Poll--How do you feel about abortion and gay/lesbian adoption

[Annie-Xmas]

I got this idea from an episode of Law & Order:SVU where a canister of frozen embryos had been stolen. Finn, very well played by Ice-T, had the following exchange with an anti-abortionist (paraphrased):

AA: We believe that life begins at conception. Frozen embryos should not be destroyed. Women should volunteer to carry them to term, and then they can be adopted.
Finn: That should be good news for many gay and lesbian couples.
AA: No. We only support adotpion by the right people.
Finn: Yeah. Straight, married, white Christian couples.
AA: We're not prejudiced. Christians come in all colors.

That got me to thinking and asking anti-abortion people if they support gay and lesbian adoption. Most said no because "children need both a mother and a father." Yet they didn't think that single woman shold be forced to give up their chldren, but should do it for the good of the child.

So what are your views on the subject?

[Der Trihs]

Pro choice, pro gay/lesbian adoption. I'd expect most anti-abortion people ( although not necessarily here on the SDMB ) to oppose such adoptions.

[MaddyStrut]

Pro choice and pro gay/lesbian adoption. I believe children should be raised by people who want them and can provide a decent life for the child. Sexual preference is irrelevant.

[Trick Rider]

Hey, if hydrogen wants a baby, who am I to say no?

For the record, I'm pro-choice, and I support gay/lesbian adoption.

[NinetyWt]

As long as it's one of the "noble" gases, I'm all for it.

[StGermain]

Pro-life, pro-adoption.

StG

[Amp]

Gas is fine but don't let diesel anywhere near those kids. That's just disgusting.

[dalej42]

Pro choice here and support gay/lesbian adoption.

[elfkin477]

Pro-life, pro gay/lesbian adoption. I know several gay and lesbian folks who would make wonderful parents, so I can't imagine being against that if the goal is to encourage more healthy babies be brought to term rather than aborted.

[Czarcasm]

Fixed title-changed "gas" to "gay".

[Chessic Sense]

::scans choices for "pro-life"::

Oh, wait, this is the SDMB! Of course you put "anti-abortion". Anyway, I voted life-for.

[BigT]

I'm about where Cecil (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2817/when-does-human-life-begin) is (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2825/round-2-when-does-human-life-begin) on abortion, and I don't think it's my place to decide on gay/lesbian adoption. If it were, I guess I'd say that mother+father would be the ideal, but it's stupid to keep kids away from loving parents who are capable of raising them, as they seem to be in too short supply.

ETA: And, yes, Chessic, that bugged me a bit, too. But I figured it was a slight difference in terminology. To me, anti-abortion seems more absolute than pro-life.

[Ann Onimous]

I think it's pretty cool: 77 votes, and it doesn't matter what side of the abortion debate we're on: we all believe gays/lesbians should be able to adopt. That's a pretty good feeling. Now if we could take that and transfer it to reality, the world would be a better place.

[Nava]

I'm pro-choice, pro-life and support adoption by couples (of same or different gender) and singles. Voted pro-choice, as I dislike the idea of abortion and hate that too often the only choice is "abortion vs delivery" but I do believe abortion should be an available choice.

[appleciders]

::scans choices for "pro-life"::

Oh, wait, this is the SDMB! Of course you put "anti-abortion". Anyway, I voted life-for.

Way better than "anti-choice", which is the Planned Parenthood term of late. That one really bugs me.

[Leaper]

Well, the whole name thing is part and parcel of the controversy: both sides disagree on the definition of "life." By calling themselves "pro-life," that side is asserting their belief of what "life" means. By calling the other side "anti-abortion," the pro-choice folks are, in a sense, doing the same (or at least denying the other side's definition). The nature of this debate almost forbids the pro-choice people from using the term "pro-life" for the other side; it would be like acquiescing to the assertion that life begins at conception, and that fetuses of all ages are living beings, which most (AFAIK) pro-choice people simply do not believe.

At least that's the way I understand the state of things. It's a sticky wicket, I'll admit - I don't think any other major controversy has this kind of problem with names.

[DianaG]

People who believe in choice typically approve of life, in general. Pro-life is rather a meaningless phrase, when you get right down to it. Anti-abortion much better sums up the position of being against abortion. If you're offended by having your position stated clearly, perhaps you should rethink your position.

[Nava]

The problem is that saying "anti-abortion" sounds like you think nobody should ever, ever, ever, EEEVER have one or access to one. Which isn't my own position.

There's a reason Magical Thought believes that naming things gives you power over them, it sure does a lot to spin them.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Pro-choice and for gay adoption. I've yet to be convinced that either have negative impacts on society or anyone not directly involved, whereas the same can't be said for the converse.

