it would seem that when it comes to abortion, there's one argument that seems to be the "ace in the hole" for pro-choice people- What to do with the babies?
I don't know much about orphanages, but it doesn't seem like growing up in one is worse than not being born.
The other argument is that we haven't developed a system to care for them.
but my question is: how is that important?
Did the abolitionists have a plan for integrating freedmen? No, they kind of made it up as they went along. Should they have waited to free the slaves until they had a nice plan?
Do we have a plan for taking care of every drug addict? I doubt it, so should we, by that same argument, just forget about drug trafficking because we don't know how to deal?
I guess this may be an obvious question, but how does not having a full plan for "step 2" equate to allowing abortion?
i suppose improved sex ed and the adoption facilities may be a start, or something like that...
2007-12-27 14:31:53 · 18 answers · asked by Quailman 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
lionheart- that's a pretty weak argument if you think about it.
Northerners, by that logic, had no right to impose abolition on southern slave owners
a non-drug addict therefore has no right to make laws restricting a drug addicts addiction.
and "completing what you already started" is no way similar to "you can't hold hands with someone you're not married to. the Islam comparison is a bit of a stretch.
2007-12-27 14:45:21 · update #1
science geek- literally there is no free society. The term society itself implies a set of laws and restrictions that must be upheld. There are laws. I cannot use my fists to beat the crap out of you. That's an example of me being told what i can't do.
2007-12-27 15:03:03 · update #2
don't get me wrong, i don't want to beat you up. that's not a threat. just an example (i thought i'd add that in for).
2007-12-27 15:05:43 · update #3
the main thing about slavery was that slaves weren't people.
it was argued that not only were they not human, that they were incapable of living on their own and would surely die without their masters. they were believed to be slightly above monkeys.
abolitionists didn't even argue differently. to think a black was equal to a human then is like thinking a fetus is a human now.
the main cause of the civil war was a state's right to control their property. their property being slaves(which is why slave states in the Union was such a blow to the south)
not a flawed analogy.
2007-12-28 07:29:39 · update #4
there are plans for it, they just don't like the plans. Especially because they would have to be involved. Why do the right thing, we you can pretend it never happened?
The waiting list for people wanting to adopt babies is astronomical. So much so that the US is the #1 country in the adoption of foreign babies.
So the question is, why do people say they would rather have an abortion, when it is SO EASY for them to give the baby a good home?
There are people who will say, its hard to adopt. This is why its hard to adopt. All the birth mother has to do is do a private adoption. They set the terms. But self centered behavior stops that.
2007-12-27 14:41:46 · answer #1 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
I often wonder about this myself. My feeling on it is that we have ups and downs in life whether we are walking the walk and talking the talk or not. Sometimes I really believe there is no such thing as true suffering for Christ as long as you stay in the USA. Americans (and I am one) have no clue what real suffering is. We are so spoiled that we believe someone calling us a Jesus Freak is suffering. It's not. When I can say something like what Paul says about stripes, prison time and being stoned for the cause of Christ then maybe I will know something about suffering. Until then I am just another spoiled American feeling sorry for myself when I have these types of thoughts.
2016-05-27 09:26:00 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You were right. It's a GREAT question and definately a Thought Starter. I also think the "problem" of what to do with the children isn't really that much of a problem - since, as the others have pointed out - there's LOTS of folks waiting to adopt. Folks always have the tendency to point to the extremes to prove the validity of their position.
2007-12-27 15:00:43 · answer #3 · answered by Marji 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Science geek said that a fetus is just a mass of cells.
Well, I must disagree...a human fetus is much more than that. A human fetus is a very young human with its very own and unique DNA. DNA that is differant from the father and the mother. Unique, therefore seperate from the mother but still dependant upon the mother for survival.
Still dependant upon the mother just like a newborn is dependant upon the mother for survival...Would you have any trouble 'destroying' this mass of cells too?
God Bless
Robin
2007-12-28 00:35:06 · answer #4 · answered by Robin 3 · 8⤊ 1⤋
What to do with the babies is a valid question to ask.
The world's population is growing at a staggering rate, and is draining resources exponentially.
In the US, Medicare and Social Security can barely help cover the expenses of citizens who have paid into the coffers their entire working life. Social programs such as Medicaid can't acquire the funds to properly assist those who are trying to provide for their families and need a hand (I'm not talking about the stereotypical welfare mother here...rather a working parent trying to make ends meet). The Chinese gov't has implemented state guidelines regarding the number of children a family may have. Nations are struggling to produce enough food, in some cases, to feed their populations. The Japanese are struggling to care for their elderly...a segment of the population that grows each year.
And as the problem continues, there are churches who vehemently oppose any form of man made birth control, to the point of supporting 'abstinence only' education.
When we can take care of the existing life on this planet, then we can address what to do, in regards to caring for potential life.
2007-12-27 15:09:01 · answer #5 · answered by Bill K Atheist Goodfella 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
I think you asked a valid question. Many couples have to go outside of the country to adopt because there are not a lot of babies up for adoption and because the process takes so long. I think we should work on "step 1", avoiding unwanted pregnancies, and then "step 2" wouldn't be such a problem.
God bless.
2007-12-27 14:41:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Unfortunately I don't think abortionists care about whether their is a system to care for the children or not. If they tell you that it's just another one of their lies. The statistics prove that abortion is overwhelming used as a form of after the fact birth control. Taking the child to term and giving it up for adoption is very incovinient for people who can't control their sexual urges. You would be asking people to take some form of responsibility for their actions, and we just can't have that nowadays.
Joking aside, I think you are correct. I think we should be spending a lot less money on birth control, and extremely unethical organizations like planned parenthood, and more money on making it easier for women to care for their children, especially single mothers....wait I'm a pro-lifer....I thought I wasn't supposed to care about women and their rights....?
Give me Liberty: the idea that there are not enough resources to care for the children of the world is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard (I'm actually sitting in my chair laughing right now just thinking about it). I think you may want to go back to school and take some economics courses. And please site credible sources in your posts. Thank you.
But just to put your mind at ease, I did wait until I got married to have sex (at age 28).
2007-12-28 01:47:58 · answer #7 · answered by Thom 5 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Abortion is the willful taking of innocent human life and most are done because the child is inconvenient
I was talking with a friend who grew up in aCatholic orphanage and she and i are very greatful that she was not killed.She is a person who has made a great and positive difference in many lives,epecially her children's.
2007-12-28 04:15:23 · answer #8 · answered by James O 7 · 9⤊ 2⤋
One thing I see absent from your question is the option of adoption. There is such a long waiting list in America, that the orphanage option is almost obsolete.
2007-12-27 14:39:28 · answer #9 · answered by chdoctor 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
As the father of 3 adopted children, all of different cultures, i can tell you that adoption is a tremendous option. Look at a large number of pro-lifer families and you will see most of them with multiple adoptions. And, just because I know give me liberty, or some other pro-abort will try to say this, it doesn't matter to us what cultural background they have.
There are still a large number of children that need homes. There are also a large number of adoptive parents who are waiting to adopt children. The 2 problems that separate them in a sea of red tape are, 1) a bureaucracy that is designed to impinge on their ability to adopt and, 2) The high costs of adoptions.
One last thing: The pro-abortion people love to say things like "How many if these children are you taking into your home." They say these things without providing any viable options, just abortion. Pro-lifers continue to back our words with action. I would like to know what are YOU doing to help the problem, besides pushing abortion and being an obstruction to those who are trying to help?
2007-12-31 17:32:16 · answer #10 · answered by †Lawrence R† 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