Just finished reading the thread on abortion--so many wonderful posts there.

Could not help noticing two things. First, the experiences surrounding pregnancy and abortion are deeply personal and they resonate through people's lives.

Second, many of those who reported having abortions said they had to cross a picket line of protesters at the clinic. One had to be shielded by a golf umbrella because the media was there as well that day. How sickening to have to wade through a sea of people who believe they know better than you do what is best for you. If the picketers had two shreds of humanity, would they make the choice to stand in that place with that message?

I cannot understand the mentality that would presume to know what is best for someone else who is making one of the most personal, difficult choices of a lifetime. Of course, I can understand (Prop 8 comes readily to mind). I just don't see how "faith" organizations can promote, encourage, foster, cultivate such worldviews and courses of action, thinking they know what is best for any person. The presumption is so galling.

I do not understand the human who can add needless suffering to another human being and feel righteous about it.

I may be able to shed some light, having once been a pro-lifer. To think like they think is to remind yourself that they are not thinking. They are reacting to fear buttons which are pushed by authority figures.

It is a world view of black/white, good/evil, God/Satan, us/them. In that high contrast paradigm, you are on God's side (our side, of course) or on the side of Evil. Unlike Eastern religion, there is no acceptance or understanding of human nature or individual sin. Evil as part of human nature is denied and the reality of sin is dealt with through confession and continual repentance. That's why they are always crying in church.

It's a war and they are The Soldier of Christ who does not understand why you do not love Jesus (he is so kind!) and why can't you see that his team is the one to be on (see the good we do!). It must be that you are blinded by Satan or addicted to vile sins. In his/her eyes, these are facts, not opinion. You are not entitled to your own "facts," so their world view is just The Truth.

You have heard the message and have rejected it, therefore you are (at best) lukewarm and must be spit out. That's what Jesus said, so they do not feel the least bit bad about shunning you or you suffering for your sins. Because you reject the gift of the atonement, you deserve to suffer for your own sins. It's perfectly ok if you die of Aids, feel bad (or die) getting an abortion, or if you commit suicide 'cause you're gay. You brought it on yourself by rejecting Jesus and they are sad for you, but understand that God works in mysterious ways and your tragedy is yet another example to all the world that your atheism (agnostic, Quaker, whatever) doesn't work and is not true.

And, by the way, since it is the End of Times, it's high time you stepped out of the goat category and came over to join the sheep following the Shepherd. And their fetus sign in your face while you are suffering may be just the motivation you need to kneel down and accept Christ. Wouldn't it be great if you did that so the camera could catch it right outside the abortion clinic and then even more people would be motivated to accept Jesus? Wow--your pain would then be transmuted by God to spite Satan and work for good! See how that's a good thing?

And that guy that shot the doctor? He's a hero--he went to jail for his beliefs just like St. Peter. He managed to get worldwide attention focused on the fact that XX number of abortions are performed every day, and that's worth a man's life, isn't it?
_________

You begin to realize that the game of win/lose for souls was started by professional religionists like Joseph Smith and then their simple "come join us and let us pray" morphs into a callous and barbarous lack of respect for the right and authority of the individual to have their own value system--or no value system--as they see fit.

When the success of the corporate religion becomes more important than compassion, love, kindness, then I totally believe Jesus has left the building and would have nothing to do with this type of "Christian." No way would Jesus add more pain to a suffering person when he healed lepers and forgave the thief (if he ever, in fact, did any of those things).

Remember, we used to groupthink. They could wake up just like we did, and find themselves looking curiously at their own cruelty and asking, "How did I ever think that was ok?"

Isn't it mostly christian groups that protest at abortion clinics? These people can also be seen at Gay-Pride rallies and Mormon conferences. Ironic isn't it?

And therefore needed to be opposed and stopped. I wasn't going to rallies or anything, and I never agreed with violence but I thought abortion should be illegal.

When you frame it up as murder, I can see how people would think they are protecting defenseless babies and that violence might be justified.

It is not that those who protest at abortion clinics believe that they know what is best for the woman who wants an abortion. Rather, they believe abortion is killing, murder. While we may have great sympathy for a woman's situation, we don't believe murder is justified, or that it is the answer to the woman's situation.