[Der Trihs]

Way better than "anti-choice", which is the Planned Parenthood term of late. That one really bugs me.Well, it's an accurate description.

[Annie-Xmas]

Fjirst of all, I thank you and my sister the lesbian thanks all of you for supporting gay adoption.

Second, I use the term "anti-abortion" because it is the best description of the group's view. They are definitely anti-abortion, no question about it whatsoever. They do not support abortion as a general rule.

You can be pro-choice and pro-life. You cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion. Of course, some of the anti-abortion people think you cannot be pro-choice and pro-life, but that's just them.

Absolutely nobody I've ever met is pro-abortion, but the anti's use of the term makes me want to scream.

ETA: I read Cecil's column, and his use of the term "he" for the fetus disgusts me. Are "she" fetuses somehow less deserving? I notice most anti-abortionists do use the term "he."

Cecil should have said "The fetus is one of us."

[lezlers]

Pro-choice, pro-adoption. I also believe "anti-abortion" should be the correct title. Pro-life assumes anyone who holds the opposite position is "anti-life." That's just ridiculous. Anti-abortion means just that: against abortions. It's an accurate title. I'm with DianaG, if it bugs you, maybe you should take a second look at your position.

[Really Not All That Bright]

And the award for Least Surprising SDMB Poll Result goes to.... *drum roll*

[kopek]

I don't like abortion and I do consider it killing however I could never vote what most folks call "pro-life" or support most of the restrictions I hear being proposed. I'm not ever going to be 12 years old and facing a pregnancy after being raped by a family member and I damn well don't want to put myself or my views into her life and decisions.

I support gay and lesbian adoption as well as single parent adoption.

I guess I'll go choice one.

[Zorlon]

I see what you did there with the poll options. Yes, you can control the tone of the debate by controlling the language used. How clever and original of you to figure that out.

I'll do you one better, I'm anti-choice and I support gay and lesbian adoption.

Children do do better with a mother and father than with a single parent. Unlike some, I think that is due to having two(ideally) functional adults rearing them not something innate about one being male and the other being female. Any need for role models of the opposite sex can easily fulfilled by friends/relatives of the parents.

Any gay/lesbian couple that does not have someone who can easily and reliably serve as a role model of the opposite sex, IMHO, would be less than ideal..... but still not irresponsible to choose to adopt as they would still be better than no adoption.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What "tone" is implied by use of the phrase "anti-abortion"? It means "in opposition to abortion", which is a perfectly accurate descriptor. Now, it might be a bit fairer if the OP had described the other side as "anti-restriction of abortion", but "anti-abortion" is not a pejorative term.

[DianaG]

Exactly. I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone who is against abortion would object to being described as anti-abortion.

[Zorlon]

Really?
You're really unaware that the generally accepted term is "pro-life"?
And you're really unaware that, while accurate, "anti-abortion" can cast the position in a more negative light, especially when contrasted with a positive sounding term like "pro-life"
And you're really unaware that for that very reason some activist types have been making noise about insisting on calling "pro-lifers" "anti-abortion"?

Until this very post I just typed you were really unaware of all those things?

Really?

Wow!

[DianaG]

So basically, the anti-abortion people are pissed off that pro-choicers are being insufficiently PC?

Huh.

Please explain to me how it is negative to be described as against something you think is bad.

[kopek]

Exactly. I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone who is against abortion would object to being described as anti-abortion.

I don't have a dog in this as far as I can tell but I can give you a reason why. Anti-abortion (as a descriptive) assumes a voting choice, actions, or stance that may not be there. If push comes to shove, I can live with "Pro-life" but that is about as far as I am personally willing to go.

[DianaG]

Um... if you don't think that abortion should be illegal (in other words, if you think that people should have the choice), then you're pro-choice. See how that works?

[Really Not All That Bright]

And you're really unaware that, while accurate, "anti-abortion" can cast the position in a more negative light, especially when contrasted with a positive sounding term like "pro-life"
What negative light is that?

"Oh my god, they've got anti- in their name! They must be evil!"

I anxiously await the renaming of anti-terrorism programs. Oh, and the anti-gravity trope in science fiction. Perhaps they'll become pro-not-blowing-things-up and pro-floating.

[Ludovic]

You also didn't have a middle ground for those who are not sure about where the line should be on abortion. But if there were an option for me, I'd let gay/lesbian couples adopt.

[MissMossie]

I'm against abortions. I think that they take human life and I believe that it is morally wrong to take human life. I don't think outlawing abortions is the best way to eliminate abortions occurring. In fact, I am against taking away the option of legal abortions because I believe it will lead to women having abortions with higher health risks attached to them.

I'm against abortions happening, but for availability of legal abortions.

Anti-abortion or pro-choice, I'm definitely pro-lesbian/gay adoptions.

