Ex ano? :dubious:
It doesn’t matter whether anyone actually said it or not. That person could have said it, which is exactly the same as if he had said it. When your cause is just, it matters not whether you support it with truth or with lies. You can look that one up on the internets, too!
An interview in Time magazine, back in the Eighties I believe. It was in response to a question about the women who were dying because of America’s “Mexico City Policy”, which threatened any organization that performed abortions with a cutoff of funds from America. Since quite a few Third World hospitals were dependant on such funds, they refused any medical care whatsoever to pregnant women, out of fear that she might miscarry and we’d call it an abortion. So they’d just refuse her entry, until the women left or died; Mr Terry was expressing his approval of those deaths.
Wow. You must have an incredible memory to be able to remember a quote verbatim from over 20 years ago. No wonder you’re so smart!
I don’t understand how anti-abortion groups can state that women should be told the bad things about abortion, but always praise adoption, which has a very dark side. After reading a few anti-adoption sites, most women would see abortion as the better of two bad choices.
Yes. I’m sure most adopted people you meet would argue it would have been better for them to be killed in utero.
:rolleyes:
Pardon me for asking, but what’s the dark side of adoption? It would help to provide some context.
Sailboat
In 2013, Ronnie Corbett will arise from the grave to lead all adopted children to the Promised Ascension, which will cause a global shortage of stairmasters in the short term, and a fairly severe rash of ankle problems in the long term. Upon reaching the top, the Adopted will force ginger people to supplant blondes as the artificial human ideal, leading to an unsightly welter of freckles in fashion magazines. The resulting shortage of red ink will cause pornography to revert to monochrome, and the debate about whether '50s boobs were better will consume society, leading to the First Great Nipple Wars.
Paris Hilton will win.
In the context of this thread, adoption really isn’t relevant. Very few of the fetuses that are aborted by the so-called partial birth method are viable. In fact, I believe most are already dead before the procedure is performed. I don’t know if some pro-lifers really think that women routinely use late term abortions as just another form of birth control method, but if they do then they’re nuts. The procedure is very rare, and I can’t imagine it being a pleasant one, or one that is made casually.
Here’s good site: http://www.abolishadoption.com/
When a top authority like John Douglas of the FBI’s unit that handles serial killings writes “Most serial killers were adopted,” that’s food for thought. Adopted children have been abused, tortured and murdered. There’s also a dark side for the adopted parents–the biological parents can redeem the child, and this has lead to some nasty court battles.
People state that “abortionists are only it in for the vast amount of money involved.” And nobody in the adoption business is getting paid for it.
It is to point and laugh! Is that seriously being offered as an argument? Most serial killers ate bread - therefore, abolish bread. :smack:
I feel no special love for Focus on the Family, an organization connected to a branch of Christianity to which I do not belong, myself.
I am in sympathy with some of their goals, though their rhetoric turns me off at times. I am pro-life, myself.
This may be worthy of discussion in another thread, but as hypocrisy was brought up here I would ask a question. Abortion providers genuflect constantly toward a certain law - the Roe vs. Wade decision, of course, but other laws seem not worthy of their respect, to the point that they are routinely violating them.
It is the law in most places that medical providers must report cases of suspected child abuse, including child sexual abuse. There are lots of cases accumulating where abortion providers are not doing this, and enough are piling up that one wonders if it is policy or a pattern.
Here’s a guy in Connecticut who impregnated a teenager three times in six months. The police only became involved after the girl’s mother called them. Why didn’t the clinic that did the three abortions kickstart an investigation?
Here’s a girl in Ohio who is suing Planned Parenthood. She was a pregnant teenager who was hauled in for an abortion by her father. She says she told the clinic workers her dad had raped her - the clinic denies this. In any case, no investigation was started until the girl told her coach more than a year later, after more abuse.
This one is more cut and dry. A UCLA student smuggled in a hidden camera, posed as a fifteen-year-old, and caught a staff member at a Planned Parenthood clinic advising her to lie about her age on her form so her 23-year-old boyfriend wouldn’t get into “trouble”.
The OP asks whether Focus on the Family believes perforated uteruses are a good thing. One might ask the same thing about Planned Parenthood and statutory rape.
Most people eat bread. Most people aren’t adopted. Feel free to point and laugh, and indeed you’ve already had some good points, but don’t overreach, k?
Even if that weren’t a particularly egregious example of backwards logic, which it is, it would still be the most retarded thing I’ve read in a month. And even if I could find any reference to your quote on the internet, which I can’t, it would still be dumber than a bag of hammers with “duh” written on the handles.
But hey, abolishadoption.com tells me that adoption is “domestic terrorism”! That gives me a whole new perspective on things. What a thoroughly fact-filled and unbiased site that is!
One might make that point. One could also make the point that perforated uteruses as a good thing seems to be the official position of FotF, while rape is not the official line of abortion providers. Seems to me your point would be even better made if two of your three cites weren’t unclear as to whether any improper actions actually occurred.
I’m sure there are immoral and lawbreaking abortion providers. As much as it would be nice to have a perfect system, it’s not. But really, should we ask them whether rape is a good thing? Or was that an analogy too far?
I’ve not even begun to overreach. To say “most serial killers were adopted” is to pay no attention to whatever the proportion is of serial killers to people who live useful, productive or even just plain blameless lives after being adopted, and hence to propose throwing a baby of unknown size out with the bathwater.
I mean, come on, if it’s shown that most street crime is committed by black sons of single mothers, is anyone seriously going to advocate forcible contraception for unmarried black women?
I can’t remember posting that; are you sure it was me? No big deal either way; I just don’t remember.
Robin
No, but it might be time to throw some resources at single black mothers, don’t you think? If, in fact, adoptees are severely overrepresented among serial killers, then that is worthy of investigation.
Why does it not? Now, if you were to say “most serial killers were adopted - therefore adoption is totally bad”, you’d be paying no attention to the good side. I don’t see any problem with saying that adoption tending to produce a higher percentage of serial killers (if true) is a bad thing about adoption.
But of course not, because we have lovely shiny evidence that criminal behaviour is not, in fact, related to skin colour. Thus we are left to assume that any tendency (if it exists) is more related to culture, upbringing, outside sources, and so on. We can’t do that with adoption, though, since all those things are going to be different. It may, in fact, be that the only thing in common adoptees have* is* that they are adopted.
Agreed. But it’s not good grounds for painting adoption as a social evil - and just as you speak of throwing resources at single black mothers, it would be a case for giving better support to adoptees (and perhaps adopters).