Shocking Video----PP Employees Sorting Baby Body Parts

[TitanTiger 20,482]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

[aujeff11 6,243]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Link please

[TitanTiger 20,482]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Link please

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/05/bg1080nbsp-promoting-adoption-reform

http://adoption.com/making-an-adoption-blog

Of course, it's difficult to put an exact number on it and it varies from year to year. But let's say those numbers were hugely miscalculated for some reason. Let's cut it to a third of that. That would put it at 12 couples looking to adopt for every child that's adopted. No matter how you slice it, there are far more people wanting to adopt than kids available. But there are issues. Differing and confusing rules from state to state, prohibitive costs, mounds of red taps, legal processes that place adoptive families in limbo at times looking over their shoulder for a biological parent to come back seeing custody.

I think we don't stop there of course. I think we need to recover the notion of children as a normal and natural consequence of sexual activity rather than some nuisance side-effect of 'just having some fun.' Get back a culture of understanding that with the decision to have sex comes great responsibility that can't be dispensed with through killing. And if you do decide to have sex and choose not to avail yourself of birth control options that you don't get to erase your decisions or their consequences. But we also need to increase our support for those who have children, make the process of adopting more accessible and streamlined, with robust protections to prevent the heartbreak of losing a kid to a biological parent who changes their mind later, more generous grants and tax breaks to encourage adoption and so on.

[telling tiger 156]

GEE, I wonder what all those fine people waiting are waiting on........

http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children

[icanthearyou 4,463]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Perhaps then, there might be a better course of action for those who genuinely seek to save the lives of unborn children? Perhaps, forcing a child upon parents who do not want him/her appeals to one's personal political or religious beliefs but in fact, does little for the child? Is forcing a child upon parents who, do not want, will not love, and may not even take care of, "saving a child's life"? I doubt the true motives of some on the "religious right". I believe too many are more political than merciful, more self-righteous than selfless.

Filling the world with unwanted children is not the answer. Can you solve a problem by creating a problem? Putting unwanted children in homes where they are loved, wanted, cherished, nurtured does seem like a much more effective solution. Perhaps limiting abortion and opening up (even subsidizing) adoption is a more earnest, and prudent endeavor, than overturning Roe V. Wade?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Even if filling the world with unwanted children is not desirable, it is morally wrong in my opinion to kill them and selling their body parts (subject of the thread) is beyond the pale in any civilized society.

[japantiger 4,051]

I'm curious how issues will be handled if abortions are made illegal. You never hear anyone speak about that.

Welfare. You see a ton of complaints about welfare as far as food benefits and medical benefits. You will also have to think about things such as daycare. If there is no abortion then that is going to rise. Like some love to point out, lot of things work when you don't work. Do we pay for children's medical bills up till a certain age? Plenty of good families that worked hard that went into medical bankruptcy trying to provide a child with healthcare. If abortion were to be outlawed I would expect to never see a child suffer from malnutrition nor ever have problems with medical access or funding. I think it would be just as cruel to allow a child to suffer from hunger and disease. So what do you do about nutrition and medical treatment of the child?

Adoption. There are people that want to adopt. Yet it is a very very difficult process. Many American families are going outside of the United States to adopt children. I have linked stories on here where people purposefully blocking financially successful people (stable mentally also) from adopting based on the fact they were either single, homosexual couples, or even just their age. What will be done about these roadblocks. There will be more children. Where do they go till adopted? Who pays for them until they are adopted? Are the birth mothers completely wiped out of the adoption process and who decides where the children go? What are the standards that will be expected to be met to be adopted. So how will this be handled?

