And you believe that a person should have the unfettered right to do with their body as they choose, but then you turn around and whine that people are slandering you and should stop writing what they’re writing. In your mind, I can abort a fetus but can’t speak freely? I’m sorry, but that sounds hypocritical to me…but oops, that might be slander…Mommy!!!!!!

You’re funny…Got me laughing again!

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/research/2008_05_mepa.php

Number of African American children in foster care as opposed to white children…

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07816.pdf

And African Americans are a minority- the numbers of African American children in foster care should be LESS, not more…

Just because Brangelina and Madonna go to a FOREIGN country to adopt a black child does not mean that the mainstream does. Facts are facts-take the time to read them.

As for the rest, go ahead and twist. Call me names like racist, sexist, etc. Your patron saint Alinsky would be proud…

Regardless of your religion or your belief in the government a persons body belongs to that person. No religion, government, or other entity should have any rights to say what an individual can or can’t do with their own body. If a person wants to suck down beers all day and die of liver disease that should be their right. If a person wants to eat nothing but meat and die from e-coli that is their right. I don’t believe that there should be any legislation that impedes or requires someone to do ANYTHING with their body. Neither the Government nor Religion should have that right of power over a person. Period. As some are so fond of pointing out it’s a matter of personal responsibility.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, you can’t legislate morality. It’s something that is learned.

My comments…

“Are there any among the pro-life are ready to adopt or raise those babies that are not born healthy, whole, and white?” – What does “white” have to do with it? I would never have taken you for a racist Laura until now. I know several couples that have adopted color blind and love those kids as their own. That’s just an ignorant comment in my opinion.

“When conservatives can find money to sink new oil wells to fuel SUVs with abysmal gas mileage they don’t need and there is money to begin and fund two unnecessary wars, why can’t they find the money to care for the children who have no one to care for them?” – Got news for you Laura Democrats vote to sink oil wells, fund two wars, and fail to provide adequate funding for children. There is no difference. Careful your bias slip is showing.

“Men have, and have always had, the ability to walk away from the responsibility of an unplanned pregnancy.” – WOW and how about all the men in the world who want the responsibility of children? That aren’t given that chance when a woman chooses to have an abortion and not tell him? What about all the single fathers who face that responsibility every single day? Sexist as well, I’m not surprised. That’s just an ignorant comment in my opinion.

Contraception and abrtion were not an issue to the Framers because they were men and these were “women’s issues” and not their problem. The framers of the Constitution only truly addressed the rights of white, male landowners, since they were the only ones considered to be citizens. Everyone esle was an incidental afterthought at best. Besides, women and children were viewed as property of their husbands or fathers- look at how rape laws were written up until the last 70-100 years. It was not even a crime until about 20 years ago or so for a man to rape his wife (and many still do not consider it a crime.) If a child was unwanted by the man, he could just abandon it and the mother of his child. In addition, if he chose to acknowledge it, it was his property to do with as he willed- to beat, starve, work to death, whatever. Children weren’t seen in the light of innocence and grace that they are now until only about 100 years ago.

Men have, and have always had, the ability to walk away from the responsibility of an unplanned pregnancy. They never had to deal with the stigma of carrying a child out of wedlock or the responsibility of raising that fetus to term or for life, let alone giving a child away that they have carried in their body for 10 months. A man could walk away from being a father and no one would even know, as any evidence of his contribution to the conception of a child lies inside the woman’s body. A man, if he was not told, would never even know he was a father. He could also lie and say it was not his. The technology did not exist until fairly recently to even prove who the father was. But it is always known who the mother is, since she is the one that gives birth to the child and cannot deny that she is the mother and avoid responsibility. Since the ultimate responsibility lies with her, shouldn’t she have the say as to what she wishes to be responsible for? Abortion is not an easy choice either, even though many who have no experience seem to think it is. If a teenager cannot be trusted enough to be tought about how to use a condom, why should they be trusted with the responsibility of keeping a fetus healthy and safe inside their body for 10 months, to be given away to strangers, if they are lucky? The just as likely scenario is for that girl to know that her child will become a ward of the state and bounce from foster home to foster home or institutionalized.

