Life, The Toughest Choice (anti-abortion and pro-choice)

Women have the right to choose. What we have now are babies being born to people who are not ready for them financially or mentally. Yes, Adoption is an option, for those lucky enough to be chosen. Some are not so lucky and end up spending their youth in foster care. I was one of the lucky ones. I was adopted and my parents stayed together, but that is the exception not the rule.

My wife, Mary was a teen mother and she struggled to bring up her daughter with the help of her family. Now we are grandparents and we struggle to help our daughter bring up our granddaughter. Am I glad that I wasn't aborted? Yes. Am I glad that my stepdaughter wasn't aborted? Yes. Am I glad that my Granddaughter wasn't aborted? YES. Would I take from a woman, without the support system of a family or the courage it takes to give up a baby for adoption, her right to choose? No.

No matter what choice a woman makes, to keep the baby and struggle through, to give up the baby and never know the kind of life her child will end up with, or abort the baby and live with that decision for the rest of her life, there is no easy choice. With no support system the chance to make a good life for her child on her own is a slim one.

The tough choices are life, the easy choice is death, but the price to be paid for death comes slowly. It haunts women for life. The choice they make at the time is the choice they must live with for a lifetime.

If a woman chooses life, I would be willing to support her with public assistance, but the women that continue to have more kids deserve limited assistance. Continue to have kids and we will support one, the choice is adoption or birth control, I do not want to support multiple children by a single woman or a welfare family. A mistake is a mistake and a woman that struggles to keep her baby deserves respect and all the help that our government and we can give. Turn into a baby machine and it's time for the checks to stop and counseling to begin.

For those women that use abortion as birth control, I would give them one "Mistake" also. One abortion, after that, she would still have her choice but she would be required to seek counseling. Anyone that could go through an abortion and allow herself to be in that situation again needs serious help.

It's easy for the Anti-Abortion crowd to say that they are "Pro-Life" and by saying that they insinuate that people who believe in Pro-Choice are not. People who are Pro-Choice are also Anti-Abortion, and yes it is possible to be both. People who are Pro-Life would like to force their beliefs on women and force them down a path that could lead to them taking their frustration out on the babies, or force them down a path leading to a back alley, or down a path of giving up their baby into a life of possible neglect and abuse. If babies aren't adopted in the first couple years then the chances are slim and it is likely that they will remain in Foster Care. This system is full of problems and this they call "Pro-Life".

We are Pro-Choice, they are not. I am Pro-My Family and not Pro-every baby that some welfare mother pumps out. You "Pro-life" people want every baby to be born and supported no matter what the cost. Well if all the Pro-Lifers agreed to pay for these babies then I would support a ban on abortions, except in the cases of Incest, Rape, and the health of the mother. Just check the box on your tax form, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice and the Pro-Life people can support every baby born to a mother who can't support herself.

I am tired of supporting welfare fraud, welfare cheats, and welfare families pumping out baby after baby. If these families have a problem and can’t or won’t abstain from sex, or use birth control, then in order to continue to receive State Aid they should be offered free hysterectomies or vasectomies. Then and only then would State Aid continue and work to get the family back on their feet so that they can start giving back to the system instead of just taking more from it. State Aid is supposed to be a temporary fix to help people get back on their feet, not a permanent income.

if this guy is getting any government support such as Medicare or excess Social Security payments I want him to check the box saying he'll give back the money.

First of all "most" people who collect Medicare and social security have already paid into the system for a lifetime. Young mothers and welfare families have not.

It's not the mistakes people make that shouldn't be paid for, it's the continued abuse of the system by having more children when they can't afford the one's they already have!

Secondly, this guy IS me.

I do not desire to offend you, but I will speak the truth. Chaste living is the correct path here, not butchering an innocent life that was created, but created in a situation that was outside of God's ideal for children (the family).

Easy access to abortion will only continue the illusion that one can continue unchaste living, with consequences passed on to the baby rather than absorbed by the unchaste. This is a lie, for abortion will leave its mark on the soul of anyone who still has a soul to mark.

Since easy access to abortion will only promote more unchaste living, it stands to reason that such access should be denied.

I also am glad you were not aborted. No one should be, regardless of the inconvience it will bring to the lives of those responsible.

This should have been called the "Expediency Newsletter."

How tediously the morally bankrupt seek incessantly to justify their lack of values, and to what end?

How instructive that their vindictive nastiness invariably shows through at the end. Everything is a "struggle " for this pathetic sap. His beef is with the vagaries of life--but he takes it out on everyone, flailng wildly about with draconian punishments for the innocent and guilty alike.

This idiocy is as ridiculous as stating that we should kill the already-born human beings that have the misfortune of being handicapped, in poor health, old or a child growing up in a large family.

In fact, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, stated the most humane thing that could be done to a child from a large, poor family was to be killed. Peter Singer, profesor at Princeton, suggested that handicapped babies be killed after they are born. Adolph Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, killed the handicapped and elderly. That's where this nation is headed due to irresponsible, selfish people that have no respect for human life.

No, a baby that sucking its thumb in the womb at around nine weeks, should have have its arm ripped off. That's not an option. The option is adoption or keeping one's legs closed until one can deal with the potential consquences and responsibilities of sex.

not butchering an innocent life that was created, but created in a situation that was outside of God's ideal for children (the family).

