Okay, pardon my being so dense but assuming that abortion is the act some consider murder, what is the act that is the equivilent of rape?
I completely agree, and I never said that no liberals participate, any more than you said that no conservatives participate.
Exactly my point.
I’m not getting that either?! Is there some context or something that would help us understand what he was getting at?
I actually thought it was a little weak, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the pro-life position. For example, when you say there is a question as to the personhood of embryos, that may be true for some people, but for others, there is NO question about this…they absolutely consider embryos to be persons. And although the sanctity of life is a major component of the pro-life position, a war could be considered neceesary to self-defense, which is acceptable to many pro-lifers. Whether or not this particular war is justified is a different issue, but you have to assume that if a pro-lifer is for the war, then they rightly or wrongly feel the war is justified for self-defense. You may argue that a person might be stupid or ill-informed if they believe the war is justified (I wouldn’t argue this, but you might), but that doesn’t mean that they are hypocritical.
The National Adoption Information Clearing House reports that in the year 2000 (to take a sample year), there were 127,630 adoptions in the US. So that year, there were that many families willing to go through the adoption process from beginning to end.
Let’s now say, as this overview of surveys suggests, that about 40% of the US adult population (Reported by the US Census Bureau to be 209,128,094 in 2000) self-identifies as pro-life, making 83,651,237 pro-life supporters in that year.
Let us assume that the families who adopted in 2000 are a random sample of Americans, meaning that 40% of them would have self-identified as pro-life. That’s 51,052 pro-life adopters out of 83,651,237 pro-life sympathizers, or 6 out of every 10,000 people who want women not to get an abortion who actually wanted a kid that was not their own that year.
The Center for Disease Control reports that in 2000, there were 857,475 abortions.
Let’s say the pro-lifer’s had gotten their way in 2000, and that not one of the 857,475 abortions had happened? What would have happened to all these kids, who were not wanted by 100% of their parents, and are obviously also not wanted by 99 and 94/100% of the people who would have been glad to see them born instead of aborted?
So while I would be wrong in saying that there are not pro-lifers who work past simply protesting abortion, I am right in saying that in terms of actually dealing with the potential realities of the world they wish to live in, the pro-lifers’ efforts beyond shooting off their mouths don’t amount to squat.
While there are Rebublicans who want to call the Democrats the “Party of Death”, the Republicans (who, let’s face it, make up most of the pro-lifers) are apparently vying for the title of the “Party of Squalor, Neglect and Abuse”. Which is better is left as an exercise for the voter.
That would be the act of forcing a woman to carry and bear a child against her will.
Every sperm is sacred
every sperm is great
when a sperm is wasted
god gets quite irate.
You can argue all the way back to the sperm being a living thing but that goes far beyond the point. We all have a personal definition of when we think life starts and should have rights. The problem is we chose to impose our definitions on others.
The party of death,ask a few Afghanis and Iraqis who the party of death is.
I think that’s the bigger issue. The party that actively works to ensure that people who don’t want children have to have them also actively works to reduce or eliminate all of the aid programs, safety nets, health care, etc. that would make it easier to support that child.
You are assuming that all women who have abortions would rather not have the baby at all. I think most women would prefer to be in a situation where they don’t have to abort, and don’t have to give the child up for adoption. Many of the people who volunteer time to help these women do so with the goal of helping the woman be self-sufficient enough to raise the child herself vs. having to opt for one of these other choices.
Maybe, maybe not. Back it up.
It would be literally impossible to gather statistics that say “of the X number of women who had abortions last year, this percent preferred abortion, this percent would have liked to give the baby up for adoption, and this percent would have liked to have been able to afford to keep the baby.” All I can go on is what I see in the organization I volunteer with that helps women with counseling when they have a crisis pregnancy. Most of them are trying to decide whether to have an abortion or to keep the baby. The problem for these women is NOT that they don’t want the baby, it’s that they don’t feel they are in a position to have a baby & care for it, and they don’t see any other option. Most women (I am sorry to say, being adopted myself) do not wish to go through a pregnancy and birth and give the baby away, what they want is for someone to help them so that they can keep the baby.
Surely that’s a pretty selective sample? I mean, the women who would prefer to keep their pregnancy are the ones you’re going to see with that organisation. The women who wouldn’t aren’t going to be interested.
Yes, they would prefer to be in a situation where they are not pregnant. I think that’s the most you can safely deduce.
Of course it is a selective sample, and you are right that it does not represent women whose first and only thought upon becoming pregnant is to get an abortion. But there are a lot of women who are conflicted about it. Of those women, many many more are interested in keeping their babies than giving them up for adoption. I was trying to refute the point that **scotandrsn ** made that pro-lifers should be more willing to adopt in order to prove their dedication. There aren’t that many babies available for adoption, because a lot of them are aborted, and a lot of them stay with their mothers. Therefore, just being willing to adopt doesn’t really help these women as much as you might think, and mothers who would rather keep their babies are often helped by pro-life organizations as well. How many babies are adopted is not a very good measure of how dedicated pro-lifers are towards the cause of helping women & babies in difficult situations.
As I stated before, these organizations give adoption counseling and help find adoptive parents. Because many women do not want to give their child up for adoption, they also help with job training, job searches, giving money, clothes, and food. Finding a place to live, and helping pay for it. Finding affordable/subsidized childcare. Helping find the approprate social programs to help, such as WIC. Helping pay for hospital bills.
The people who volunteer at these organizations (and there are a lot), are VERY dedicated to helping mothers and their babies, and volunteer quite a bit of time and money to help these women so that they don’t have to have abortions.
That’s pretty clever, to take one part of a post where I was obviously talking about pregnant women, and use it out of context because you think it’s going to make me look foolish so you can prove a point. Score one for you.
Sarahfeena, i’m not questioning that there are many women who when they become pregnant would prefer to keep it, nor am I suggesting that the organisations you and others volunteer at do good. I’m simply saying that, as you readily admit, you’re exposed to a selective sample of pregnant women; unless you also work as an over-the-counter birth control pill seller or similar, your opinion of the amount of women preferring to keep their pregnancy as being the majority is likely flawed.
I wouldn’t argue that my use of the word “most” might be overstating it. I really don’t know if it is most, but I wouldn’t necessarily doubt that this is the case, either. Perhaps the word “many” might be more accurate. However, this is a little beside the point anyway. I was just trying to show how flawed the argument is that the # of adoptions is somehow a valid indicator of how dedicated pro-lifers are to unwanted babies. In addition, if more women had babies who truly did not want the babies, and therefore gave them up for adoption vs. aborting them, there might be a lot more adoptions. The statistics given didn’t indicate how many more people might adopt if there were babies available.
That’s an improvement.
You did however respond to my post , which made the same point you just agreed with, with a statement about the myth of pro lifers not helping. Did you misunderstand my post or were you merely clarifying just in case somebody thought that?
Then you stated that I didn’t have a cite for a position I never held and never said, Care to clarify that? Just a simple apology would do.
I realize you never said no liberals participate which is why I asked you a question rather than assume your position.
FWIW I agree that pro choice people who claim to care so much should also be involved in these programs. Personally, I don’t think the choice should be taken away in most cases but I think our society should offer every assistance it can to make abortion the last choice.
I see. I didn’t equate that with “the equivalent of rape” but I see the comparison.
Excuse me, I was having a dumb insensitive male moment.
I do think that the question of the rights of an unborn child is a pretty serious and legitimate question. In my view when we get to the point in the pregnancy where the unborn child might survive a premature delivery or C section I have a hard time seeing abortion as an acceptable option.