[Silvorange]

Another member of the anti-abortion, pro-choice club here. Also pro gay/lesbian adoption.

[Omniscient]

I voted pro-choice / anti-gay adoption.

This choice doesn't really capture my feelings on the subject as I'm not militantly anti-gay abortion as it implies, but I'm not exactly gung-ho about it. Frankly I think it needs more study and consideration. I have no moral objections but we don't understand the mechanisms of personality development and socialization well enough to think that a gay household is equal to a traditional one. In the same vein I'd be against single parent adoption for similar reasons, though single parents at least leave the possibility to become a male-female household.

As an adopted person I can't help but consider how dramatically different my life would have been had I been adopted by a gay couple and I think the odds are very good that it would have be measurably worse.

[FloatyGimpy]

Pro life, pro adoption.

The names "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" mean two very different things to me and to everyone else I know who describes themselves as pro-life.

The story recently of the 10 year old girl who had been raped and was now pregnant with twins is a perfect example of pro-life. She absolutely needed an abortion or she would have died. Her life needed to be saved.

A 28 year old who is pregnant for the 4th time and knows she's going to have another abortion is a different story. If she keeps putting it off because she can't get her shit together and, oops, now she's 7 months along then no, I absolutely don't support abortion for her.

Anti-abortion would treat both of those people the same: no abortions for any reason.

I also support the morning after pill and all abortions for the first month.

I wanted to add that I so strongly support gay adoption that it angers me that it's still an issue.

[Bridget Burke]

I voted pro-choice / anti-gay adoption.

This choice doesn't really capture my feelings on the subject as I'm not militantly anti-gay abortion as it implies, but I'm not exactly gung-ho about it. Frankly I think it needs more study and consideration. I have no moral objections but we don't understand the mechanisms of personality development and socialization well enough to think that a gay household is equal to a traditional one. In the same vein I'd be against single parent adoption for similar reasons, though single parents at least leave the possibility to become a male-female household.

As an adopted person I can't help but consider how dramatically different my life would have been had I been adopted by a gay couple and I think the odds are very good that it would have be measurably worse.

My father died when I was four. My 2 younger sibs & I were raised by my mother & grandmother--who was also a widow. One uncle lived in town, until his career took him elsewhere. So I was raised by two women--het but mostly celibate. (My mother spent more time working & raising us than looking for hubbie #2.)

Should children in our situation be removed so we could be adopted by a "normal" couple?

[Omniscient]

My father died when I was four. My 2 younger sibs & I were raised by my mother & grandmother--who was also a widow. One uncle lived in town, until his career took him elsewhere. So I was raised by two women--het but mostly celibate. (My mother spent more time working & raising us than looking for hubbie #2.)

Should children in our situation be removed so we could be adopted by a "normal" couple?
:rolleyes:
Strawman much?

[DianaG]

A 28 year old who is pregnant for the 4th time and knows she's going to have another abortion is a different story. If she keeps putting it off because she can't get her shit together and, oops, now she's 7 months along then no, I absolutely don't support abortion for her.
So you support restricting abortion for imaginary people who have whimsical third trimester abortions? :rolleyes:

I also support the morning after pill and all abortions for the first month.
The first month from when, exactly? You understand that it generally takes a couple-few weeks for a woman to miss a period, right?

I wanted to add that I so strongly support gay adoption that it angers me that it's still an issue.
And I so strongly support my right to sovereignty over my body that it angers me that it's still an issue.

[FloatyGimpy]

So you support restricting abortion for imaginary people who have whimsical third trimester abortions? :rolleyes:


The first month from when, exactly? You understand that it generally takes a couple-few weeks for a woman to miss a period, right?


And I so strongly support my right to sovereignty over my body that it angers me that it's still an issue.

Sorry, you're just way too hostile to try to have a conversation with.

[DianaG]

I promise to be less hostile if you promise to be less silly.

Seriously... you make up ridiculous fantasies about women who just can't get it together enough to schedule their fourth abortions, and pretend that giving the average woman a week or so from the time she realizes she's pregnant to get an abortion is perfectly reasonable, and I'm hostile?

[Ludovic]

I promise to be less hostile if you promise to be less silly.

Seriously... you make up ridiculous fantasies about women who just can't get it together enough to schedule their fourth abortions, and pretend that giving the average woman a week or so from the time she realizes she's pregnant to get an abortion is perfectly reasonable, and I'm hostile?There are actually quite a few pro-choicers who will not allow any line whatsoever on the latest an elective abortion should be allowed to be performed. But like you say, making them harder to procure than they even are now wouldn't make much of a difference because there are very few if any elective 3rd trimester abortions being performed currently.

