Mike Adams Says it way better than I ever could

[Guest db99wj]

We were asked if we wanted to have an abortion with my 4th child, due to markers for Down Syndrome, went to a specialist for more tests, there was no decision making or thinking, abortion never crossed our minds. It is a non issue, we don't believe in it...period. He will be 4 in October, and does not have Down Syndrome, but if had of, he would be one spoiled little down syndrome baby.

Before kids, I really didn't have an opinion, never was an issue for me. When I went to the doctor with my wife with our first and we heard the heart beat, I was a believer from that point on.

Also, my actual 4th child died in a miscarriage. The loss of an unborn child, for us, would be like loosing one of my other children, it is devastating and I can't imagine making a conscious decision to abort a child, no matter how many weeks they are and if they may or may not live.

As a parent, I'm willing to die for my kids. My wife, if possible, even more so. If it came down to her and our child, MY wife would chose the baby's life. No question about it.

As a parent, we "give up" a lot for our children, and it is not by "choice", it is what we do. We sacrifice ourselves for our children, or we should anyway.

Also, I don't think it should be government funded through our tax dollars. Pregnancy is not a disease, it is not a birth control, it is not required. It is an elective procedure.

I will not argue my points, this is a personal witness from me, not some speaker, not some expert, but from real life experiences.

Edited July 19, 2011 by db99wj

[Mike.357]

awesome story db

[JAB]

So you'd be ok with banning late term abortions, since the fetus can survive outside the womb at that point and would then be considered a life?

Get someone (maybe one of those 'pro-life' groups needs to put their money where their mouth is) to pay for the baby's medical care, take the fetus by C-section and keep it alive in an 'incubator' until it can breathe, etc. on its own and I'd see no problem with it. Still, though, no one has the right to tell the woman that she must keep the fetus inside her body.

In response to the autonomous statement: find me a three month old that can survive autonomously. They need to be fed and sheltered by someone, or they will die. Is it ok to crack this child's head open and pull it's brains out?

If you truly do not see the difference in the two scenarios then discussing this with you, at all, is pointless. If you are simply creating a straw man argument then discussing this with you is likewise pointless. Either way, discussing this with you would be pointless and so I will not.

People can also choose to not have that sex until they are mature and willing to be responsible parents. The rest of this"Woman's Rights" stuff is just rehashed Barbara Streisand for those of you politically correct ones.

Say human nature all you want, and I'm glad I didn't see the other thread for what ever reason, but allowing your kids to grow up without understanding right and wrong and not teaching them the responsibility of parenthood is whose fault? Don't give me that society crap.

So if it is entirely up to your wife to decide the fate of an organism growing in her body, whether it lives or dies, you have lost your argument, because you have become part of the problem, since you had something to do with it being there.

Well, as for me, I have not been a part of any pregnancy, wanted or not. I was not and am not the kind of guy who bed hops and my wife and I have no kids. That said, you have no right to say that your morality must be everyone's morality.

Edited July 19, 2011 by JAB

[BigK]

Forgive me if I'm getting too nosy, but what did you guys decide to do? Sounds like it all worked out well for everyone if I read that correctly?

We trusted that the doctor was correct and that my wife would, in fact, die if she did not have the surgery and chemotherapy. So, we felt we had no choice but to have an abortion.

It was the an easy decision then and every time I look at my daughter, born almost 2 years later, I am glad she is here and that my wife is alive. However, I'd be lying if I said that the decision doesn't bother me today. Like db, I'd die for my kids and so would my wife, but we had to also consider our then 2 yr old son as well. Maybe that makes my strong Pro-Life position seem hypocritical, but my regrets don't outweigh the good that came from our choice.

[Guest nicemac]

Get someone (maybe one of those 'pro-life' groups needs to put their money where their mouth is) to pay for the baby's medical care, take the fetus by C-section and keep it alive in an 'incubator' until it can breathe, etc. on its own and I'd see no problem with it. Still, though, no one has the right to tell the woman that she must keep the fetus inside her body.

If you truly do not see the difference in the two scenarios then discussing this with you, at all, is pointless. If you are simply creating a straw man argument then discussing this with you is likewise pointless. Either way, discussing this with you would be pointless and so I will not.