Miscarriages. Now this one will be interesting, and will have to be of a concern. If abortion is illegal then a miscarriage will be considered murder. This means that when your wife, daughter etc etc has a miscarriage they will now be subject to an investigation and potentially murder charges. No more sorry for your loss from the doctors. While grieving your family will have to answer questions after question after question about your lifestyle and if it played a role in the miscarriage. Many unfortunate mothers will not only feel the natural depression and self doubt they would with a miscarriage. They will now be put on trial for them also. No miscarriage can ever be treated as anything but a potential crime from that day onward. Guess here is also where the lifestyle habits of the mother will play in also (smoking, drinking, drugs, nutrition etc). How do we handle that? Charge the mother with battery and then attempted murder if birth defect occurs followed by murder if a miscarriage happens? What about those occupations that are believed to have an association with higher rates of miscarriage? If a woman is pregnant do we force them to give up their career and financial stability? What will the rules for companies be... not going to be able to just fire women for getting pregnant, and if the occupation could lead to a miscarriage then they can't be there.

Mothers themselves. How will we deal with those during the 9 months. Some will try and miscarriage the child themselves. Some will try and obtain abortions through illegal methods. If you do some research in countries that have bans you will see that in teens that pregnancy is correlated with a high suicide rate. Believe in El Salvador 57% of teen suicides are from pregnancy. So what do we do with those mothers. Try and convict the first two of attempted murder and put them in jail under the tightest guard till the baby is born? Then they server out the rest of their sentence. How about the mothers that would commit suicide? Do they go to jail? Access and funding to mental health is poor as it is, and getting poorer in many states. Many states, such as Alabama have done away with all of its facilities. Then there is cost of doctors. Cause pretty much all anti-depressants are a no no for pregnant women and will endanger the development of the fetus. So its gonna have to be a facility with constant monitoring and CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) until that child is born.

Medical personnel. How are we going to handle the ones that will break the law. Because you know there will be physicians/nurses that have the skill to perform abortions and will do so. In the United States there will be a huge black-market for abortions. Not just the performance of them, but also for the drugs. The United States can't regulate illicit drugs as it is. So now how are you going to keep Plan B off the streets or any of the drugs of that are used for common ailments (like Cytotec...stomach ulcers) which can be used to induce an abortion?

Then what are you going to do about birth control? Are you going to make sex education a mandatory class in the school system so all children have at least some form of sex education that is based on anatomy and physiology with absolutely no getting out of it, no religion in it, and no abstinence vs contraception bias? Are we going to pay for the birth control of those that can't afford them be it with condoms or the pill? Like it or not sex provides physical and mental health benefits and is shown to be important in a healthy relationship. So given its medical benefits I doubt you are going to be able to outlaw sex in unmarried couples. What about if you are like my sister and your that .01% that even if used properly the pill can fail on? or if the condom breaks even though used properly? Do we make those companies financially responsible? What about those guys that hate condoms. Guy slips it off during intercourse and gets a woman pregnant? Are we going to become stricter about fathers taking responsibility for their offspring? What kind of penalties will he face? Lots of things will have to be addressed and changed in regards to birth control if you make abortion illegal. How are you going to address that?

And I will get you guys have the fun of doing your own research, which is easy to do. You will find that most studies show that in instances of banned versus legal abortion that the laws have almost no effect on rates, in fact the rate actually goes up in countries with banned abortion. These countries also suffer more death of women (believe the last study showed about 47,000 I read) and 8.5 million more women with medical complications. Like the abortion rates in the United States have dropped a average of 12.5% in all bout two states since 2010, regardless of the regulations on abortions of those states (article is on this board somewhere). This is a quote from an older one involving the WHO (organization not the band)

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

http://www.nytimes.c...rtion.html?_r=0

So I am curious how people think all these issues (and no telling how many more) are going to be addressed? Who is going to regulate and investigate? Where is the funding going to come from? How are you going to enforce many of these things?

No intention to try to refute each point you make...your basic premise seems to be "if we can't save every one of the 1.2m aborted each year; then we can't save any of them; so let's continue to kill them all". So any rational person would outright reject that premise on its face. We have a moral obligation to try to address every one...we will likely fail...however, that is no premise or excuse to murder them all.

