Adoption vs. Abortion?

Cathryn Crawford

[Cathryn Crawford]

In the case of abortion on demand, there are three "exceptions to the rule" that most pro-life politicians fall back on: rape, incest, and endangering the life of the mother.

The last one is a fairly reasonable assumption: If the choice has to be made between the life of the mother and the life of an unborn child - and if there are no other options - then, in that case, abortion can be justified.

However, the other two are not so easy to define. Rape and incest are unarguably two horrible crimes; and pregnancy does not often occur from them.

When pregnancy does occur, however, is it inconsistent to believe that it's wrong to abort a child for the sake of inconvienence and right to abort the child because of the crimes of the father? Should the child bear the brunt of the punishment?

And, on another token - what about adoption? No one is suggesting that the mother should have to raise the child, but should adoption be a more viable option than abortion?

If adoption were easier, fairer, and more private, would more women be inclined to choose adoption over abortion?

What are the arguments concerning abortion vs. adoption? Are there problems? What are they? Can they be solved?

[Colofornian]

the abortion question

The "Jewish question"

I guess we haven't settled either one in the past 70 years.

[Colofornian]

The arguments for abortion in the cases of rape, incest and endangerment to mother's life are just ways of nullifying the truth that abortion is murder. If you can argue that abortion is acceptable for these or any other reason then you can simply move to the next level. This is what happened in Roe vs Wade.

Yes, this is called "The Wedge" approach and is described well by Dr. Bernard Nathanson who used it to open a gap in the protection of preborn in New York over 30 yrs ago. Why? So they could develop an industry in an untapped business.

Don't forget folks: "The Relieve-Your-Womb-of-Your Rapist's-Child" is part of a larger commercial industry otherwise known as "Abortuary & Co.: Dismemberment of Healthy Offspring" $300-$3,000 per scalp (depending on size)

[Colofornian]

Is brain wave activity a human form or function? What about a heartbeat? Are fingers and toes considered a recognizable human form to you?

Oh, come on now. We all know those are really tadpoles swimming around in there and that each pregnancy is really a living example of instant evolution.

[Colofornian]

I think that the law should be that if in the judgement of the doctor the baby would be viable...{which}would mean we would have absolutely banned abortion from the seventh month on.

Profound thinking. What do we do with cases like Marcus Richardson (Cincy-born @ 19 weeks gestation)...not exactly "7 months"...and there are thousands like him in the pre-last trimester born premie category.

So now you confer "prophethood" status on docs who are suppose to look in their medical crystal ball to determine if some kid can live on his own. Well, a million docs out of a million docs would probably been wrong on Marcus & the many others like him.

[Colofornian]

Actually, though I'm prochoice...

"Pro-choice" about what? Diet coke vs. reg coke? Old coke vs. new coke? Long hair vs. short hair. "To choose" is a free-floating intransitive verb. It says nothing unless you describe what you're choosing to do. So, nice of you to be so cavalier about dismembering baby's bodies limb by limb. I suggest you watch a video, "Hard Truth"

[MHGinTN]

You wrote, "I just spoke with a woman who works at Subway whose baby girl (now 3 years old) was born 6 months early. That means the child was 3 months in the womb when she was born -- first trimester." I'm afraid you've had a breakdown in numbering with the Subway employee ... the earliest a child has been born and survived is 20 weeks ... so far. I would agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that it will not be long until science can ceonceive and gestate an individual human being without that being ever residing inside another human's body. There are already artificial life support chambers in use that protect serverely premature prized off-spring of horses and cattle.

[Colofornian]

some people think that carrying the child of a rapist will be sufficiently traumatic as to "re-rape" a woman. {Cathryn Crawford}

Here's the intuition for the exceptions: without an exception for rape and incest, you force a woman or girl pregnant by one of those acts to, in effect, be continually violated for nine months, to be an involuntary accomplice in the crime against her. {Only1percent}

Intruder alert! Intruder alert! Get the shotgun out! Kill the literal bastard!

Now I know one can point to many dimensions of this supposed continual violation for 9 months (she didn't plan on being pregnant--at least not w/his baby; she's not an incubator for rapists; it's a daily mental reminder of the act, etc.)...but bottom line, to claim this makes the Victim-Mom "an involuntary accomplice in the crime against her" simply because she is now pregnant reduces pregnancy in and of itself to a crime.

Here's the bottom line, folks of where this debate needs to be zeroed in upon:

One chunk of folks in this country & beyond believe fetal dismemberment is "the final solution to the preborn question."

