am a member) has taken its cue from the black social workers and frowns on interacial adoption unless the children absolutely cannot be placed with a family of the same race. How many years it takes to prove that a black family is not coming forward to adopt a baby is of less concern to the National Association of Black Social Workers-although the child needs to form bonds of love in the first year-than is the racial makeup of the adoptive family.

"Historical Background

In 1971, the number of black children placed into white families hit its peak with 2,500 placements. In 1972, NABSW took a firm stance against the practice, calling it the equivalent of “cultural genocide,” NABSW criticized The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) for condoning the practice.

NABSW’s stance was influential and caused CWLA to revise its guidelines in 1973 to emphasize the importance of placing children with adoptive families of the same race. Subsequently, the number of interracial adoptions dramatically declined, and by 1975 (the last year the U.S. government collected TRA statistics), only 830 transracial adoptions were recorded.

In the mid-1980s, NABSW’s position became highly contested. Critics of the race matching policy claimed that it was reverse discrimination, that the studies showing negative effects of TRA were biased and unfounded, and that race matching policies conflicted with Title IV of the Civil Right Act of 1964. NABSW modified its stance to some extent in 1994 and stated TRA could be used as a last resort when a family of the same race could not be found. However, NABSW maintains the view that TRAs are unnecessary for the majority of black children. Current estimates of black children transracially adopted each year are about 1,200.

NASW’s perspective is not as clear. Its general position is that of respect for every child’s ethnicity and cultural heritage, which it states are defining characteristics in addressing a child’s individual needs. Nevertheless, NASW maintains that any barriers preventing a child from placement must be removed.

Adding further confusion to the practice of TRA among child welfare agencies and practitioners, is the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA) and its amendments (the 1996 Interethnic Adoption Provision). The law prohibits any delay or denial of a child’s foster care or adoptive placement based on the race, color, or national origin of the child or family."

Deborah

 

[JCJD]

At least in my religion (Christianity), it is God who will judge all people. It is not people who judge each other. I do not have the power to judge the rights and/or wrongs of people, and if you believe that only God judges all, then neither do you. I also believe that God uses relationships and events to bring people closer to Him. Abortion might not be "good", but I believe that God is Perfect, and knows the beginning and end and all possibilities in between, including a world in which abortion is legal, and He can and will use it to fulfill his Plan. And far be it from me to stop people from using their God-given free will to choose an abortion, or choose abstinence, or choose to eat rare steaks, just because of my personal views. The world agrees that murder is wrong, but the world does not agree that abortion is murder. Just read this thread and you''ll see that this is true!!!!

And for your information, Momoftwo, my boyfriend and I do practice abstinence, and we will be abstinent until our wedding night. But I still think that abortions should be safe and legal (and yes, absolutely, rare) because I think that the alternative is so much more hazardous to society. As "unlikely" as the "extreme" situations are, they are still real possibilities that must be taken into account by the law. Low probability is still probable. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It means pro-CHOICE. I deserve, I demand, the right to choose, even though I am choosing NO.