Well, as for me, I have not been a part of any pregnancy, wanted or not. I was not and am not the kind of guy who bed hops and my wife and I have no kids. That said, you have no right to say that your morality must be everyone's morality.

Did you even read the article? Your answers imply that you didn't.

There are plenty of people that would pay for the medical care of the unborn and adopt the child upon delivery. As a matter of fact, there are thousands of waiting families that want to do just that. Abortion has created a shortage of children to adopt in the US. That is why so many families wait years, spend tens of thousands of dollars and eventually go overseas to adopt.

There are other people involved.

1. The dad. She didn't whip that baby up on her own. Dad should input here. Ladies don't want the guy to have a vote in this "private" matter? If she has no more respect for him than that, she should never have slept with him in the first place.

2. The child. 100% of successful abortions end with (at least) one of the affected parties dead.

[JAB]

Did you even read the article? Your answers imply that you didn't.

There are plenty of people that would pay for the medical care of the unborn and adopt the child upon delivery. As a matter of fact, there are thousands of waiting families that want to do just that. Abortion has created a shortage of children to adopt in the US. That is why so many families wait years, spend tens of thousands of dollars and eventually go overseas to adopt.

There are other people involved.

1. The dad. She didn't whip that baby up on her own. Dad should input here. Ladies don't want the guy to have a vote in this "private" matter? If she has no more respect for him than that, she should never have slept with him in the first place.

2. The child. 100% of successful abortions end with (at least) one of the affected parties dead.

Actually, I did read the article. Did you actually read my post? By 'medical expenses', I wasn't talking about someone adopting the child after the mother is forced to carry it to term. I was talking about - in lieu of late term abortions - get someone to pay the expenses of having the fetus removed by c-section and placed into an incubator (removing the factor of forcing the woman to keep the fetus inside her body against her will.) In other words, it isn't about destroying the fetus. It is about no one having the right to tell a woman that she has to keep anything inside her body she doesn't want there.

[Guest nicemac]

Actually, I did read the article. Did you actually read my post? By 'medical expenses', I wasn't talking about someone adopting the child after the mother is forced to carry it to term. I was talking about - in lieu of late term abortions - get someone to pay the expenses of having the fetus removed by c-section and placed into an incubator (removing the factor of forcing the woman to keep the fetus inside her body against her will.) In other words, it isn't about destroying the fetus. It is about no one having the right to tell a woman that she has to keep anything inside her body she doesn't want there.

Repeat: "There are plenty of people that would pay for the medical care of the unborn…". You bet. There are lists of people that would do this in every adoption agency in America. There are plenty of churches that would do the same.

Edited July 20, 2011 by nicemac

[MacGyver]

Repeat: "There are plenty of people that would pay for the medical care of the unborn…". You bet. There are lists of people that would do this in every adoption agency in America. There are plenty of churches that would do the same.

I think you're probably wrong there.

I have three kids. My wife's and my first, third and fifth pregnancy all ended in miscarriage after we had heard or seen a heartbeat. I've got family that has adopted because the felt called to do so, regardless of their difficulty in conceiving on their own. I disagree with abortion from a moral, ethical and political standpoint.

That said, if you're going to talk about abortion, you have to be intellectually honest in the debate, and we're not there right now. Feelings override data, and people get entrenched quickly.

Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". A lot of people assume it is rare. It's not.

In New York City last year, there were 87,273 in New York City's five boroughs. If you look at the numbers like the CDC does, that's 688 abortions per 1000 live births. If you look at it as a ratio of abortions per every 100 pregnancies ending in either an abortion or live birth, that comes out to 41%.

41%!

That's not rare. I would argue that in New York City, abortion has become a form of birth control of first resort, not last ditch effort after all other alternatives have been exhausted.

That number alone would exhaust the rolls of every adoption agency in the county, and then some. There were 1.21 million abortions in the US in 2009. That's one for every 250 people in America. Every year!

I'd love to see a lot fewer abortions performed every year. But, if we're going to talk about solutions, I don't think we can really apply the "there are people who would love to have those children and would pay for it" argument. The numbers have simply become to overwhelming.