Another chunk of folks believe such dismemberment is not their personal solution, but they wouldn't stop N.A.Z.I. (National AbortioniZers Inc.) from imposing their morality upon the next generation.

And then there's folks like me, who believes that one act of violent perpetration is not solved by a second separate act of violent perpetration. Abortion only compounds the victimization of the victim because it draws the victim into the cycle of violence.

You can take the baby out of the womb; but who will take the baby out of Mom's eternal mind & soul?

[Colofornian]

some people think that carrying the child of a rapist will be sufficiently traumatic as to "re-rape" a woman. {Cathryn Crawford}

For proponents of those compounding the problems of rape victims, why don't you consider the testimony of aborted women (countless books, FORBIDDEN GRIEF is the best), many of whom describe abortion itself to be similar to an act of rape--only the violation is by steel and is done by abortionists.

[dark_lord]

Profound thinking. What do we do with cases like Marcus Richardson (Cincy-born @ 19 weeks gestation)...not exactly "7 months"...and there are thousands like him in the pre-last trimester born premie category. So now you confer "prophethood" status on docs who are suppose to look in their medical crystal ball to determine if some kid can live on his own. Well, a million docs out of a million docs would probably been wrong on Marcus & the many others like him.

A medical clinic/hospital makes more money from a live birth than from an abortion. And for preemies, far more money. It is in the selfish self interest of the hospital/clinic to do a live birth procedure over an abortion if it is possible to do so. If the law is written to let the doctor decide, capitalism will steer doctors (because their medical directors, with bills to pay, will steer them) towards doing live births over abortions.

I gave "7 months" as an example, not as a cut off date. Let the doctor determine the possibility of viability. If they decide the baby is nonviable, and thus "abortable", they will be cutting into their own income stream. And as long as the woman is responsible for the medical bills, and those bills are much lower if she carries the baby to term, in general the women will choose to carry the baby to term.

Thereby, we use the selfish self interests of the medical establishment (who wants to maximize income, and live births cost more, and preemies cost most) against the abortion movement.

[pnz1]

2 years is not a bad wait in my opinion, since we are still waiting and have been for twice that time.

[Colofornian]

A medical clinic/hospital makes more money from a live birth than from an abortion

You assume that the medical industry runs the medical industry. Bad assumption. Guess who chases what tail? You got it! The insurance industry! It's the insurance industry that really runs the med industry!

Quiz question No. 2: Which is (far) cheaper to the insurance industry? An abortion or a live birth? Bingo! An abortion! Now we know why the insurance industry far & wide encourages & covers abortion. A quality of life ethic is cheaper for them to disseminate than a sanctity of life ethic.

Doesn't it send tingles of joy up your spine to know that your employer's dollars are almost guaranteed to cover an "elective" abortion for you and your family when "Jr." just isn't arriving at a convenient time?

[Gophack]

At 56 days after conception, ALL parts of a human person, internal and external, are formed. All the baby needs to do is grow. The skeleton, the heart, the lungs, the nervous system, the liver -- everything. This is not scientific theory, this is scientific FACT.

The baby is fully recognizable, fully formed, fully functioning before most women even know they are pregnant, and definitely before most women have an abortion. People talk about first trimester abortions as if they are any different than a second trimester abortion, as if miraculously after 13 weeks, the baby is formed, whereas at 12 weeks the baby is a lump of tissue.

The baby is a baby is a baby. Just because the preborn at 56 days is small doesn't make him any less a human person.

We have a duty and obligation to protect the youngest, smallest, most vulnerable in society. We cringe when we hear stories of a newborn baby being dumped in a trash can -- why aren't we equally appauled when a preborn human is cut up in his mother's womb a week earlier?

A baby at 56 days feels pain because it's nervous system is fully functioning. The baby may not feel pain like you and I, but when the abortionist takes his sharp tools and slices off a leg and arm before sunctioning the baby out with a vacuum, that baby feels the pain. Just because its shortlived -- the baby is going to be dead pretty quickly -- doesn't make it any less painful.

[Colofornian]

At 56 days after conception...

At 40 days post-conception are brain waves...At 3.5 weeks post-conception is a heart beat. Heart beat and brain waves. Two criteria for establishing death. Two criteria for establishing definitive life.

No surgical abortions are done this early. Therefore, all surgical abortions murder human folks. So, even folks who may embrace chemical abortions & don't believe babies are God's worksmanship in the womb have to concede this.