[Der Trihs]

Really?
You're really unaware that the generally accepted term is "pro-life"?
And you're really unaware that, while accurate, "anti-abortion" can cast the position in a more negative light, especially when contrasted with a positive sounding term like "pro-life""Pro-life" is inaccurate however. They've never as a group demonstrated any concern for life; they've generally been indifferent to the lives of women, or actively tried to endanger them. And they've never as a group shown any concern for the lives of the children they want to be forced into the world; they want it born, and if it dies immediately after they don't care.

"Anti-choice " is accurate; it makes the position sound bad, because the position IS bad. They oppose women having choices, and that isn't a moral position to take. If anything,"anti-choice" is soft-pedalling; that's a mild, clinical sounding way of describing the anti- side.

[FloatyGimpy]

I promise to be less hostile if you promise to be less silly.

Seriously... you make up ridiculous fantasies about women who just can't get it together enough to schedule their fourth abortions, and pretend that giving the average woman a week or so from the time she realizes she's pregnant to get an abortion is perfectly reasonable, and I'm hostile?

I think your hostility has blinded you to the point I was actually making. If you read the first sentence in my op you'll see that I was talking about the difference between "pro-life" and "anti-abortion". I was merely take two extreme examples and saying that "anti-abortion" would view both the same, no abortions for any reason and "pro-life" sees them as two very different issues and supports abortion for one and not the other. This is only my opinion.

One last point I'll make is this: I have had many opinions changed because of reading things here on the straightdope. Not one of them has been because of someone ranting and using roll eyes smilies.

The fact that I am very much in favour of same sex couples adopting is because of people here and things they've written.

[Der Trihs]

One last point I'll make is this: I have had many opinions changed because of reading things here on the straightdope. Not one of them has been because of someone ranting and using roll eyes smilies.
What? You MUST agree with me! The rolleyes demand it!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Obey the rolleyes!! Obey!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:






Is it working yet?

[FloatyGimpy]

What? You MUST agree with me! The rolleyes demand it!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Obey the rolleyes!! Obey!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:






Is it working yet?

No, but oddly Der Trihs, even though you're kind of a psycho about some things, I happen to agree with you on a lot of things, even things that most people here seem to jump on you about.

Abortion is the one thing that doesn't go with the rest of me. I'm a liberal, vegetarian, tree hugging, animal rights, anti-death penalty, pro-gay, anti-gun socialist.

[LonghornDave]

I don't see what's wrong with the terms "Pro abortion rights" and "Anti abortion rights". The terms "Pro Choice" and Pro Life" are ludicrous. Pro Life doesn't make any sense because one side doesn't believe it's a life. Pro Choice doesn't make sense because it is only a single issue that is being discussed. Pro Choice is like saying the Confederacy was about States Rights. They were only concerned with one right: the right to own slaves. Pro Choice is only concerned with one choice: the choice to be able to have an abortion.

[Der Trihs]

I don't see what's wrong with the terms "Pro abortion rights" and "Anti abortion rights".
Those are fine IMHO. Although I expect the anti abortion rights people would take umbrage.

[633squadron]

I don't like abortion much, and I do *not* think that it's a preferable method of birth control, but I think that it's a matter of individual choice.

I favor full rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage and adoption. This seems like a no-brainer to me. I am convinced that the sex that one is attracted to is not a matter of "choice" at all; it's something that's built into you. Therefore, it makes as much sense to deny equal rights to people with blue eyes as to deny them to men who are attracted to men or women to women.

I also support marriage and adoption rights. Calling the union between two gays or two lesbians "marriage" is an important legal point. It thereby applies existing law to that union. I would only support calling such a union something else (say "civil union" for the sake of argument) if all the laws that referred to "marriage" were modified to say "marriage or civil union".

[elfkin477]

Exactly. I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone who is against abortion would object to being described as anti-abortion. I think anti-abortion is a perfectly accurate description of my position: I'm against abortion in most cases. There are other people, however, for whom pro-life might be more accurate because they're also concerned with the death-penalty, keeping people in vegetative states alive, and anti-war too; these people are probably the most offended by the anti-abortion label because it's too narrow to properly encompass their ideology. But me, I'm just anti-abortion.

On the other side of the coin, there are people who are pro-abortion (see: the superbowl prolife ad protests; some anti-population growth folks, a few of whom I've encountered in real life) and those who far outnumber them who are pro-choice because they're not threatened by people choosing to keep or give babies up for adoption but want abortion to be a legal choice too.

All four terms are at least somewhat valid, but they need to be applied properly, or people fuss.

[Cat Fight]

Those are fine IMHO. Although I expect the anti abortion rights people would take umbrage.