Just like we would try to stop an enraged woman from killing her cheating husband because killing is wrong even though her circumstances suck, it's the same way with abortion. For pro-life people (which I am), it's not about judging other people; it's about changing minds and saving lives. As pro-lifers, we are not interested in condemning a woman's sexual choices, but we are interested in preventing her from killing a human being simply to avoid the consequences of those choices. Even more than that, we are interested in changing the woman's mind or heart about the life inside her.

I've never protested outside an abortion clinic, but I would bet the vast majority of people who do it do so out of deep love and concern, not out of hate.

It's so easy to demonize a position you make no good-faith effort to understand.

And that's where the conflict of rights comes in.
Nobody has the right to use another person's body as an incubator. That is not a RIGHT. It's a privilege, a gift, given by the woman.
Another BIG problem with "Right To Life" organizations is that they believe a fertilized egg should have all the rights of a human being. This would result in the outlawing of IUD's, most oral contraceptives, and any removal of an ectopic pregnancy.
These people are extremists who look at women as little more than walking incubators.
Yes, I do understand their point of view regarding ABORTION, but I do not believe they have the right to force it on others through LAW.

Maybe some people that a fertilized egg is a baby, but I don't. To me, a fertilized egg is completely different from an implanted embryo. If you prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, that's different from taking steps to remove an embryo from its settled place in its mother's uterus. I strongly support the use of contraception, including Plan B.

As for using another person's body as an incubator, I'm sorry, but it's not the baby's fault that it was conceived. And the vast majority of the time (99% of the time), aborted pregnancies are the result of consensual sexual intercourse. People who have sex are taking a risk. If they are using contraception, it may be a smaller risk, but it is still a risk. It's not the baby's fault that it was conceived, but the mother and father should both take responsibility for their actions, rather than punishing the baby.

We have this illusion in our mind of the typical woman who has an abortion. She's a teenager who was raped by her evil stepfather. But that's not usually the case.

Around 80% of women who have abortions are over 20, 45% are at least 25 years old, and 25% are over 30. Only about 1% of abortions are the result of rape or incest.

I think we also have an illusion in our mind about what the first trimester fetus looks like. Many of us have had that illusion shattered by a first trimester ultrasound. Now that we can see into the womb, it's a whole lot harder to deny that that is a human being in there, who doesn't deserve to be punished for his/her parents' mistake.

I think there is mercy and forgiveness for those who have had an abortion, but that doesn't mean I'll support it happening in the first place. I support outlawing all abortion (with exceptions for life of the mother, and perhaps rape/incest) for physicians, not punishing the women who seek abortions. No matter how common murder is, and no matter how sad the situation is for the murderer, I don't think as a society that we should condone murder. That's the bottom line for me. It's a moral issue, not a religious one.

For the record, I'm a nevermo Christian.

Maybe in people you associate with have that "illusion," but in people I know (on both sides) have an accurate idea of the statistics you gave.

Your "illusion" sounds like something that pro-lifers tell each other that "this is why people are pro-choice. They don't understand. They don't know the statistics. IF they only did, they would see that abortion is wrong."

You're wasting your time believing those "illusions." People who are for pro-choice aren't going to be changed by those statistics, anymore than the Morg spouting illusions of "we're the fastest growing church in the world" will suddenly get someone to join.

A fetus has no mind to contribute to the discussion of its continued existence. It is there at the whim of biology and medical technology. It might cease to exist either due to a miscarriage or an abortion. Those are the breaks of being a fetus. A fetus is the potential but not a viable life. The woman who carries the fetus determines its fate and take the moral responsibilities for the decision.

That comment was meant to be snide.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2010 10:46AM by maria.

I can't speak for the poster you were addressing, but I would absolutely jump at the opportunity to adopt and raise a child, from infancy, who would otherwise have been aborted - regardless of the race or gender of the child. However, since abortion has been legalized, it's well nigh of impossible to adopt an American infant without any disabilities.

If you find a mother willing to give her child away, it costs several thousand dollars and is way more expensive than giving birth would be (if you have health insurance). Adoption is a great solution, but it's not as easy as everybody seems to think...and it's deeply fraught with psychological issues, both for the adopting family (especially if infertility is involved or if the family is doing foster-to-adopt) and for the adoptee.

Before an infertile couple adopts, in my opinion, they need to work through the psychological repercussions of not being able to have biological children. Adopted children need counseling to make sure their identity forms in a healthy way and that they view their status as adoptees in a positive light. If it is an interracial or intercultural adoption, then cultural education is also in order. Adoption is complicated.