This is called, "Imposing God's reality."

[Gophack]

Again, the pro-abortion lobby has twisted the "life of the mother" issue so much that no one really understands what is at stake.

With medical science, there are very few instances where the life of the mother is truly in jeopardy. For example, the one we hear about most often, is the ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the baby is developing outside of the womb and has ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of surviving. The baby is often dead or dying when the doctor realizes it's not in the womb. The dying fetus can and will seriously endanger the woman's life, and to save her life they can remove the unborn child as long as the intent is not to kill the baby, but save the mother.

The other life threatening situations in pregnancy are almost all in the third trimester. Gestational diabetes, toximia (sp?) can be seriously dangerous to the mother and therefore many doctors encourage inducing a pregnancy or having a C-section before the baby is at term because continuing the pregnancy would indeed threaten the mother's physical life.

Liberal pro-aborts use these examples to say see? We need third trimester abortions. But those babies can survive out of the womb! They argue that the pain and trauma of childbirth could kill the mother --- what about the pain and trauma of an abortion? What is different from inducing a delivery and allowing the baby to live, than inducing a delivery and sucking the baby's brains out of its skull as the head emerges from the vagina?

There truly are very, very rare instances where the mother and the baby can not both be saved. I can't think of any. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that the life of the mother excuse is a red herring that doesn't hold water with modern technology, though I'm sure there are one or two isolated cases that someone would be happy to flaunt to "prove" we need abortion.

[Gophack]

You're absolutely right. I was using the 56 days because I read this book, From Conception to Birth, that focused on the development of the baby in the first 56 days because that was when everything was completely developed.

But you're right -- most women don't even know they are pregnant until after the baby's heart starts beating.

[Cathryn Crawford]

I agree. See my other posts.

It's inconsitent and dishonest logically (to me) to argue otherwise.

[MrLeRoy]

So, do you also believe that the government that has the power to make murder legal or illegal is but a short step from the power to make murder mandatory for those they choose?

[pictures]

I don't see your answer. Could you put it in words?

[Lorianne]

I wish you would explain what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that the State forcibly take children away from their parents and place them for adoption?

Being poor is not a crime. All over the world most people are poor. There will always be poor people. Poor people will always have children.

In the spirit of what Mr. Bush calls the "culture of life" we have to assume every life is valuable, whether we are happy about helping support that life or not.

Otherwise, we'll end up like China with state forced contraception, sterilization, and abortion. I personally don't want the State deciding who should have children, and how many. I don't mind encouraging people to be more responsible about procreation, but draw the line at forceful government measure against people. If we have to support some children, that is a small price to pay to support and honor HUMAN LIFE.

We either believe human life is precious or we don't. We can't have it both ways. We can't say one child is has worth because he was conceived in ideal circumstances, and another child has less worth because his parents were perhaps irresponsible in our estimation.

[Boiler Plate]

True too true.

[jimt]

I wish you would explain what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that the State forcibly take children away from their parents and place them for adoption?

Those who continually can't support them ? Yes.

In addition I'd jail the parents for non-support. Males and females alike. But in sex-segregated facilities so they wouldn't be doing any more irresponsible procreation.

Being poor is not a crime. All over the world most people are poor. There will always be poor people. Poor people will always have children.

Certainly being poor is not a crime. It's not an honor either. It's also not an entitlement to pick other people's pockets.

Yes, all over the world most people are poor. Where it's not the fault of the people themselves for making poor choices, it's largely the fault of the governments they live under. Yes, there will always be poor people.

Poor people will always have children? They should be discouraged from having kids they can't support. It's immoral. They should have only the number of kids they can support, or that they can find other people to willingly help them support.

snip...

We either believe human life is precious or we don't. We can't have it both ways. We can't say one child is has worth because he was conceived in ideal circumstances, and another child has less worth because his parents were perhaps irresponsible in our estimation.

You're attributing arguments to me that I haven't made. I've made none of the above.

My point is that parents who continually do not support their children have no right to be parents. They should be jailed and their kids adopted out.

While I believe human life is precious, that's not an absolute. For instance, I favor capital punishment. I favor thieves being forced to make restitution. And I favor people who become parents either living up to their responsibility of support, or becoming non-parents.

"...perhaps irresponsible in our estimation" ? That generous description might apply occasionally, but a large number of these folks are demonstrably irresponsible. A family on welfare simply has no right to produce additional children. It's flat obvious they don't - they're not living up to the responibilities they already have, let alone taking on new ones to shirk.