Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[C.C.Sinned]

Since you said 'UNLESS.... " , that's why it has to be a 'pro-choice'! I see that some of the people here said .. I'm for Pro-Life, blah, blah, blah, UNLESS for medical reasons, rape, etc.. then okay to have abortion" FYI: that is 'PRO-CHOICE" not 'pro-life'.

Very true.


personally I think people really need to start thinking twice before sex. have to be more responsible about it...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Since you said 'UNLESS.... " , that's why it has to be a 'pro-choice'! I see that some of the people here said .. I'm for Pro-Life, blah, blah, blah, UNLESS for medical reasons, rape, etc.. then okay to have abortion" FYI: that is 'PRO-CHOICE" not 'pro-life'.

Yes, that's correct.

 

[dreama]

I'm pro life. They say it's the woman's choice, but what happens if her bloke presurizes her into the abortion because he can't be bothered with the responsiblility?

 

[WildHunt]

I'm on both sides, really...

I'm against it if the female is only using it as a form of birth control... if you have sex, better expect to have children.. if you don't want kids, then don't have sex or use better protection.

I'm ok with it if the female's life is in danger, or if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb for some reason. I'm also ok with it if the pregnancy is from a rape.

 

[Phillips]

There are cons and pros in Pro life and Pro choice... i am between them...depends on situations...

Yep me too ;-)

 

[Throwstones]

<--- PRO-LIFE..... unborn babies are innocent and precious soul and human being. Why people want to abort unborn babies is because scare of having a baby??? or take a responsible for this??? Thousands of unborn babies are in Heaven now with our God the Father!

 

[jillio]

I am pro-choice. The main reason why is that making abortion illegal doesn't stop it. Women will continue to have abortions, just as they had abortions prior to Roe v. Wade decision. They will simply have to resort to trying to perform the abortion on themselves with things like knitting needles or going to a back alley "doctor" in unsterile conditions. Abortions are like prositution--you will not stop the activity simply by making it illegal, you simply make it more risky. Even primitive cultures practice herbal abortion techniques.

I don't know--which is worse, an aborted first trimester fetus, or an unwanted severely abused child?

 

[Reba]

...I don't know--which is worse, an aborted first trimester fetus, or an unwanted severely abused child?

There is a third choice. A wanted and deeply loved adopted child.

 

[InTheGenes]

There is a third choice. A wanted and deeply loved adopted child.

And, sadly, the fourth choice: unwanted, forgotten, unadopted children. Or children that bounce from one foster family to another.

I don't think there's an easy answer to this debate. For myself, I suppose in some ways, I'm both pro-choice and pro-life... insomuch as while I support a woman's right to choose, if I were a woman with that choice to make, I don't think I could bring myself to make it, unless there were truly no other choice.

I agree with others here that abortion should never be used as a viable form of birth control.

Here's a question for those of you that are staunchly anti-abortion: if science became advanced enough that it could be predicted that your child would be born "different" (ie, gay, albino, blind, with malformed legs, autistic, etc.), would you feel differently about aborting?

Second question: which, in your opinion, is worse... a child that goes unadopted, or a child adopted by a loving gay couple?

 

[SxyPorkie]

Oh well back in 70's I was Pro LIfe.... until my best friend got pregnant... she was not married.. she was promicious... I talked her out of having abortions...IT WAS MY MISTAKE!!!... Why??? After her daughter was born.the mother raised her wrong... i moved to another state to attend to University of Illinois... one weekend she and her little girl who was about 3 yrs old.. came and spent weekend with me and my family.... I saw the mother abusing her daughter...IT BROKE MY HEART... I realize that there are pro and con in both prolife and prochoice..... now i am between...depending on situations....

 

[jillio]

And, sadly, the fourth choice: unwanted, forgotten, unadopted children. Or children that bounce from one foster family to another.

I don't think there's an easy answer to this debate. For myself, I suppose in some ways, I'm both pro-choice and pro-life... insomuch as while I support a woman's right to choose, if I were a woman with that choice to make, I don't think I could bring myself to make it, unless there were truly no other choice.

I agree with others here that abortion should never be used as a viable form of birth control.

Here's a question for those of you that are staunchly anti-abortion: if science became advanced enough that it could be predicted that your child would be born "different" (ie, gay, albino, blind, with malformed legs, autistic, etc.), would you feel differently about aborting?