I think everyone in this country who is pro-life should be required to adopt or be foster parents for one of these children who would have otherwise been aborted. I would like to see how many would change their mind about being pro-life then when the responsibility for what they would decree for others becomes real and cannot be pushed onto someone else. It’s fine to tell someone else what to do with their lives when someone else is holding the bag or footing the bill. That baby would become nothing more than a hot potato. And how many change their mind about abortion when they are placed in a situation where they are involved in an unplanned pregnancy?

Or would you force a woman who knew from before the child was born to raise that baby? Yeah, that would end really well. Read up on the life story of Charles Manson to see how that scenario can play out. And what about the father? It’s hard enough to get men to pay to support the children they help create, let alone raise them.

These are all issues that very few who are waving the placards with fetuses on them ever think about as they march in front of a clinic, harrassing a poor girl or woman who already had to make a very difficult decision, or are on their soapbox. But until they get addressed in a real and concrete way and are prepared to deal with the consequences, we are not ready to outlaw abortion.

PLEASE don’t take anything I say as a personal insult. I have fun insulting my foes on any subject, except this one.

Your making a symantic arguement. By calling her or him something other than a baby, you mentally change them into something less than they are. You take their humanity from them.

You say their little arms and legs are not yet developed, so they are not worthy of protection. You point out rightly they need their mother to live. You rightly called them a fetus.

CW, after the baby moves 11-13 inches then what we call her is unquestioned and the same.

But CW, please hear me, the baby is still not viable without the love and care of the mother. The little arms and legs are still not developed. The are only beginning on their journey. They have to grow. They will need teeth and hair and developed muscles. A beautiful journey. And of course their little minds. You see they cannot understand language for years sometimes. Maybe that is the line some would use before they are called viable.

More than one of this administration has advocated infanticide to one year after that 11-13 inch journey, for the sanity (as you call it) of the mother. And The One, was THE ONLY Senator to stand fast for partial birth abortion for such a reason. Such advocates get REALLY ANGRY when anyone describe such a “procedure”. I choose to to cause myself to cry this morning so I shall not.

Let’s not forget slavery was a crime against humanity, that was justified symantically. If he or she was not self supporting or viable and called 3/5 a human, they were property, a blob of human tissue. I guess all analogies break down quickly, this is a horror unique.

I know the pain of abortion. I know people who I love who have chose the option. I know how people can deceive themselves. I do not love them any less. I have shared their pain, and pitied those who cannot face the wrongness of their decisions. I condem only the action.

My little Lindsay didn’t start talking till age three. It makes her no less valuable than all the materials and “things” ever created. Her smile and snowflake person-ality would melt the hardest heart. Looking in her eyes could bring tears to mine, beauty and innocense uncompared, yet without help she could not be called viable or self sustaining. Maybe some would call her 3/5 a person then.

Once when she was about 3 1/2, we sttod on the porch, just enjoying the evening, holding hands. She looked up at me and said, “Daddy, I sure love Aunt Cheryl. And daddy, I sure love you. I guess I just really love fat people”. Not a fully developed mind, and absolutely unsurpassed bueaty. Do not deny so many Lindsay’s their journey for the sake of what a mom may at one time consider her rights.

First of all, let’s nip this misused “Separation of Church and State” thingy up front. This was a letter from Thomas Jefferson (not an article in the Constitution) based on his concern that the govt would interfere with religious freedom, not vice versa:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

http://www.achw.org/sepcs.htm

http://www.churchstate.org/index.php?id=302

Please don’t follow the lemings with this subject that has nothing to do with the Constitution in order to debate your moral case.

It is highly likely that the subject of abortion was not an issue in 1787 and is also highly likely that the Framers could have not envisioned such a thing as ever becoming a national debate.