I do not recommend easy access to abortions, on the contrary I would recommend a difficult course to obtain abortions.

I believe that councelling and options should be discussed in length. In the end though I still believe in the right of a woman to choose.

As for the religious angle, that is wonderful for those that believe, but there are those that don't believe at all. There are also many who belong to many different religions. To expect everyone to live by one set of religious beliefs is not possible.

Let's see if we can get this one straight.

That's nice that you claim not to want to make turning the most innocent of living human beings into a pound or so of chopped meat easier. See, one can be a mildly compassionate neo-pagan without interfering with the bloodshed!

No compromise. NONE. If you think that pro-lifers are going to be as exhausted as those whose sacrament is the slaughter of little children, you have another think coming.

The slippery, slimy, can't we all get along pseudo-moderation that crawls on its belly begging for the respect it does not and can never earn ought not to get the time of day.

This issue will be resolved in favor of life. It is not a question of whether. It is a question of when.

If you think you need a flame-retardant suit now, wait until you see how much you will need one after you are dead if you don't change your tune.

Oh, I am just soooo insensitive.

By the way: Right to choose WHAT???? Why the right to choose to butcher the baby, of course, if it is inconvenient, or poor, or handicapped, or just not perfect enough, or able to be defined out of the human race by judges like Herod (roasting on an open fire eternally) Blackmun. Maybe some of the babies are the wrong race or sex. Didn't we fight World War II against the Hitlerian and Sangerian (Planned Barrenhood) philosophies of justifying mass murder on eugenics grounds? Not that I am judgmental, you understand.

People who are Pro-Life would like to force their beliefs on women and force them down a path that could lead to them taking their frustration out on the babies, or force them down a path leading to a back alley, or down a path of giving up their baby into a life of possible neglect and abuse.

I hear this crap so often, it's incredible. If abortion would prevent women from taking their frustration out on the babies, or of giving up their baby into a life of possible neglect and abuse why has child abuse increased since 1973?

Abortion devalues life so people of weak character, whether they have participated in abortion or not, will view all human life as less important than before. This is why 17 yr old girls throw babies in the trash at a school dance or college students beat a child to death moments after it is born.

Abortion is evil and does nothing but spreads evil.

The option is adoption or keeping one's legs closed until one can deal with the potential consquences and responsibilities of sex.

How would you propose to accomplish this?

What is to be done with every baby born to one that is not ready to handle the responsibility?

Why are people forced to seek foreign babies for adoption instead of American babies?

What about rape, incest, and which life is to be chosen when the mother and baby are at risk? Do nothing to favor either and risk both?

Should a woman who is raped or suffered incest be forced to give birth to the baby of the person who raped them?
If so, should they be forced to bring up the child of the person that raped them?

Everything is a "struggle " for this pathetic sap.

This pathetic sap is Me.

His beef is with the vagaries of life--but he takes it out on everyone, flailng wildly about with draconian punishments for the innocent and guilty alike.

Innocent children have to suffer when their parents have them with no consideration of how they plan to support them. Children have to suffer when their parents are abusive, or when one of their parents commits a crime. Any punishment will invariably effect the innocent as well.

When a spouse commits a crime the innocent one will loose the income of the guilty, whether illegally gotten or not, it will still effect the innocent party. The child of a person who commits a crime has no understanding that their parent must pay a price for doing something wrong. All they know is that they are loosing a parent.

Do you have any solutions or are you just attacking someone else's views?

Why are people forced to seek foreign babies for adoption instead of American babies?

What a hodge-podge of questions! Each of them seems to come with a hidden agenda, and some of those agendas conflict with others. This one, in particular, sticks out like a sore thumb. Obviously people are "forced to seek foreign babies for adoption" because so many American babies are sucked down the sink in abortion mills. There is a huge demand for these supposedly unwanted babies, and it is next to impossible right now for any newborn made available for adoption in the USA to languish in foster care.

Obviously people are "forced to seek foreign babies for adoption" because so many American babies are sucked down the sink in abortion mills. There is a huge demand for these supposedly unwanted babies, and it is next to impossible right now for any newborn made available for adoption in the USA to languish in foster care.

There is not one dropof truth to this statement. There are many American babies available for adoption. I know. I have adopted four healthy and beautiful newborns and have always had my choice of infants and never waited longer than nine months. Do not believe that there are no children available.

The poor souls languishing in foster care are children whose birthparents have not signed away custody, or the state is going through the ardous process or removing custody.

Don't let anyone ever tell you that there are no American children available. In my last adoption I had in one day, calls about 8 babies.

Obviously people are "forced to seek foreign babies for adoption" because so many American babies are sucked down the sink in abortion mills.

From what I understand, isn't the process to adopt an American baby much more difficult then to adopt a foreign one?

That is part of my understanding, and not a "Hidden Agenda"!

I'll also add another to my "hodge Podge" of questions; What about the older children in Foster Care now? Most adoptive parents only want babies.

AND why is Rosie O'Donnell able to fast track her and her friends adoptions? If it's because of her "Ability" to provide for them, let me remind you that many of them like her, are single parents. So much for the establishment of a family environment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.