gut;1407179 wrote:You're a dumbass. She'll keep the baby and get thousands from the gubmit EVERY YEAR.

That's true but she'd have to take care of the child afterwards. If she puts the child up for adoption there are thousands of wealthy Americans that would pay all of her costs and then some (utilities, COL expenses, anything to please her short of extortion to ensure a happy and safe birthmother). But again that is reality. Something many OC'ers (or at least one in particular) don't live in.

Manhattan Buckeye;1407219 wrote:That's true but she'd have to take care of the child afterwards. If she puts the child up for adoption there are thousands of wealthy Americans that would pay all of her costs and then some (utilities, COL expenses, anything to please her short of extortion to ensure a happy and safe birthmother). But again that is reality. Something many OC'ers (or at least one in particular) don't live in.

Naw, c'mon, MB. There's far less trauma and psychological damage to the mother to suck out a gelatinous lifeless fetus than to go full term - with all expenses paid - to give that baby up for adoption to loving parents.

Your tax dollars at work!

Yes and it's provided in the form of money.

reps.

All she has to do is hold out another four months and could likely make $50,000 to $75,000 easily.

yet another alternative to choosing abortion.
reps.

HitsRus;1407290 wrote:reps.



yet another alternative to choosing abortion.
reps.

Unfortunately for many "responsible women" they can't make that sacrifice because it might involve giving up cigarettes and/or alcohol.

Our friends adopted a baby about 5 years ago from a well-respected California service. They were very fortunate in that they found a very responsible birth-mother that owned up to her actions and took the responsibility seriously. That is a rarity - according to this service 75% of birth-mothers smoke during their pregnancy and many drink in moderation - the one thing the service will not allow is any drug usage harder than marijuana and discourage that type of use.

Many people are so ignorant about adoption and abortion it boggles the mind. And that includes my parents. They think that adopting a child is like going to Target and picking up a sweater. To utilize a legitimate service you're going to need $50,000 liquid at least and a completely clean health/financial background. And even then the "disruption" percentage can be emotionally devastating. Yet (to turn this back to the abortion issue), Planned Parenthood and other organizations that have financial stakes in the abortion industry fail to alert potential birth-mothers of real and potentially lucrative if not emotionally fulfilling alternatives. Yet our government funds these corrupt organizations. I'm not as "pro-life" as my parents, but to the extent that a healthy American woman makes such a decision, it is a completely irresponsible and ultimately selfish "choice."

^^^I think of my cousin and their struggles to have a child. They eventually adopted, but had to go out of the country. That was 20 years ago, but now many of those foreign options are disappearing...Russia for example.

^^^

Russia is disappearing now. China disappeared about 5 years ago. In 1990, it would have been relatively easy to have adopted a Chinese baby - particularly a baby girl. With the Hague Convention and other government interventions it has been determined that a child is better off aborted (or dumped in a garbage can) rather than raised by wealthy Americans. After all, we wouldn't want to distort the Chinese/Russian cultures.

Oh, and since this is the political forum, can I reiterate (not that it needs to be done) what a complete #^$%ind idiot Joe Biden is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/joe-biden-china-visit-one-child_n_934223.html

This is Huffinton Post, not exactly a right-wing rag (cough, cough are you reading this Boatshoes?). Apparently our Veep understands the one child policy. Words can't even describe how stupid he is.

Manhattan Buckeye;1407688 wrote:...can I reiterate (not that it needs to be done) what a complete #^$%ind idiot Joe Biden is:

Biden went on to add: ‘The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people."

Con_Alma;1407194 wrote:Yes and it's provided in the form of money.

Why not just provide what is actually needed if possible? Does that not seem equitable? Why do we need to translate form except if there is a lack of a match?

I would contend that the very grounds for using money as a substitute restitution is that we would not view another's right to live as superceding your right to your own body. Money, however, is a form of restitution that does not infringe on such a right.

Also, Biden is a damn moron.

Manhattan Buckeye;1407308 wrote:Unfortunately for many "responsible women" they can't make that sacrifice because it might involve giving up cigarettes and/or alcohol.

Good point. I can see how substance abuse could throw a wrench into the "adoption option".

Nevertheless, a woman's personal vices are still no legitimate excuse or valid reason to snuff out human life for purposes of convenience.

O-Trap;1408104 wrote:Why not just provide what is actually needed if possible? Does that not seem equitable? Why do we need to translate form except if there is a lack of a match?

I would contend that the very grounds for using money as a substitute restitution is that we would not view another's right to live as superceding your right to your own body. Money, however, is a form of restitution that does not infringe on such a right.

If this is the case the act of procreation can be avoided to keep from Creation that right inside the mothers womb.

Con_Alma;1408211 wrote:If this is the case the act of procreation can be avoided to keep from Creation that right inside the mothers womb.

It can certainly be avoided, much like most automobile accidents can be. The question isn't whether or not it can be avoided. The question is what we do about it when it isn't avoided.

O-Trap;1408299 wrote:It can certainly be avoided, much like most automobile accidents can be. The question isn't whether or not it can be avoided. The question is what we do about it when it isn't avoided.

That question has already been answered by the law, no?

Con_Alma;1408302 wrote:That question has already been answered by the law, no?

Okay, let me rephrase. "The question is what we SHOULD do about it when it isn't avoided."

Currently, the law states that it is acceptable to disallow the fetus child the use of an unwilling host. The question is whether or not that is justified.

I know you know this. Just clarifying my intent.

Haven't already expressed our opinions on that question?

The law only disallows up to a certain point or time-frame.

Con_Alma;1408309 wrote:Haven't already expressed our opinions on that question?

The law only disallows up to a certain point or time-frame.

I suppose that's fair. I think we've been engaging in discussing the validity of mutually exclusive ideas on the topic, which I think is definitely a good thing! I don't think the exchange of ideas is EVER bad.

As for the law, I'm relatively okay with it as it is, and as I think you described it.

O-Trap;1408455 wrote:I suppose that's fair. I think we've been engaging in discussing the validity of mutually exclusive ideas on the topic, which I think is definitely a good thing! I don't think the exchange of ideas is EVER bad.

As for the law, I'm relatively okay with it as it is, and as I think you described it.

I'm sure the Jews in the 1940's weren't too happy that ideas of Ayrian superiority were discussed. You are arguing vehemently that the discussion of this idea is a good thing? Appalling to say the least. :thumbdown:

sleeper;1408479 wrote:I'm sure the Jews in the 1940's weren't too happy that ideas of Ayrian superiority were discussed. You are arguing vehemently that the discussion of this idea is a good thing? Appalling to say the least. :thumbdown:

lol! Careful. People here may think you're being serious about the notion of discussing ideas.

O-Trap;1405943 wrote:In saying such, then, you're asserting that a non-person (not yet, anyway) has more right to life than an actual person who already has such a right?

So let's consider that "Non-Person" a week before full term....If you do nothing, that "Non-Person" will live for another week, but if it is delivered, and you do nothing for a week, it will die.

Aren't they both a "Non-Person"? If you allow the killing a week before birth, you should allow the killing of your child at any age, Right? It is the Mother's choice Right?