Next, we can argue about the point where viable life begins until the cows come home. But one thing can not be denied: a “fetus” or “baby” (whichever term you prefer) has 46 chromosomes upon conception and isn’t merely a mass of zygote goo that can be removed like a cyst from your arm. (a side observation: did you ever notice how often a woman will call her unborn a “baby” regardless of how soon after conception it is simply due to the fact that she wants it whereas a woman can be 6 months along in her pregnancy but may only call her unborn a “fetus” due to the fact that she either never wanted it in the first place or has changed her mind and dehumanizing it makes the abortion decision easier?) If you are basing it on full development then you are introducing the slippery slope of infanticide to any full-term baby/fetus that is only partially developed or, even further, why not just execute every soldier who returns from war with a limb missing? Sounds ridiculous? Not so fast.

To address your point more directly, the only time abortion “depends” is in the VERY rare case of when the mother’s life may be in jeapordy. And believe me, in 2009 amidst HUGE advancements in medical technology, those cases are few and far between when compared to the “oops” scenario. A potential life is worth a lot more than to be at the mercy of of a faulty condom or mis-timed menstrual cycle.

Peace

Are there any among the pro-life are ready to adopt or raise those babies that are not born healthy, whole, and white? Are they ready to spend the money to support a minority, drug addicted, or physically or mentally handicapped child when they aren’t adopted? There is no line out the door at the adoption agencies for these children. There are adoptive parents who would rather go out of the country (!) to adopt children then adopt the children who are either no longer infants or have issues. Adoptees from “trendy” countries get better treatment than our own.

Why is more time, energy and care spent on these children when they are fetuses than is spent on them once they actually come into this world? When churches are spending millions of dollars on church facilities and sound systems for their church, why can’t they find the money and desire to guarantee the life and quality of life of these unwanted children? When conservatives can find money to sink new oil wells to fuel SUVs with abysmal gas mileage they don’t need and there is money to begin and fund two unnecessary wars, why can’t they find the money to care for the children who have no one to care for them? And that’s just with those who are currently being born, not counting those additional unwanted “undesireable” children who would be born if there was no abortion.

Many pro-lifers only care about fetuses until they are born, then dump them on the state’s doorstep and have no time to fund and actively work against funding social programs to help raise these children through either direct charity or tax dollars. I think we need to ensure the fundamental rights guaranteed to those who have them by reason of actual birth then to worry about the rights of those that aren’t even born and, as noted by CW, do not then have them under the Constitution. If children are innocents and deserve to live, don’t they deserve to be loved and cared for too?

The remedy for your point is then a restriction or prohibition on late stage pregnancy, which we currently have. Of course pregnancy planning is/should be done to prevent these things from happening. Adoption later on after the child is born should be an option, but as there might be circumstances beyond you or mine experiences, the mother should still have the option to ‘opt out’ to preserve her own sanity and well being.

Wow! Good stuff!

It’s Christmas day, and I was taking my fifth or sixth 3 – 5 minute break to look at my favorite blog site.
I saw a balanced, civil and outreaching article about abortion in the health bill.

Then your last line hit me, quite unexpectantly. A violent ending.

CW, have you ever seen the movie “Silent Scream”. It was made by a former abortion doctor, who after seeing a fully formed baby, probably viable without the mother if allowed to live, having her body ripped apart.

The baby screams and tries to get away from the instruments of dismemberment. This little girl could be called a fetus, a blob whatever anyone wants, but it’s a little girl. A healthy baby waiting to be born.
Really no different than an infant waiting to be breast fed, dependent upon a loving mother for survival even at a year old.

You see CW, religion and politics have nothing to do with it. It’s do you care for that little girl.

50 million american babies slaughtered and counting. Each baby boy and girl more precious than any material wealth. Don’t confuse them with things. Little babies. Pure, innocent, worthy.

I pray I never compromise them away.