If 'pro-reproductive rights' weren't such a mouthful I'd use it more often than 'pro-choice.' It's silly to think the issue can begin and end with each fetus, for either side.

[tumbleddown]

Pro Choice doesn't make sense because it is only a single issue that is being discussed.
In this argument, perhaps. For reproductive choice advocates, the issue is much larger than simply abortion, and always has been.

[PandaBear77]

I'm for whatever gets the baby born and into a good, stable home. I'd prefer to see the child have a mom AND a dad, but ultimately I think any situation with gay/straight/single/traditional/etc parents is better than not making it out of the womb at all.

[StGermain]

I don't really care if you call me pro-life or anti-abortion. Both work just fine.

StG

[Omniscient]

I don't like abortion much, and I do *not* think that it's a preferable method of birth control, but I think that it's a matter of individual choice.

I favor full rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage and adoption. This seems like a no-brainer to me. I am convinced that the sex that one is attracted to is not a matter of "choice" at all; it's something that's built into you. Therefore, it makes as much sense to deny equal rights to people with blue eyes as to deny them to men who are attracted to men or women to women.

I also support marriage and adoption rights. Calling the union between two gays or two lesbians "marriage" is an important legal point. It thereby applies existing law to that union. I would only support calling such a union something else (say "civil union" for the sake of argument) if all the laws that referred to "marriage" were modified to say "marriage or civil union".

That's all hunky dory, but I really couldn't give a flying fuck what the couples' "rights" are as it applies to adoption. The only person I care about is the child. Language and rationale like this seems to equate adoption rights to that of home ownership and estate tax laws. Equating adoption to marriage misses the point entirely.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's all hunky dory, but I really couldn't give a flying fuck what the couples' "rights" are as it applies to adoption. The only person I care about is the child. Language and rationale like this seems to equate adoption rights to that of home ownership and estate tax laws. Equating adoption to marriage misses the point entirely.
Since it's already pretty well established that gay and lesbian couples are just as well equipped to raise a child as any combination of people or person currently empowered to do so, the child is not really the issue here.

[Illuminatiprimus]

That's all hunky dory, but I really couldn't give a flying fuck what the couples' "rights" are as it applies to adoption. The only person I care about is the child. Language and rationale like this seems to equate adoption rights to that of home ownership and estate tax laws. Equating adoption to marriage misses the point entirely.You do realise there's a shortage of qualified adoptive parents don't you? If you cared about the kids that much you'd put their need for a stable and real home, however idiosyncratic, over being bumped continuously from one foster home to another for the whole of their childhood then dumped out of the system with zero support when they reach legal adulthood, particularly given the lack of any conclusive evidence that a gay couple are no less effective as parents than a straight couple are.

[YogSosoth]

Pro-choice here. I think adoptions should give priority to gay/lesbian couples.

[Skammer]

I'm anti-adoption/pro-life - but I couldn't vote because it's not that black and white for me.

The best situation is for the baby to be raised by a mother and father in a healthy familiy dynamic. That's the ideal, but often not reality.

I'd say a less ideal option is a baby raised by a single parent, or a gay or lesbian couple, again assuming a healthy, loving environment.

Any adoption scenario that leaves the child in a bad family environment (unloving parents, abuse, whatever) is worse than any of the above. That's irrespective of the sexual orientation of the parents.

So I can't really say I don't support gay/lesbian adoptions completely, although I think the traditional male/female parental pair is preferable all other things being equal.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, we'll make it easy. Let's say two constitutional amendments are mooted in your state - one forever ensuring that gay couples cannot adopt, and one forever assuring they can. You have to vote for one.

Which?

[Omniscient]

Since it's already pretty well established that gay and lesbian couples are just as well equipped to raise a child as any combination of people or person currently empowered to do so, the child is not really the issue here.

You do realise there's a shortage of qualified adoptive parents don't you? If you cared about the kids that much you'd put their need for a stable and real home, however idiosyncratic, over being bumped continuously from one foster home to another for the whole of their childhood then dumped out of the system with zero support when they reach legal adulthood, particularly given the lack of any conclusive evidence that a gay couple are no less effective as parents than a straight couple are.

Neither of these things have been satisfactorily proven. If they were my opinion would change.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Neither of these things have been satisfactorily proven. If they were my opinion would change.It's not been proven that there is a shortage of adoptive parents? :dubious:

[Cat Fight]

I'm for whatever gets the baby born and into a good, stable home. I'd prefer to see the child have a mom AND a dad, but ultimately I think any situation with gay/straight/single/traditional/etc parents is better than not making it out of the womb at all.

This sounds like more of an argument for UHC and maternity leave laws than adoption. I'm not sure knowing gay people can adopt would convince anyone not to have an abortion, but being able to afford to be pregnant, give birth, have follow-up care and know you'll keep your job might.