And you know, I would even be willing to take a young pregnant woman into my home and help her get on her feet so that she can parent the baby she might have aborted. There are many Christian (that's not to say Mormon) organizations that help women in need...and of course, if necessary, there are government programs like WIC, Medicaid, SNAP, and welfare. Even daycare is subsidized, and single mothers get better financial aid deals for college (due to having another person in the household).

I want to live in a world where a woman never views her situation as hopeless or feels that she needs to abort a baby she would rather have parented but for her financial situation. I am willing to work to make that happen; of course, I am only one...but I don't think I'm alone.

I hope you woudnt mind addopting a child with a dissability. Those kids are still going to grow up to be great people.

The reason I said that I would not "jump at the opportunity" to adopt an infant with disabilities is not that I'm prejudiced against people with disabilities. Rather, it's that I am currently a person of limited means.

I guess it would vary on a case-to-case basis, but I am not currently financially capable of caring for a typical disabled child. Women give babies up for adoption because they cannot financially care for them. I would not adopt a child for whom I could not financially care. It has nothing to do with some kind of nasty prejudice on my part against individuals with disabilities. It's just a realization of my own abilities. Sorry if I offended you.

Seriously? People wait for years and years to adopt children. And some never reach the front of the line. But why give the baby up for adotpion to someone that would love and care for it when you can just kill it and be spared the inconvenient few months? (obviously, the rape, incest, threat to mother's life, etc. is a different story)

Sure glad the birthmoms of my sister's kids decided to be inconvenienced for a few months...

> spared the inconvenient few months?

Inconvenient? Possible pregnancy complications abound, including life-threatening and debilitating ones. Carrying a child to term is always dangerous and expensive.

Demanding people accept those risks to serve as baby machines for adoptive parents is unconscionable. If they choose to do so, more power to them. If they don't, no one has a right to stick their nose into another's reproductive rights.

I'm pro-choice, but I've often wondered why some pro-life folks say that "rape, incest, threat to mother's life, etc. is a different story". If you think abortion is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in all situations? After all, the fetus can't help how it was conceived. If you believe that abortion is murder, why is it okay or understandable to abort a fetus that was conceived after a rape or incest? If you think a fetus has personhood, isn't it just as wrong to abort one that was conceived due to violent crime as it is to abort one conceived due to carelessness?

My personal belief is that abortion should be safe and legal for ALL women, not just those who have been violated. It's not a choice I think I would ever make (and at 38, I doubt it will ever be an issue for me), but I do think it should be available for women who decide it's what they want. And while I certainly find it distasteful if a woman uses abortion as a method of birth control, I can't believe one woman is more wrong for having an abortion than another one is. I also think that if we ever outlaw abortion except in "certain cases", we might start having more men going to prison on false rape allegations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2010 06:47PM by knotheadusc.

"you can just kill it and be spared the inconvenient few months?"
--use of emotionally loaded terms like "kill" when the question of whether it is killing is the issue at hand.
--spared the inconvenience? Holy Shit! Do you seriously think that most abortions are a matter of convenience? It will be among the toughest decisions a woman ever has to make, and you dismiss it like you would a decision to get a haircut. Any woman on this board who ever struggled with the issue of whether to abort will tell you it is not a matter of convenience.

implanted into your uterus so you can be the incubator.
OK?

I would actually love the experience of being pregnant with a child, not biologically mine, whom I planned to adopt after birth. Granted, it would be unlikely that I'd have a successful pregnancy (I have an autoimmune condition and two miscarriages under my belt), but I would be more than willing to do this.

doesn't mean that OTHER women should be required to do so (once they are pregnant). Those are two very different things.

I side with those who say an embryo or fetus doesn't have the same rights as a person. They are not fully developed. They are a potential person, but they don't yet have consciousness, self-awareness, thoughts and feelings.

To say that a person had a choice to have sex and therefore MUST have the child is to look at having babies as some sort of CONSEQUENCE for sex, which puts babies at risk for being unwanted and neglected. The fact is that things go wrong sometimes. Maybe birth control failed. Maybe someone was careless or even stupid. But having an unwanted child when the mother is physically, emotionally, or financially unprepared to be a mother is just wrong.

Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously? People wait for years and years to
> adopt children. And some never reach the front of
> the line. But why give the baby up for adotpion
> to someone that would love and care for it when
> you can just kill it and be spared the
> inconvenient few months? (obviously, the rape,
> incest, threat to mother's life, etc. is a
> different story)
>
> Sure glad the birthmoms of my sister's kids
> decided to be inconvenienced for a few months...


Wow--talk about a self centered perspective. As a pregnant 19 year old my life would have been more than just inconvenienced. My life would have detonated. All because a condom didn't work. If I had continued the pregnancy my parents would have had to pay for my medical treatment. There are serious medical problems that can occur with pregnancy -- diabetes, high blood pressure, blood clots. And how would I know that an adoptive parent would have treated my child like I wanted? Adopted parents are abusive just like biological parents. Would I want my child to be raised to believe that women don't have a right to decide their biological fate? No. I would not have wanted you to parent my child. I decided my reproductive fate and all women should always have that right.

Based on my own personal experience, there is absolutely not a shred of humanity, kindness or "love" from the pro-life crowd.

A few years ago I had a miscarriage that resulted in me needing a D&C afterwards. My insurance provider only covered the procedure with a certain OB in my area. That doctor was more or less known for her services providing abortions, even though that was not the only service she provided. I was not aware of the controversy surrounding her building at the time, so imagine my shock when I show up to get the D&C and i'm being verbally assaulted by a throng of protesters.

I had just lost a child, it was OBVIOUS that I was emotionally distraught (I was crying the entire way into the building) and they were scowling at me, screaming the word "whore" and "murderer" as I walked in. Talking about how God would judge me. They just assumed I was strutting in for an abortion after a night out on the street corner or something.

It was the most abusive, humiliating and de-humanizing thing i've ever gone through in my entire life. I hope every person standing there that day dies a painful, agonizing death. I have absolutely no respect for pro-lifers. Not after how I was treated for no damn good reason. Fuck them. They are all the same to me. I still have nightmares about walking in for that procedure.

Hugs to you, (((ExMorgbot))). What an awful thing to have to go through. I'm sorry.

I know the pain of a miscarriage (I've had two), and I'm very sorry for your loss. I really don't know what abortion protesters think they are accomplishing. That's why I would never protest at an abortion clinic even though I am pro-life.

Even for those who oppose abortion, the enemy should be our culture as a whole, which doesn't value life appropriately, not the woman who is in a bad situation. Their conduct would have been unacceptable even if you had been having an abortion; that you weren't doing so made it even worse. People disgust me. I'm very sorry that you had to go through that, but please realize that we are not all alike. I, for one, am completely appalled that anyone did what they did to you; and again, it would have been equally inappropriate if you had been seeking an abortion. :(

I read it a lot around here, and it really really annoys me.
You should be outraged, and ready to do something about it, not just "sorry it happened". It didn't just "happen". There are PERPETRATORS who DID this thing.

I had an abortion when I was 19. I was using a condom for birthcontrol but one sperm made it through. I was so angry because I was being responsible and here I was a pregnant teenager. I was a full time student living on campus. I didn't even consider keeping the child but I was torn emotionally about the potential of a child. An unexpected event happened during the abortion. The doctor had done the prep work and when he started the dialation I burst into tears. I was fine one second and crying the next. I had not even been thinking about crying. I knew that this was my only chance for a child. The doctor got irratated and wanted to know if he should continue. I said yes. I am 50 and childless. I don't regret what I did. I could not have raised a child and I didn't want to be pregnant. I was 19 and wanted to finish college. It was my choice and my responsibility. There were young women there who were having their second or third abortion because they weren't using birthcontol. They didn't seem weighed down with the emotional responsibility of having an abortion. It was their bodies and their choice.

You write:

"It is not that those who protest at abortion clinics believe that they know what is best for the woman who wants an abortion. Rather, they believe abortion is killing, murder. While we may have great sympathy for a woman's situation, we don't believe murder is justified, or that it is the answer to the woman's situation."

Perhaps you do not see the contradiction in your statements. First you say, "It is not that those who protest . . . know what is best for the woman," then you say they "don't believe . . . it is the answer to the woman's situation," which implies that she is ignorant and you have the answer she lacks. So you don't "know" what is best, but you "believe" you have the answer that she does not have.

