Kudos to those who have adobted supposedly unwanted children. You are my kind of people. Now, about those satistics? Why are there more children than parents who want them? Who is holding up the adoption process, that requires potential parents to go to other countries for children? Do same sex couples who agree to remain as life partners get to adopt on an equal basis as others? I would vote to stop abortion tomorrow if I could but believe that ALL unwanted fetuses would be reared in loving homes, and not at society's expense. My guess is that technology will make abortion unneccessary in the future. Until then, support adoption and nurture the unwanted so that they become wanted and can make a meaningful contribution to society. That is true love in action.

[This message has been edited by patrask (edited 11-05-2004).]

lmskipper:

I remember Alan Keyes talking about those mistaken statistics. I actually have it on video tape. I recall it wasn't a big thing. I'll have to find the exact interview.

I turned on ETWN, a Catholic station on cable (Keyes is Catholic, you know...Roman Catholic, apart from Protestant Catholic)... and they had Father Corapi speaking on there. You know him? He's one of the most influential and respected Roman Catholic preachers in America today. And guess what? Sounded just like Keyes talking. Can you imagine that? Catch some audio, at least. Click on 'Wake Up America', for the 3.6 mb audio at: http://www.fathercorapi.com/

According to you, probably just another nut case, wouldn't you say? Except Fr. Corapi isn't black. He doesn't even look like Keyes. Same message, tho! I mean: SAME MESSAGE. So... is the Catholic voice really a nut case as well?

How about all those parishioners thruout all those churches hearing the same message? Nut cases for nodding their heads in agreement? How about all the protestant churches, those Evangelical Born Again Bible thumpers who supposedly gave that final shove to get Bush into the White house? Nut cases as well?

Gee, who are your fond idols? Moore and his ilk? Kervorkian? I'm probably wrong. You see, I'm just guessing. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, even tho they seem to fit. Learn me a few new names!

quote:

Originally posted by Menes:
I think you're missing a point in your argument here -- in a society determined by fascist ideology, I guess neither the mother nor the unborn child had any share whatsoever in the decision of a child's life or death. The authorities would take that issue out of their hands: If a child fulfills certain criteria, it will be born -- if not, it will be aborted (even if the mother would want it to live).

Hey...that's interesting that you're from Germany! Luckily that regime was toppled, but, unfortunately, it's still the way things are done in China now, where healthy, wanted babies are being aborted, or induced to be born too soon, resulting in their dying, to meet certain yearly birth quotas. I still find this an argument FOR contraception and abortion, though, not against. If millions of unwanted children had NOT been born, it would leave more room for the wanted, and they wouldn't have to be living miserable lives or exterminated by their own government. I will allow, it's possible or even likely that whatever person brings about change in China or other places...may even be someone not *meant* to be born.

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
I would vote to stop abortion tomorrow if I could but believe that ALL unwanted fetuses would be reared in loving homes, and not at society's expense. My guess is that technology will make abortion unneccessary in the future.

I would agree with you on that. Many people who were forced to opt for abortion would have agreed to have the fetus placed in a surrogate (human or machine) to continue developing rather than be destroyed--they simply had no other choice! Much like killing in self-defense. People who killed only so they or someone else could survive are not naturally homicidal or thrill-killers--it simply seemed the only choice at the time.

Of course, technology also raises more questions. There was a case of one poor girl, maybe even a test tube baby, certainly born by surrogate, who HAD no legal parents--a terrible battle resulted over who was going to get to keep her!

Many girls and women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy are still in school, or school age, and simply don't want to go through nine months of agony, embarrassment, and humiliation carrying a child they KNOW they can't keep, to which they are likely to become more attached the longer they carry it.