[Omniscient]

It's not been proven that there is a shortage of adoptive parents? :dubious:
When you exclude non-infants in foster care and third world children, no.

[DianaG]

But why would you exclude them, when they constitute the vast majority of children available for adoption?

[Ludovic]

It's not been proven that there is a shortage of adoptive parents? :dubious:
Come to think of it I don't think there is a shortage of adoptive parents. Otherwise it wouldn't cost $20K plus to adopt and/or people wouldn't go outside the US to adopt so often.
But just because there is no shortage of adoptive parents (in fact, a shortage of adoptees such that parents have to pay people to facilitate the process and/or go outside the US which increases the costs even more) doesn't mean that increasing the potential pool even more wouldn't be better for the children because all else being equal it would lead to children being placed with better parents.

[Omniscient]

that increasing the potential pool even more wouldn't be better for the children because all else being equal it would lead to children being placed with better parents.
Why would you presume this? Do you have some evidence to support that theory? The presumption that adding gay couples to the mix increases the average quality of placement implies that gay couples are equal to or better than the current pool getting babies.

As it stands adoption placement services screen out most of the bad adopters leaving the pool pretty strong and there's generally a long wait and shortage of babies. Treating gay couples as equal to straight couples would lead to quality straight couples being shut out or forced to wait longer. If it were proven that gay couple are indeed equal, that's fine, but this debate seems to take that for granted and I simply don't see that as reasonable.

[Cat Fight]

Come to think of it I don't think there is a shortage of adoptive parents. Otherwise it wouldn't cost $20K plus to adopt and/or people wouldn't go outside the US to adopt so often.

Someone better acquainted with the process can probably tell you more about this, but IME North American couples don't always go abroad because there aren't enough children to adopt – they do it because it can be faster, cheaper, there may be more lenient guidelines as to who can adopt (including older couples, single people and gay couples, if they've got the money), they may want a child of a certain racial background or level of health, and there is much less chance that the child's mother or father – whoever might have been convinced or even tricked into giving up custody – will become a headache later on. Friends of the family raised their daughter for almost four years before she was taken away by her birth mother. That was almost a decade ago, but they never adopted or even fostered another child, after adopting three and fostering dozens.

[DianaG]

Treating gay couples as equal to straight couples would lead to quality straight couples being shut out or forced to wait longer.
For healthy white babies, maybe. You haven't answered my question as to why you're omitting older and generally less-adoptable children.

And that's disregarding that I don't really care if quality straight couples are made to wait longer, since I don't presume that they're inherently better.

[Omniscient]

For healthy white babies, maybe. You haven't answered my question as to why you're omitting older and generally less-adoptable children.

Like I said in my original post the black and white choices in the poll aren't nuanced enough to capture my feelings. I'm not opposed to all gay adoption, it's not a moral issue for me but a practical one. I have no trouble believing that gay adoption is superior to foster care, orphanages and various third-world living conditions. I would not oppose them adopting children who otherwise have no alternative. However it's a fallacy that all adoptions are created equal.

And that's disregarding that I don't really care if quality straight couples are made to wait longer, since I don't presume that they're inherently better.

Why does it make more sense to presume that they are inherently equal? You have to pick one, and considering that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, if I had to take one side of the presumption I'd side with the straight couple being better equipped. Gay couples raising children is a break from the norm, the burden is on them to prove equality, not on straights to prove superiority.

[DianaG]

"Norm" maybe doesn't mean what you think it means. It certainly, for instance, doesn't mean "ideal", or even "best". The thing it most doesn't mean is "forever".

[Ludovic]

Why would you presume this? Do you have some evidence to support that theory? The presumption that adding gay couples to the mix increases the average quality of placement implies that gay couples are equal to or better than the current pool getting babies.

Ummm, I said "all else being equal". If there is such a thing as objective criteria for fitness I would assume unless told otherwise that a bigger applicant pool would result in fitter adopters, but I make no positive claims either way.

[Omniscient]

Ummm, I said "all else being equal". If there is such a thing as objective criteria for fitness I would assume unless told otherwise that a bigger applicant pool would result in fitter adopters, but I make no positive claims either way.

:confused:

And on what basis are you assuming "all else being equal"? That presumption is pretty much them entire point of this thread. If you don't want to debate the merits of that presumption what's the purpose of your participation, just to point out a statistical fundamental that isn't in question here?

[Illuminatiprimus]

I suspect we've moved into serious hijack territory about specifically the pros and cons of gay adoption - maybe we should take this to a different thread than derail this one further.

[malkavia]

Pro life, pro adoption.

The names "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" mean two very different things to me and to everyone else I know who describes themselves as pro-life.