Unless there is some esoteric or semantic difference between "know" and "believe" (and for me there is, by the way), you are saying that your beliefs answer to your lack of knowledge. Map the distance between knowledge and belief. See the difference?

Know what you know; believe what you believe. Trust that other mortals do the same. Respect others' knowledge and belief as you would have them to respect yours.

You continue:
"Just like we would try to stop an enraged woman from killing her cheating husband because killing is wrong even though her circumstances suck, it's the same way with abortion."

Um: false analogy. These circumstances are neither "just like" or "the same way."

And then you conclude, "It's so easy to demonize a position you make no good-faith effort to understand."

True, all around. And if protesters made a good-faith effort to understand the ways that all human beings are exercising their free will, perhaps less demonization would occur. It is, in fact, the demonization that I abhor.

And now for your adoption post. You write:
"I can't speak for the poster you were addressing, but I would absolutely jump at the opportunity to adopt and raise a child, from infancy, who would otherwise have been aborted - regardless of the race or gender of the child. However, since abortion has been legalized, it's well nigh of impossible to adopt an American infant without any disabilities."

A bit ambiguous, depending on what the last prepositional phrase modifies; let's assume you are talking about the infant and not the potential adoptive parent. So you're not racist or sexist, but since the only adoptable infants around have disabilities, you're not going to jump at that task? Are disabled infants not "fit" for adoption? Do they not deserve life and love and your parenting? You wouldn't "jump at the chance"?

Look at the language of your next paragraph: "If you find a mother willing to give her child away, it costs several thousand dollars and is way more expensive than giving birth would be (if you have health insurance)." Look at the "if" clause again: "give her child away"? Then are you saying that the birth mother has to pay the thousands of dollars? The party adopting foots the costs of adoption is willing to pay the monetary costs of adopting. I'm also certain that no one forces anyone to adopt a child: parents make that deliberate choice for varieties of reasons. Biological parents may or may not intend to conceive a child they carry to term, but adoptive parents always CHOOSE to become parents, and the monetary costs are the least of the issue.

Finally, your "opinion" about infertile adoptive couples and the psychological difficulties of adopted children bears close evaluation. The generalization is hasty and gross. You put an increased burden on both the parent and the child, stigmatizing both sides. As an adopted child of loving parents whose hearts broke with every miscarriage and stillbirth, I can tell you that your assumptions are incorrect--at least in one case; my lived experience suggests the contrary. I had a wonderful childhood in a loving home, and I honor in my heart each and every day the people who were "willing to give me up."

How does your argument about the many liabilities of adoption (however illogical) support your anti-abortion stance? What is to happen to the children, especially the ones who no one "wants"? You do not address at all the adoption of kids who are not infants, which brings up the question of the age at which societal responsibility for children ceases. Why not give a home to an orphan or adopt an older child? Or, heaven forbid, an infant with disabilities, who, after all, is as loved by the Lord as every other human? And when the orphanages and foster homes are thoroughly depleted of under-age children, maybe, maybe, then protest against the people who are having abortions.

We do not take care of all of the ones who exist among us; your post acknowledges that we are highly selective, in fact.

Just for the record: I deplore the agony all around, all around, all around. I have no wish to add to it in any way, and I believe there are no easy answers. I presume to know no one's heart or mind, knowledge or belief. And that is the point.

Wow, excellent post, Ishmael! Way to go!

I was merely saying that those who protest outside abortion clinics (which I don't) or who oppose abortion generally (which I do) aren't viewing the woman in a paternalistic fashion, as in, "Here, honey, I have your answer." It is more from the perspective of getting justice for the baby than it is denigrating the mother or treating her like she is stupid.

"You continue:
"Just like we would try to stop an enraged woman from killing her cheating husband because killing is wrong even though her circumstances suck, it's the same way with abortion."

Um: false analogy. These circumstances are neither "just like" or "the same way.""

You're right; the situation is different, but not in the way you think. The man is guilty, but the baby has done nothing wrong...but abortion is the murder of a living human being, and the analogy stands.


The reason I said that I would not "jump at the opportunity" to adopt an infant with disabilities is that I am a person of limited means. I guess it would vary on a case-to-case basis, but I am not currently financially capable of caring for a typical disabled child. Women give babies up for adoption because they cannot financially care for them. I would not adopt a child for whom I could not financially care. It has nothing to do with some kind of nasty prejudice on my part against individuals with disabilities. It's just a realization of my own abilities.

