In order for protesters to disparge abortion, they have to present a different route for the pregnant woman who does not want a baby. Hence the adoption la-la land where mother, baby and adopting couple are all farting rainbows over the procedure. That makes me ill.
And as I have stated many times, for many (most?) protesters it is only adoption to a straight Christian couple. Gay and even single-woman adoption are seen as child abuse.
Hmm.
Well, much as I hate to admit it, you might be right.
True. In fact, I’ll allow that of the two sides, the pro-life side has offered up MORE incoherent arguments than the pro-choice side. The pro-choice side gets incoherent only when they have to defend Roe v. Wade as legal reasoning; when they have to defend abortion rights as wise social policy or medically sound decisions, they’re generally very reasonable and cogent.
Did you miss my request for a cite for this claim?
Undoubtedly many feel this way. And many don’t. I don’t have any objections to same-sex couples adopting children, and my only “objection” to a single-parent adoption is to note that a two-parent household is a better choice. But a single-parent is better than no adoption at all.
Isn’t it clear that if people convince themselves that anything that will develop into a baby equals a baby then off course abortion is evil. They believe that women who get pregnant have a moral obligation to carry the child to term and doctors have a moral obligation not to preform a procedure that terminates what they’ve told themselves is a human life.
They can even agree that the right to choose is also important , but the right to life supersedes it. It’s not really illogical if the axioms are accepted. It’s just that the axioms are not fact based. Not only science but recorded human history demonstrates that abortion has not been considered murder. It’s emotional and ignorant for people to present that now and use their personal feeling as a justification for imposing laws upon society.
Even if you accept the premise that even potential human life deserves serious consideration we have to look at the facts of possible choices and consequences. trying to outlaw abortions is a denial of the reality of our human society IMO. They will continue. It seems much more practical and in keeping with an attitude of life being held sacred, that society seeks to provide information and alternatives and support so that women might not choose abortion.
So far, there’s little sign that society as a whole holds human life that are already born in any sacred position.
Could you please elaborate for me? What sorts of “incoherent” arguments defending RvW have you seen? (I’m not asking you to defend them or anything.)
This is an anecdotal refutation. You don’t identify why this was such a terrible choice and why abortion would have been better, nor do you demonstrate why your story should be accorded statistically significant weight. I can produce many stories about adoptions that worked very well. Why is their experience of less weight than yours?
Exactly how is that an “incoherent argument”? And if RvW is such a hideous law, why hasn’t it been overturned?
Surely you can’t equate this with the breast cancer, psychological damage, and adoption la-la land of the anti-abortion protesters?
The incoherency of whether fetuses feel pain is resolved by medical study. Similarly, the incoherency of a legal opinion is a matter of legal analysis.
Roe is grounded in successively tenuous interpretations… the state can’t substantially interfere in abortion during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy – that’s the area of pregnancy that’s constitutionally protected! How do we know? Because abortion is a private medical matter? How do we know? Because the constitution protects the right to privacy! How do we know? Because we can see some other things in the constitution that also implicate privacy, like the freedom from search and seizure and the freedom to not incriminate yourself.
Which ones actually appear in the Constitution? Only the last.
I don’t really know what you mean here.
Perfect example of an incoherent argument, and not knowing what you’re talking about.
Roe v. Wade grounded its reasoning NOT in the Ninth Amendment, but in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Roe v. Wade is a poorly-reasoned legal decision, but as a matter of social policy, it enjoys wide support. This is the reason it hasn’t been overturned: the majority of people in the country want the situation to remain as it is.
And I notice you have still not responded to my request for cites.
Irrational fanatics. I’m always mystified that otherwise decent people , who claim to value the truth, will eagerly believe anything fed them.
And more tragically, our elected officials who should be leading in focusing on facts , cater to ignorance.
Yeah, not a model of clarity, that sentence, is it?
I meant to say that whether fetuses feel pain is a question that may be resolved by medical study – it’s generally a question of fact. So if someone were to assert that 8 week old fetuses feel pain, his claim may be rebutted by citation to a peer-reviewed study.
If someone were to claim 24-week-old fetuses feel pain, refutation is not so easy, because different studies exist with different conclusions.
But in either event, the claim is susceptible to analysis by medical science.
When discussing the wisdom of Roe as a social policy, no great expertise is needed. But if you wish to discuss how solidly grounded Roe is as a piece of legal reasoning, you need some understanding of legal reasoning.
For example, you need to not confuse the Ninth Amendment with the Fourteenth.
Not only have you still not responded to my request for cites, but you did not provide a link to the source of your quote, and the quote itself is utterly wrong as a matter of fact.
[QUOTE]
I can produce many stories about adoptions that worked very well.
[QUOTE]
followed by…
You’re a real thinker, aren’t you?
Because I’ve actually lived through it, that’s why my ‘experience’ has more bearing than your ‘opinion’. I am also in regular contact with 300 -400 women, who survived it, on a private, international board dedicated solely to helping each other recover from the emotional trauma adoption caused in their lives.
But hey, don’t let reality interfere with what you believe now.
If you have not experienced it, you cannot possibly understand the breadth and depth of the lifelong shattering nature of the adoption experience for the birth mother. Just like you can’t know what it’s like to be women, or a twin.
Anyone who paints a rosy picture of adoption, to a confused and pregnant woman deserves to be slapped across the face, in my opinion. Sometimes ignorance should hurt.
Great post. The above is especially important because this is what I was trying to get to before. My second-guesses were actually a way to get the poster to think about where the axioms come from. The classylady, for example, appears to be basing her axioms on a prior trauma. People like her can’t be swayed by facts. Hell, they don’t appear to be swayed by traumas experienced by victims of anti-choice forces. Pretty much unreachable.
There’s also something you’re missing which is going to be un-PC but I’m putting it out there. People of below average intelligence have a really hard time processing facts and come to a logical conclusion. I think people forget this.
Ok, I’ll bite. Bricker, how would you have preferred to see Roe v. Wade played out? Let’s say you could magically make yourself a SCOTUS judge at that point in time - hell, let’s say you could uber-magically make yourself the entire effing panel. How would you have written the argument?
Bonus points if you can take into account that “the majority of people in the country want the situation to” [… work out so abortion is/remains/becomes legal].
Just to clarify:
Are you looking for a cite that says Pro-life groups think that “adoption is la-la land where mother, baby and adopting couple are all farting rainbows over the procedure”?
Do you want those exact words in the cite? If a Pro-life group does not use the exact wording “farting rainbows”, will that make the cite invalid?
Or do you simply want a cite from a Pro-life group that says that adoption is a wonderful thing for mother, baby and adopting couple and it is a good alternative to abortion? That would seem to be easy to provide.
I’m confused about what exactly you’re looking for here.
That’s the kind of action I can respect. IMO, offering support systems for pregnant women and care for their potential offspring is real courage and compassion, and the only real solution. Hateful condemnation , not so much.
Ok. let’s play at your level.I’ll dumb down my response so you get it. You username sucks Euphononious. It should bid uraphony.
I have yet to hear a protester say one bad word about adoption. Even when it leads to the death of the child.
Randy Alcorn, mentioned above states (paraphrased): Adoption is not cruel. It is a God (sic) given solution to the dilemna of a difficult pregnancy. What is cruel is the alternative of killing a baby.