Edited July 20, 2011 by MacGyver

[MacGyver]

To separate my moderator post, from my personal post above, here's my post as a moderator. To paraphrase the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride:

"Good job today keeping it on topic. I fully expect to have to close this thread tomorrow".

[Guest nicemac]

I think you're probably wrong there.

I have three kids. My wife's and my first, third and fifth pregnancy all ended in miscarriage after we had heard or seen a heartbeat. I've got family that has adopted because the felt called to do so, regardless of their difficulty in conceiving on their own. I disagree with abortion from a moral, ethical and political standpoint.

That said, if you're going to talk about abortion, you have to be intellectually honest in the debate, and we're not there right now. Feelings override data, and people get entrenched quickly.

Bill Clinton famously said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". A lot of people assume it is rare. It's not.

In New York City last year, there were 87,273 in New York City's five boroughs. If you look at the numbers like the CDC does, that's 688 abortions per 1000 live births. If you look at it as a ratio of abortions per every 100 pregnancies ending in either an abortion or live birth, that comes out to 41%. 41%!

That's not rare. I would argue that in New York City, abortion has become a form of birth control of first resort, not last ditch effort after all other alternatives have been exhausted.

That number alone would exhaust the rolls of every adoption agency in the county, and then some. There were 1.21 million abortions in the US in 2009. That's one for every 250 people in America. Every year!

I'd love to see a lot fewer abortions performed every year. But, if we're going to talk about solutions, I don't think we can really apply the "there are people who would love to have those children and would pay for it" argument. The numbers have simply become to overwhelming.

They may well get overwhelmed, but there are thousands of people who will pay those expenses to adopt a child. I have seen the books full of them.

I have adopted two children. For overseas adoptions, you sit and look through books full of pictures of kids that need homes. Domestically, just the opposite. I have sat in the chair and looked at the books full of prospective parents looking to adopt a child. These are the books of "resumes" that (usually young) moms look through, trying to pick the parents for the child she is about to give up. There are backlogs at every agency–for years.

[MacGyver]

They may well get overwhelmed, but there are thousands of people who will pay those expenses to adopt a child. I have seen the books full of them.

I have adopted two children. For overseas adoptions, you sit and look through books full of pictures of kids that need homes. Domestically, just the opposite. I have sat in the chair and looked at the books full of prospective parents looking to adopt a child. These are the books of "resumes" that (usually young) moms look through, trying to pick the parents for the child she is about to give up. There are backlogs at every agency–for years.

There is certainly room for a lot of improvement/streamling in our domestic procecss. I think a major part of the problem is that it has become such a huge revenue stream for both the government, the agencies and the lawyers involved. The way the system is structured right now, the barriers are extremely high - Even when everything works out perfectly.

[Guest nicemac]

The way the system is structured right now, the barriers are extremely high - Even when everything works out perfectly.

Even overseas now is getting harder. Five years ago, you could adopt from China in as little as12 months. Agencies are now telling prospective parents that the wait can be as long as five to six years, about the same as many domestic adoptions.

[wipfel]

We trusted that the doctor was correct and that my wife would, in fact, die if she did not have the surgery and chemotherapy. So, we felt we had no choice but to have an abortion.

It was the an easy decision then and every time I look at my daughter, born almost 2 years later, I am glad she is here and that my wife is alive. However, I'd be lying if I said that the decision doesn't bother me today. Like db, I'd die for my kids and so would my wife, but we had to also consider our then 2 yr old son as well. Maybe that makes my strong Pro-Life position seem hypocritical, but my regrets don't outweigh the good that came from our choice.

Wow, that's tough. I'm glad your wife is ok, now, though.

[Guest db99wj]

To separate my moderator post, from my personal post above, here's my post as a moderator. To paraphrase the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride:

"Good job today keeping it on topic. I fully expect to have to close this thread tomorrow".

This cracked me up! LOL!

[Seaslug]

This cracked me up! LOL!

+1 to this. And another +1 to everyone who has participated in the discussion thus far. I knew you could do it!

[JAB]

Repeat: "There are plenty of people that would pay for the medical care of the unborn…". You bet. There are lists of people that would do this in every adoption agency in America. There are plenty of churches that would do the same.