Second question: which, in your opinion, is worse... a child that goes unadopted, or a child adopted by a loving gay couple?

Agreed: abortion is not for routine birth control.

Thanks for your insight on the 4th choice. That is an all to frequent occurrance. Second question: most definately a child that goes unadopted. The most inportant thing is that a child is loved, has a secure environment, and receives the nurturing and care necessary for them to grow into well adjusted, emotionally healthy adults.

 

[Reba]

And, sadly, the fourth choice: unwanted, forgotten, unadopted children. Or children that bounce from one foster family to another.

Almost no babies born in America that are put up for adoption are left "unwanted". Why do you think parents have to go to other countries to adopt? Because there aren't enough babies in America.

The babies and children that get stuck in foster "limbo" are not there as newborn babies given up for adoption. They are older children who have been removed from troubled homes, or lose their parents later in life, custody battles, or who have been tangled up in government red tape.

There are even adoptive parents waiting in line for handicapped babies and children.

There are NOT warehouses full of unwanted adoptable babies. For every adoptable baby born in the US, there is a long line of potential parents waiting with open arms.

Here's a question for those of you that are staunchly anti-abortion: if science became advanced enough that it could be predicted that your child would be born "different" (ie, gay, albino, blind, with malformed legs, autistic, etc.), would you feel differently about aborting?

No.

Second question: which, in your opinion, is worse... a child that goes unadopted, or a child adopted by a loving gay couple?

See my answer above. The reason children are unadopted is because they are not legally free to be adopted, NOT because there aren't enough parents waiting for them. So your question is moot.

 

[InTheGenes]

You're right, Reba. White, "healthy" BABIES placed up for adoption are typically scooped up right away. The waiting lists for those children are HUGE.

I don't know that I'd agree that all of the older children in the adoption system are there for JUST the reasons you mentioned, although you definitely hit the biggest ones. I'd argue that some/many of those children that come from "troubled" homes are in the predicament they're in because their parents shouldn't have become parents in the first place. I'll be the first to agree that I think that giving a child up for adoption is usually an INFINITELY better option than aborting... at least, that's my personal opinion. Of course, I'm not female, and I've never been pregnant, and never been faced with that kind of decision.

As for the question that I posed that you dismiss as "moot"... I disagree. The issue is not moot; I'm merely asking your opinion, regardless of the legalities of the situation.

 

[jillio]

You're right, Reba. White, "healthy" BABIES placed up for adoption are typically scooped up right away. The waiting lists for those children are HUGE.

I don't know that I'd agree that all of the older children in the adoption system are there for JUST the reasons you mentioned, although you definitely hit the biggest ones. I'd argue that some/many of those children that come from "troubled" homes are in the predicament they're in because their parents shouldn't have become parents in the first place. I'll be the first to agree that I think that giving a child up for adoption is usually an INFINITELY better option than aborting... at least, that's my personal opinion. Of course, I'm not female, and I've never been pregnant, and never been faced with that kind of decision.

As for the question that I posed that you dismiss as "moot"... I disagree. The issue is not moot; I'm merely asking your opinion, regardless of the legalities of the situation.

Exactly. I cannot for the life of me see the logic behind bringing more babies into this country just to be adopted when the system is full of older children, sibling pairs, and handicapped children that are in need of a loving supportive home as well.

Maybe this all boils down to this: Don't agree with abortion--don't have one.

 

[jillio]

Reba, could you let me know where those parents are that are standing in line to adopt older and handicapped kids are, 'cause I'm pretty darn sure that Children's Services in my area of the country would love to find them!

 

[Throwstones]

When a peson wants to abortion a unborn baby, after this she has carried full of her guilty in her heart very easy and bothering often than what you think! because abortion is a murder! She will NOT be sleeping very well in bed and be restless while she think of killing baby. She will cry and feel so guilty of murder her own baby.

 

[Reba]

You're right, Reba. White, "healthy" BABIES placed up for adoption are typically scooped up right away. The waiting lists for those children are HUGE.

There are people who specifically seek out "handicapped" and bi-racial babies, and they still wait, or go to other countries. They aren't waiting just for white, "healthy" babies.

I have friends (married couple, one hearing, one Deaf) who had to go to another country to adopt Deaf children because they couldn't find any here.