Also, is English your first language? I'm definitely not saying that the mother giving her child away has to pay for the adoption. I'm saying that many people don't have the money to adopt right now. To say that money is the least of the concerns in an adoption shows that you are out of touch with reality. My husband and I have been trying to conceive for five years with two miscarriages. We would love nothing better than infant adoption, but it just IS NOT as simple as everyone makes it out to be.

"Finally, your "opinion" about infertile adoptive couples and the psychological difficulties of adopted children bears close evaluation. The generalization is hasty and gross. You put an increased burden on both the parent and the child, stigmatizing both sides. As an adopted child of loving parents whose hearts broke with every miscarriage and stillbirth, I can tell you that your assumptions are incorrect--at least in one case; my lived experience suggests the contrary. I had a wonderful childhood in a loving home, and I honor in my heart each and every day the people who were "willing to give me up.""

Okay, I have to ask: WHAT is your point? I'm not saying infertile couples shouldn't adopt; I'm also not saying that adoptees can't have a happy life. I'm saying that parents shouldn't adopt without first working through the pain and grief from their infertility. Adoption, while wonderful, does not heal infertility. I'm also saying that many/most adoptees experience some degree of emotional issues stemming from their adoptions. My father-in-law, my grandfather, and several of my close friends are adopted. They all relate that they wish they knew about their birth families, that they experienced some degree of emotional angst about why they were surrendered for adoption, and so on. I'm not saying there's ANYTHING generally wrong with adoption, but to deny that removing a child from one family and placing him in another has no emotional repercussions is ludicrous.

I'm not saying abortion should be outlawed simply because there is a shortage of infants. The women of the world have no duty to me or anyone else to keep up a steady supply of infants (gag). Someone asked me if I would take a baby who would otherwise have been aborted. My answer is YES. The fact is, the availability of older children is irrelevant to the abortion discussion, because those children were obviously not aborted.

You have badly misread me. I am a kind, highly intelligent person and I work hard to love everyone. I have nothing against people with disabilities and I strongly support adoption for all children in all cases...I just can't be the one who adopts every one of them. Here's the truth: I have dwarfism and an autoimmune disease. The older children available for adoption are usually bigger than me and often have conduct problems (often related to poor raising) that I am afraid I would be unable to control, and emotional issues due to being orphaned or abandoned or abused. I have looked into foster-to-adopt programs and older-child adoption, but there do not seem to be a lot of options for people in my situation.

All of which is completely IRRELEVANT to the abortion debate, but was mentioned by another poster and deserved addressing because it comes up so often (so YOU would be willing to take care of all these babies, right? said in a derisive tone) even though it's really unrelated to the subject matter at hand. I was asked a question, to which I answered yes with a couple of qualifications, and for which I got attacked. Sigh.

Elle Bee, I'm sorry for what you're going through. I can see by what you've written that you obviously are an intelligent person who wants to be a mother. I can relate to that. I, too, am childless not because I want to be.

But I also think that even if we were to outlaw abortion, women who really wanted one would find a way to get one. Those with money could leave the country. Those without money could try to get a back alley abortion, or worse, try to force a miscarriage in some way. I would much rather allow a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to have the option of getting a safe, legal abortion done by licensed health care provider than see her try to get one illegally and risk her own life in the process.

I feel for your situation. It's not fair. But I also don't think it's fair for people who aren't going to have to bear the burden of pregnancy to try to force that condition on someone else.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2010 11:27AM by knotheadusc.

Elle Bee,


I am genuinely sorry for your pain--both in terms of your health and life circumstances. Few circumstances are more painful than wanting to be a parent and, for whatever reason, not being able to bring a child into the world. My adoption was the (partial?) remedy to such intense pain. I teach college and once had a student who sat in my office in tears. He and his wife had just completed another round of AI for in vitro that had proved futile, and they had just discovered that he had a low sperm count. I cried with him. He mentioned that adoption was probably their next pursuit. I gently mentioned that I was adopted and that he and his wife could call my mother and talk with her any time about the process. When I called my mom later that day to tell her about the conversation, she said she would welcome the call, and then she said, "Tell him that once the baby is placed in your arms and you know it is yours, the love is complete and it stays that way." I wish everyone who wishes to be a parent the beauty of that moment and every instant that follows.