I'm not advocating aborting more for any one ethnic group than another, but is the way to elevate ANY race to simply increase its numbers by having scores of girls drop out of school to raise babies they can't afford, at society's expense? Or is the way to elevate an ethnic group or the HUMAN race to have kids stay in school and acquire as much education as possible to be able to afford to support a family? (Not all these girls opt for abortion, either. I heard of one girl whose folks didn't know she was pregnant--she gave birth prematurely, in secret, and wanted to keep the baby--so she would leave it in a closet and nurse it only before and after school--which was, of course, terribly dangerous to the life of the premature baby! She was busted when her mom heard crying coming from the closet.)

Any anti-abortion people who want to volunteer as surrogates to the unwanted unborn, or invent machines to do so, step right up!

My ex and ex's current spouse have adopted three children from a druggy family member. My ex is also a druggy, but a somewhat wealthy druggy(or at least WAS somewhat wealthy until recently). Ex is currently enjoying that wonderful high of losing everything including our children, as well as the adopted ones. I had to take the case to trial and request a more thorough investigation which will be coming to a head in January.

These people are adopting for some really bizarre reasons.

Dandelion,

It�s apparent I�ve been unable to sway your opinion and I respect that. However, you re-iterate one point that I think is in error and should be re-addressed. You imply that we pro-lifers should, in effect, put our money where our mouths are and �step right up� to be parents to those children who would be born if our wishes to outlaw abortion were granted. To re-iterate a point, and add another, I submit the following:

1.) Many of us pro-lifers HAVE stepped up to the plate and adopted children.

2.) Your assertion assumes the unplanned pregnancy rate would remain the same if abortions were outlawed. I�d say without the option of abortion, couples would be more responsible in practicing effective birth control. You might find numbers that say otherwise but I�m unaware of any increase in the birth control use rate since Roe V. Wade. In fact, I�d argue the opposite, that abortion is used as a substitute for birth control rather than some kind of back up plan. Modern birth control method success rates are extremely high and the small number of birth control failures hardly explains the incredibly high numbers of abortion. In short, if I�m right, the unplanned pregnancy rate would go down, resulting in probably a steady rate of live births of unwanted children, not some kind of explosive growth.

Patrask,

The reasons for couples going to foreign countries are many. It�s often cheaper to go overseas, even factoring in travel and lodging expenses. The process is often more straight-forward and streamlined, even considering immigration issues. That is, there�s a lower risk of birth-mothers changing their minds at the last minute or government reluctant to sever parental rights. (Whereas in the United States, the local government�s slavish dedication to preserving family units at all costs often explains why there are a large number of �special need� adoptable children. �Special need� is an all-encompassing term that includes not only physical or mental handicaps but older and mixed-race children.) And, frankly, some adoptive parents insist on a specific gender for their children and sometimes that�s easier to do in another country, like China, which has an abundance of adoptable baby girls.

Best,

Pete

I'm loathe to wade in on an argument that will never be resolved. The fact is, there are two world views here, and they are pretty much irreconcilable.

To argue for abortion on the basis of pragmatics, misses the point of those who oppose it on the moral ground that the fetus is human and therefore has a right to life. Arguments that support abortion but oppose infanticide always retrograde into questions of geography. We can kill a living being when it's IN the womb, but not when it's OUTSIDE the womb. Very few will argue FOR infanticide, but will argue FOR abortion.

My own view is that I think this is one of the great moral challenges of the day. I think it was Pete's post that discussed the fact that he has adopted. I was moved by that post. But must admit that this is another pragmatic argument -- this time, a pragmatic argument against abortion. I have a brother who is gay and has a life partner of over ten years. They are trying (and have been for over three years) to adopt. When I was younger I would have opposed this. I don't, now.

When we discuss this, I think that -- without setting aside our moral feelings and commitments -- we need to remember that we do live in a pluralistic society. One of the driving forces behind Christianity (and I think sometimes we lose the forest for the trees) is love of God and neighbor. I think sometimes we love our principles more than we love our neighbor. But to dismiss the religious views of conservative Christians out of hand is also narrow-minded and violates the principles of pluralism that has made America a great country (I recognize that many non-Americans populate this BB).