My cousin (white) and his wife (black) wanted to adopt a bi-racial baby. They had to go to another country to find one.

My aunt and uncle had two "natural" children and raised a foster boy from birth until almost 9 years old. They wanted to adopt him but the state wouldn't let them because they were over the age limit. (They weren't too old to raise their own children but too old for the foster child; go figure.) Even though the boy lived his first 9 years with his "parents" and two siblings, the state took him away so he could be adopted by a younger couple. That's the kind of government nonsense that happens.

...I'd argue that some/many of those children that come from "troubled" homes are in the predicament they're in because their parents shouldn't have become parents in the first place.

Sure, there are some people who are not good parental material. But they aren't necessarily the same people who have "unwanted" or "accidental" babies. Some of the worst parents are the same people who wanted babies but just didn't know what to do with them once they were born.

As for the question that I posed that you dismiss as "moot"... I disagree. The issue is not moot; I'm merely asking your opinion, regardless of the legalities of the situation.

The reason it's moot is because there is no shortage of straight married couples seeking children to adopt. It's not an "either/or" situation.

 

[InTheGenes]

There are people who specifically seek out "handicapped" and bi-racial babies, and they still wait, or go to other countries. They aren't waiting just for white, "healthy" babies.

As someone with several friends in "the industry" (whether actually working for an adoption agency, or working for social services in a major metropolitan area), I can tell you that's the exception, and not the rule. There's this little category called "Hard to Place Children" which most of the non-white "unhealthy" babies (and older children) fall into.

I have friends (married couple, one hearing, one Deaf) who had to go to another country to adopt Deaf children because they couldn't find any here.

My cousin (white) and his wife (black) wanted to adopt a bi-racial baby. They had to go to another country to find one.

My aunt and uncle had two "natural" children and raised a foster boy from birth until almost 9 years old. They wanted to adopt him but the state wouldn't let them because they were over the age limit. (They weren't too old to raise their own children but too old for the foster child; go figure.) Even though the boy lived his first 9 years with his "parents" and two siblings, the state took him away so he could be adopted by a younger couple. That's the kind of government nonsense that happens.

There are SEVERAL reasons that some couples adopt internationally, not necessarily because there are "none" to be had state-side:

• Once you have an approved homestudy, you are practically guaranteed a child. In international adoptions, parents and children are matched by either your adoption agency, the country’s adoption committee, or during an in-country visit.
• You know about how long it will be before you have your child in your arms. The average time frame is 12 –18 months. Of course, this is just an average. Much depends on the country you choose and any preference you may have expressed regarding the child’s age and gender.
• The birthmother will not change her mind. The children available for international adoption must be orphans (as specified in an astoundingly complex legal definition). Once you accept the referral of a child, you will almost certainly become the parent of that child. Additionally, many adoptive parents are more comfortable in the knowledge that there will be no interference from the child's biological parent(s) later in life.
• You know (more or less) what the costs will be before you ever begin the process. While the costs of international adoptions can vary markedly, your adoption agency should give you a printed schedule of all the fees before you begin the process.

Sure, there are some people who are not good parental material. But they aren't necessarily the same people who have "unwanted" or "accidental" babies. Some of the worst parents are the same people who wanted babies but just didn't know what to do with them once they were born.

Agreed.

The reason it's moot is because there is no shortage of straight married couples seeking children to adopt. It's not an "either/or" situation.

You could just as easily have said that you didn't want to answer the question, or just left it uncommented-upon. There IS a shortage of straight married couples seeking children to adopt, or else we'd have no children up for adoption at all.

 

[Reba]

...You could just as easily have said that you didn't want to answer the question, or just left it uncommented-upon. There IS a shortage of straight married couples seeking children to adopt, or else we'd have no children up for adoption at all.

Do you have national and state-by-state statistics?

If there are so many babies waiting to be adopted, why are couples waiting six or more years to get one? (I'm referring to middle class couples, of course; wealthy and celebrity people don't wait.)

When we investigated adopting in our state, we were told it was a minimum six-year wait for children ages birth to 6 years old, including "disabled". The only "overabundant" group was adolescent and teen, not the unaborted babies group.

 

[Foxrac]

I made mistake for pick pro-life but I had done with research.

Now, I'm PRO-CHOICE, HELL YEAH!!!

I support abortion, period!!!