You are still missing the crucial portion of my post whereby the fetus - instead of being late-term aborted - is removed from the woman's womb and placed into an incubator. We aren't talking about pre-natal care. We aren't talking about visits to the OBGYN. We are talking about an entirely different idea and I am talking only about cases where the pregnancy is late term before the woman decides to abort.

Further, while there may be a 'list' of people who want to adopt perfectly formed, healthy babies, I highly doubt that people are lining up to adopt crack babies, meth babies, babies with severe mental and/or physical disabilities, severe birth defects and so on.

[Guest nicemac]

You are still missing the crucial portion of my post whereby the fetus - instead of being late-term aborted - is removed from the woman's womb and placed into an incubator. We aren't talking about pre-natal care. We aren't talking about visits to the OBGYN. We are talking about an entirely different idea and I am talking only about cases where the pregnancy is late term before the woman decides to abort.

Further, while there may be a 'list' of people who want to adopt perfectly formed, healthy babies, I highly doubt that people are lining up to adopt crack babies, meth babies, babies with severe mental and/or physical disabilities, severe birth defects and so on.

I understood you perfectly. You were very clear. And yes, my response is the same.

You can come up with all kinds of scenarios and yes, you will likely come up with some complications and deformity that will be nearly impossible to find an adoptive home for. I am not going to argue that point. That is not the norm. People will adopt crack babies, people will adopt special needs kids. I have personal friends right here in Middle TN that have adopted seven special needs kids.

For most women who are considering abortion, there is someone willing to pay for the care before, during and after delivery to prevent that abortion and adopt that child.

By the way, aborting a viable, late term pregnancy (as you describe) is illegal in most states, except in cases of threats to the woman's life.

Edited July 20, 2011 by nicemac
corrected misspelling

[strickj]

“We like to imagine good and bad, right and wrong are miles apart. The truth is, very often they are all tangled up with each other.â€

And that's where we are today with abortion. Some feel it's wrong. That it's nothing more then murder. Some don't feel that way at all.

So, who is right? Who's opinion and religious leanings do we side with?

Why do some choose to force their opinions and religion onto others?

And the last question is the answer to the first two questions.

It wasn't that long ago, as a society, when we were having the same debate with the "week after pill" and the "morning after pill". Before that, the debate was about contraceptives and birth control in general.

Some felt the wasting of sperm was wrong. That it was as good as murder. Even today, some feel this way. See the TLC show with the 40 kids for modern day application of this train of thought.

Where would we be today if birth control was illegal.

We would be an over-populated world full of unwanted bastards.

If that ultra-conservative family can average one child per year, for twenty years, then some of us would have hundreds of kids ruining around.

With all of that out of the way. I do not agree with abortion and would never have one, especially a late term abortion. But, my opinions are not shared by all and I would never force MY opinions and feelings about it onto others.

I just wish others would share my butt the **** out attitude about things...

[Guest nicemac]

Where would we be today if birth control was illegal.

We would be an over-populated world full of unwanted bastards.

If that ultra-conservative family can average one child per year, for twenty years, then some of us would have hundreds of kids ruining around.

Interesting.

Couple of things:

The subject is not birth control being made illegal.

Maybe instead of an over-populated world full of unwanted bastards, we would have 60 million more people paying into social security. Maybe then the plan would be solvent for a while longer. Or maybe one of those aborted would have found a cure for cancer?

Why is is surprising that an ultra-conservative family has a baby per year? Believe it or not, conservatives have regular sex. I know liberals cringe at that thought. Actually, I have read studies that indicate conservatives have more sex than liberals (and are more satisfied with their sex life overall).

Unless you are hoping from woman to woman ad nauseum, how could you have hundreds of kids running around in 20 years?

[MacGyver]

James Taranto of the WSJ wrote an interesting piece a couple of years ago on the "Roe Effect", that is the effect Roe vs. Wade has has on our national politic and dialogue via the simple number of eligible voters, or put another way, the future belongs to those who show up. Interesting observations, and certainly worth a read.

The Roe Effect

While I disagree with abortion personally, I don't realistically believe that we'll ever get rid of it. It's like trying to put Pandora back in the box. It's not going to happen. Our best hope may to be to work to find ways to make them truly "rare".