I am impressed that the Roe v Wade ruling begins with these words by Justice Blackman:

"We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep, and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes towards life and family and thier values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion."

The question of abortion will not go away.

Now, the topic is Bradbury, and this thread was political book burning.

Mr. Dark,

A minor correction and then I'll turn loose of this thread: I wasn't adopted. My wife and I are adoptive parents. That is, we adopted our children.

Best,

Pete

I'm very much against abortion; however, I understand some cases when it might be necessary. Voluntary "convenience" abortion, especially after, say, the third month of pregnanacy (arbitrary cutoff, which I'll not even venture to defend) is especially revolting to me. My idea here is that birth control is effective and should be used unsparingly. Like dandelion said, abortions should not be used as a means of contraception.
Cheers, Translator

How about those who are opposed to any kind of abortion begin a campaign to make adoption easier for those who are willing to make a home for unwanted children. Maybe the reason for the long adoption process is that 1) the state is too over protective of the children, wanting to ensure a loving and economically viable situation for the child, and possibly has a vested interest in delaying the process to support the adoption bureaucracy, and 2) the prospective parents are just too choosy, unwilling to take just any child but wanting a certain model with certain characteristics. Kind of like genetic engineering isn't it?

How about a pre-qualified list of parents who want children, meet a set of minimum economic standards, and the desirous parents, or parent, then take the next child that comes up for adoption? That would be a loving method for all concerned. All unwanted kids find acceptable, in the economic sense, homes and society solves a big problem, by enabling those who have a place in their hearts for the love and attention needed to raise an adopted child to find one in need of adoption. The criteria for qualification might be set at a certain minimal economic level and that is all that would be required to be a prospective parent.

Some such will have to be established to ensure that ALL unwanted children find a place in this world. Since their numbers are certain to increase when, and if, abortion is again relegated to the back alleys. We should start that campaign early and fix the adoption process proactively.

Pete: Just a minor corrective to your corrective, I said you had adopted, not that you were adopted.
Hope you are well.

pterran,

what I wanted to express, is that this topic is more complex than that. I see your point when you see the danger of fascistic attitudes in a mother's or couple's desicion to abort their child because it doesn't fit their concept of what it should be like.
But then, the act of criminalising a raped girl who doesn't want to go nine months pregnant with this child (I am aware that this is an extreme case, but they do occur nevertheless) by outlawing abortions, as you propose, and thereby imposing this ideology (the life of the undborn child is more important than the girl's suffering) on others -- in my opinion, this act would be just as abominable.

I think Mr. Dark has drawn a good map of this dilemma by showing the two irreconcilable moral "poles" of it. The attempt to mediate between them is a great challenge indeed!

Maybe the establishment of real alternatives like those technical means mentioned by patrask and dandelion can lead us a step out of this dilemma.

And restrictions would just lead to lying--everyone claiming to be a rape victim when in fact only a lesser number were.

Mr. Dark,

Whoops! You're right. I read your post a second time and made the same error twice. The third time was the charge. Must be a smudge on my glasses.

I'm well, thanks.

Best,

Pete

Nard--As you said, you should not presume to put words in my mouth. You know nothing about me, other than what I've said on this board about Ray, teaching, etc. Living out here in Naperville, I know tons of Republicans, but not one of them voted for Keyes. It's not just us "liberals" who were turned off by his vitriol. For someone who claims to be of high moral nature, I found him to be one of the most hateful people I have ever listened to. Obama, on the other hand, who I actively campaigned for, is the breath of fresh air I have long been waiting for, perhaps ever since I began voting. He's one of my heroes, since you asked. One of the worst qualities of Keyes is that if someone disagrees with him, he acts like he's morally superior, and like they are so much dirt. He lectures them in a condescending, holier than thou tone, as if they are ignorant children. Sound familiar?