The story recently of the 10 year old girl who had been raped and was now pregnant with twins is a perfect example of pro-life. She absolutely needed an abortion or she would have died. Her life needed to be saved.

A 28 year old who is pregnant for the 4th time and knows she's going to have another abortion is a different story. If she keeps putting it off because she can't get her shit together and, oops, now she's 7 months along then no, I absolutely don't support abortion for her.


Can I get clarification on the points of difference between these two scenarios so that I can better understand the pro-life movement?

Is the relevant part in story A that the girl would die if she didn't have an abortion? Or that she was 10? Or that she was raped? Or do all three need to be present?

If the 28 yr old girl on her 4th abortion did so for "life of the mother" medical reasons, would that be acceptable?

I'm having a hard time figuring out where exactly the line between allowing and disallowing abortion is for the pro-life folks.

As to the OP, I voted pro-choice and pro-gay adoption. Despite having a fairly strong gay influence in my life, I couldn't tell you if life would be the same had I two gay or lesbian parents vs. a mother and father. But since I also can't tell you if my life would've been the same if I had Jewish parents or Catholic parents or left-handed parents, or a mom who wasn't a worry-wart, etc.. I'm pretty convinced that, in a loving environment, children won't know what they're missing and will adapt to whatever structure they're raised with.

[Hawkeyeop]

Abortion is one issue you can tell what side a person is on by the terminology they choose. People frame the issue in the way that is important to them. The problem is such framing doesn't reflect why the other side holds the position they do, and makes finding common ground much more difficult.

I'm, in most cases, what would be considered anti-choice or anti-abortion. However, despite what Der Trihs might believe, I don't have some innate hatred of women. I just find something else to be more important. Thus, I think it is more accurate to consider me pro-life or perhaps pro potential of life, because it better shows what is important to me. Being anti-abortion is merely a result of that belief.

On the same count I could consider others as pro-death or perhaps anti-potential of life. But of course people who are okay with abortions aren't against (potential) life in principal. They just find something else to be more important. They are more accurately labeled as pro-choice.

[Cat Fight]

I'm having a hard time figuring out where exactly the line between allowing and disallowing abortion is for the pro-life folks.


I think most of the standards and tests are here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_process_of_beatification_and_canonization), somewhere.

[FloatyGimpy]

Can I get clarification on the points of difference between these two scenarios so that I can better understand the pro-life movement?

Is the relevant part in story A that the girl would die if she didn't have an abortion? Or that she was 10? Or that she was raped? Or do all three need to be present?

If the 28 yr old girl on her 4th abortion did so for "life of the mother" medical reasons, would that be acceptable?

I'm having a hard time figuring out where exactly the line between allowing and disallowing abortion is for the pro-life folks.



I'll do my best but remember that for me it's kind of a grey thing, not black and white.

In the first example, that she was ten and was raped doesn't really matter because without an abortion, she would most likely die.

With the second example, if the woman's life was in danger, then yes, I support an abortion for her.

Just wanted to add that for me it has nothing to do with religion. I identify as Agnostic.

[Omniscient]

I'm, in most cases, what would be considered anti-choice or anti-abortion. However, despite what Der Trihs might believe, I don't have some innate hatred of women. I just find something else to be more important. Thus, I think it is more accurate to consider me pro-life or perhaps pro potential of life, because it better shows what is important to me. Being anti-abortion is merely a result of that belief.

Pro-life is more loaded and disingenuous a term than pro-choice. You've painted yourself as of the opinion that the potential of the fetus is more important than the life or choice of the woman. There's nothing inherently wrong with that logic, but "pro-life" as a term does little to illustrate that opinion and inherently implies the opposite is anti-life. Pro-choice more accurately describes what is at issue, the choice of the woman and implied opposite anti-choice is more apt for the opposition.

[Ludovic]

Pro-choice more accurately describes what is at issue, the choice of the woman and implied opposite anti-choice is more apt for the opposition.
But not from all perspectives. For those who think that fetuses should be treated as persons, the fetuses' life is the issue (there are many other issues of morality that, to people who think they are victimless actions, have positions that are also "obviously" characterized as pro-choice and anti-choice).

The terms pro-life, pro-choice, and anti-abortion all carry political baggage, insinuating that their opponents are less moral than they are. If you insist that people use one over another you are trying to shape the discussion in a way that favors your side rather than simply "telling it like it is."

[Omniscient]

But the political baggage associated with pro-life is specifically intended to portray the opposite side as something they are not. Plus for many "pro-lifers" the life of the mother is of no concern making it hypocritical. I agree all terms are politically loaded, pro-life is the most divisive and propagandized of the group.