That said, I find that the conclusion of the above article summarizes my feelings on the political aspects of it fairly well. That is that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade would be one of the best things that could happen to our national politic. It would be a states rights issue, and thus representatives both Republican and Democrat could form solutions in their own states that meet their constituents beliefs. And, then we could move the national debate away from this issue that really detracts from other important stuff.

The best solution for both parties would likely be a return to the status quo

ante Roe--that is, for Congress and the president largely to ignore abortion,

and leave its regulation to the state legislatures. This would allow

politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, to tailor their views to match those

of their constituents and their own consciences, and it would remove abortion as

a polarizing issue from national elections. Thus, one might say that both Roe

and the Roe effect contain the seeds of their own demise

[BigK]

I cannot agree with the "butt out" attitude regarding the abortion issue. In most cases I agree that I should mind my business, like when it comes to what kind of light bulbs my neighbors buy, whether they have tattoos and piercings, what kind of gas mileage their car gets, whether they like porn, how much beer they drink or weed they smoke, whether they believe in God, or what their favorite sexual position is. These are the kind of things that hurt no one.

But, if I hear/see a neighbor beating his wife or kids, I cannot stand idly by and ignore it. I can't just dismiss it as his right to choose how he releases his tensions. Getting an abortion is not like having a mole removed or a scar touched up. A human being is killed in the process. So, calling the abortion victim a "fetus" as if it's just a sack of tissue with nothing at stake in the "choice" doesn't mean the baby isn't alive.

It's a serious subject that I feel deserves serious scrutiny. Turning a blind eye and marginalizing the value of the life at risk doesn't seem to like how you deal with a serious subject.

[strickj]

Interesting.

Couple of things:

The subject is not birth control being made illegal.

The point being, it once was debated the same we are debating abortion today.

The same arguments were even used, for the most part.

Had the anti-bc group won, it would have been made illegal.

hy is is surprising that an ultra-conservative family has a baby per year? Believe it or not, conservatives have regular sex. I know liberals cringe at that thought. Actually, I have read studies that indicate conservatives have more sex than liberals (and are more satisfied with their sex life overall).

Unless you are hoping from woman to woman ad nauseum, how could you have hundreds of kids running around in 20 years

I'm using the given that the couple on TLC have not had any other partners and that they do not believe in birth control.

If they can average one child a year, imagine how many kids someone could have that has had multiple partners.

I once read that the average non-married person has a new partner every six months.

You knock up two girls a year for twenty years, that's forty kids.

if a person has a new partner once a month, which is not that uncommon today... well, you do the math.

[Guest nicemac]

I cannot agree with the "butt out" attitude regarding the abortion issue. In most cases I agree that I should mind my business, like when it comes to what kind of light bulbs my neighbors buy, whether they have tattoos and piercings, what kind of gas mileage their car gets, whether they like porn, how much beer they drink or weed they smoke, whether they believe in God, or what their favorite sexual position is. These are the kind of things that hurt no one.

But, if I hear/see a neighbor beating his wife or kids, I cannot stand idly by and ignore it. I can't just dismiss it as his right to choose how he releases his tensions. Getting an abortion is not like having a mole removed or a scar touched up. A human being is killed in the process. So, calling the abortion victim a "fetus" as if it's just a sack of tissue with nothing at stake in the "choice" doesn't mean the baby isn't alive.

It's a serious subject that I feel deserves serious scrutiny. Turning a blind eye and marginalizing the value of the life at risk doesn't seem to like how you deal with a serious subject.

Perfectly stated.

[1gewehr]

I've got to interject another point of view. Actions have consequences. An adult is responsible for their own actions. If you don't want a child, either abstain from sex or use birth control. As inexpensive and easy as most birth control is to use, there really is no excuse for not using it. And price is not the issue. Women can get free pills, condoms, and in some places they can also get free patches, shots, or implants.

Pregnancy is self-inflicted. Aside from the rare instances of pregnancy through rape, nobody is forcing the woman to get pregnant. But when a woman DOES get pregnant through her own actions, it is not the act of an responsible adult to abort that child. And there is no logical way to argue otherwise.