I have read your words closely; you may note that I called out your specific word choices and some of the assumptions they convey. Your second post clarifies your thoughts even as it obfuscates some of my words.

I say that money is not an issue because my parents both worked hard for several years to gain and prove financial stability and to meet the rigorous demands of the LDS adoption agency, which were more stringent than the demands of the state of Utah. They worked their butts off to do whatever it took to qualify--including meeting the bank account balances the agency required--for adoption even as my mother had a heartbreaking string of miscarriages. Each of my parents had eight siblings bringing children into the world through their own bodies. Both of them grew up during the poverty of the Great Depression, and they worked their asses off to find a way. That is how they manifested their values in the world. They taught me that where there is a will there is a way.

I also infer from your words that in your view preventing abortion is not directly connected with taking care of the world's existing parentless children. The disconnect is clear for you, but it is not necessarily a disconnect for others but a continuation of the obligation to support existing life.

To return to your notions of abortion, you grant that your analogy is false, then you maintain that it still stands. False analogies do not stand, my friend. Abortion needs no analogy; it can be addressed directly.

You believe that abortion is murder. What kind of killing is it? What kind of justice are you willing to dispense? Let's discuss the subject of killing viable, freestanding individuals for a moment.

You say "killing is wrong." Really? Legal systems across the globe distinguish between degrees of murder, manslaughter, accidental killing, and warfare, with its disgusting acceptance of what is called "collateral damage." All of them result in the death of a living, breathing, autonomous mortal being and spawn the grief of loss for family members. Each of them results in a corpse. But legal systems distinguish between the legal punishments inflicted on the murderers. That is why the person who shoots the doctor providing abortion goes to prison, while the doctor who is doing his or her legally sanctioned job remains unincarcerated.

The human's freely chosen DNR order, technically speaking, allows medical personnel and families to kill their patient/loved one.

Not everyone believes that abortion is murder; the law of my land does not see it that way, and people who have abortions incur no legal penalty.

For now. Some people apparently believe that miscarriages are, under certain conditions, murder. You think that is ludicrous? Think again. Utah legislators proposed and then withdrew a bill to criminalize **miscarriage** under certain circumstances just least spring. That bill, which would have obligated police to investigate the circumstances of miscarriage, was written and then withdrawn. It existed as potential law. Would anyone like the police to investigate them for murder after the physical and emotional pain of a miscarriage? Parents whose children die of SIDS know that sorrow.

Like you and me, abortion also needs no judgment. Take responsibility for yourself, your behavior, your words, and your limitations. Allow others to do the same. I will never stand with those who wish to legislate morality. I obligate myself to live my own moral awareness, to live that profound witness.

And I stand against people who presume to inflict their moral dictates on others. I have protested, and I recommend the practice. I have protested the current wars. Two years ago I began marching in Salt Lake City to protest the role of the LDS church in legislating morality in California. I have attended civil rights marches and rallies, fully aware that what I consider to be a civil right--the right to marry the adult of one's choosing legally and monogamously--is considered by others to be the legal sanctioning of a moral abomination.

Respectfully,
Ishmael

> You have badly misread me. I am a kind, highly intelligent person and I work hard to love everyone.

You have called people that get abortions murderers, and compared abortion to a murder of a spouse. That is not kind and loving.

I think you are an intelligent person, but you equate a fetus with a baby and seem unable to emotionally separate the two, despite the real biological and ethical differences. Babies can survive without the mother. A fetus cannot.

If you believe it is murder, your stance that incest and rape case abortions are okay makes no sense.

Use your intelligence to see the complexity of the problem rather than reduce it to a pro-life slogan--"they're killing babies". It has never been that simple. Potential life is not life. Non-viable life, is not life.

Here's a simple example. A doctor has only time to perform one life-saving surgery but there are two patients. One is a baby and another is a fetus. Which is the doctor morally obligated to operate on?

Think about it.

One thing that REALLY annoys me, is that the people who shout loudest about "abortion = murder", are nearly always the same people who protest at good, solid, comprehensive sex education for teens.

it seems the only choice the teens are given is celibacy or carry a baby which you never, ever wanted, 9 months to term and give it up to an adoption agency.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2010 11:02AM by onceanelder.