[Ludovic]

But the political baggage associated with pro-life is specifically intended to portray the opposite side as something they are not. I didn't want to make this analogy explicit, but if you were against murder you would be more fairly characterized as "pro-life" rather than "anti-choice". So if you believe that abortion is murder, in your own eyes you are pro-life.

While I certainly do not support all the restrictions that anti-abortionists want to create, and indeed think it's obvious that in the first trimester the fetus is not a person, and increasing restrictions on later abortions are not necessary, I will grant them that if abortion is murder, they should be more properly characterized as "pro-life". Any attempt to recharacterize them as "anti-choice" is making a comment about your opinion on the personhood of the lifeform inside the mother.

[DianaG]

Or, alternatively, they could call themselves "anti-murder". I wonder why they don't.

Malacandra noted earlier that "pro-choice" only refers to the choice of abortion. I'd say the same for "pro-life", in most cases. After all, if you just can't get as worked up about the millions of people who've died unnecessarily for any number of reasons as you get about the idea that someone, somewhere, is having an abortion, well...

[Ludovic]

After all, if you just can't get as worked up about the millions of people who've died unnecessarily for any number of reasons as you get about the idea that someone, somewhere, is having an abortion, well...

That's definitely true for many in the movement, especially the ones in the anti-abortion movement who are politically active in America, who seem to support needless killing in a foreign land as long as it's done by a Republican.

But someone does not have to demonstrate that they care more about every other worse evil in the world before they can opine on the one they're opining on. So just because someone characterized themselves as "pro-life" with regards to abortion does not mean they are not also anti-stupid-wars, or anti-lifesaving medical research, or anti-questionable death penalties, it just happens to work out that way most of the time in America :)

[Silvorange]

Pro-choice here. I think adoptions should give priority to gay/lesbian couples.

Any particular reason for that?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sort of affirmative action in adoption, I'm guessing - an attempt to reduce the social stigma I assume the children of same-sex couples currently face, by making it less of a novel idea.

[YogSosoth]

Any particular reason for that?

Sort of affirmative action in adoption, I'm guessing - an attempt to reduce the social stigma I assume the children of same-sex couples currently face, by making it less of a novel idea.

What he said.

I don't believe gays and lesbians are any worse than straight parents, thus it would be better for everyone to see how well their kids grow up by letting them have first crack at it.

[The Tooth]

Pro to both. I don't care if women carry pregnancies to term or not, and I don't care who other people choose to sleep with.

[Nava]

So you support restricting abortion for imaginary people who have whimsical third trimester abortions? :rolleyes:

My great-aunt's six latest children were born after the midwife told her "there are methods to avoid getting pregnant, I've explained them to you, you're not using them and, by calling me to perform abortions on you as off-handedly as if an abortion was a wart removal, you're putting me and my other patients at risk. Don't call me again unless you're dilating."

She was no hypotetical, my great-aunt. But she did be an idjit.

[DianaG]

In her third trimester?

Sigh. It's okay, I never get tired of saying it.*

Less than one half of one percent of abortions in the US are performed in the third trimester. Presumably, none of those occurred because the women in question just didn't get around to it until then, since there are laws in most states requiring that abortions after the 20th - 24th weeks be "medically necessary".

*This is a lie.

[legalsnugs]

I am firmly pro-choice and pro-adoption.

My opinion the anti-abortion, pro-life issue is this: it is anti-choice. They want to remove the decision of what to do or not do about a pregnancy from the woman who is pregnant. They are saying that women in general are simply not smart/competent/ spiritual/whatever enough to make that decision about their own lives and their own bodies by themselves. And that is insulting beyond belief to every woman who ever lived.

No one is making women get abortions. And women do not need to be told, "no, you can't get an abortion unless you've got some traumatic reason." It's the woman's decision. Not yours, not the government's, and certainly not somebody speaking on behalf of a religion or philosophy the woman may not even believe in.

If you are anti-abortion or pro-life or whatever, that's great! Don't get an abortion. No one's going to make you get an abortion if you don't want to. But do NOT try to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. You are not my doctor or my husband (both of whom can have input, but the decision is mine!).

I have never had an abortion and will never have an abortion, that is my choice. But who the heck am I to tell some other women that she cannot have one because of what I believe in? That is the height of arrogance.

[kopek]

Um... if you don't think that abortion should be illegal (in other words, if you think that people should have the choice), then you're pro-choice. See how that works?


But since I do believe it is indeed killing, you could also say I'm Pro-death. See how that works? Any of us can play with words to come out looking better than the other guy.

Like I said, I don't dig the "Pro-life" title as a descriptive either but I will accept that with more willingness than Pro-choice as it is currently used. But that's just me.


I don't see what's wrong with the terms "Pro abortion rights" and "Anti abortion rights". .

Now those descriptives ----- those I like.