My basic premise is who and when will someone address these type of issues if we are going to make abortions illegal. Pretty much give the same response you did... avoid the issue and claim the questions are asked to maintain a kill em all mentality.

Fix those issues and others and I'm all on board for banning abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, or medical needs of the mother.

We spend $113b each year in welfare programs for illegal immigrants. Close the border; kick them out and spend that money on home-growing our own children rather than murdering them. It's really all pretty simple if we truly want to...there are other responders on here relative to adoption, etc. These are not hard, intractable issues. They naturally flow from following our laws and our moral obligations. And again; your entire premise is bull****.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I'm curious how issues will be handled if abortions are made illegal. You never hear anyone speak about that.

Welfare. You see a ton of complaints about welfare as far as food benefits and medical benefits. You will also have to think about things such as daycare. If there is no abortion then that is going to rise. Like some love to point out, lot of things work when you don't work. Do we pay for children's medical bills up till a certain age? Plenty of good families that worked hard that went into medical bankruptcy trying to provide a child with healthcare. If abortion were to be outlawed I would expect to never see a child suffer from malnutrition nor ever have problems with medical access or funding. I think it would be just as cruel to allow a child to suffer from hunger and disease. So what do you do about nutrition and medical treatment of the child?

Adoption. There are people that want to adopt. Yet it is a very very difficult process. Many American families are going outside of the United States to adopt children. I have linked stories on here where people purposefully blocking financially successful people (stable mentally also) from adopting based on the fact they were either single, homosexual couples, or even just their age. What will be done about these roadblocks. There will be more children. Where do they go till adopted? Who pays for them until they are adopted? Are the birth mothers completely wiped out of the adoption process and who decides where the children go? What are the standards that will be expected to be met to be adopted. So how will this be handled?

Miscarriages. Now this one will be interesting, and will have to be of a concern. If abortion is illegal then a miscarriage will be considered murder. This means that when your wife, daughter etc etc has a miscarriage they will now be subject to an investigation and potentially murder charges. No more sorry for your loss from the doctors. While grieving your family will have to answer questions after question after question about your lifestyle and if it played a role in the miscarriage. Many unfortunate mothers will not only feel the natural depression and self doubt they would with a miscarriage. They will now be put on trial for them also. No miscarriage can ever be treated as anything but a potential crime from that day onward. Guess here is also where the lifestyle habits of the mother will play in also (smoking, drinking, drugs, nutrition etc). How do we handle that? Charge the mother with battery and then attempted murder if birth defect occurs followed by murder if a miscarriage happens? What about those occupations that are believed to have an association with higher rates of miscarriage? If a woman is pregnant do we force them to give up their career and financial stability? What will the rules for companies be... not going to be able to just fire women for getting pregnant, and if the occupation could lead to a miscarriage then they can't be there.

Mothers themselves. How will we deal with those during the 9 months. Some will try and miscarriage the child themselves. Some will try and obtain abortions through illegal methods. If you do some research in countries that have bans you will see that in teens that pregnancy is correlated with a high suicide rate. Believe in El Salvador 57% of teen suicides are from pregnancy. So what do we do with those mothers. Try and convict the first two of attempted murder and put them in jail under the tightest guard till the baby is born? Then they server out the rest of their sentence. How about the mothers that would commit suicide? Do they go to jail? Access and funding to mental health is poor as it is, and getting poorer in many states. Many states, such as Alabama have done away with all of its facilities. Then there is cost of doctors. Cause pretty much all anti-depressants are a no no for pregnant women and will endanger the development of the fetus. So its gonna have to be a facility with constant monitoring and CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) until that child is born.

Medical personnel. How are we going to handle the ones that will break the law. Because you know there will be physicians/nurses that have the skill to perform abortions and will do so. In the United States there will be a huge black-market for abortions. Not just the performance of them, but also for the drugs. The United States can't regulate illicit drugs as it is. So now how are you going to keep Plan B off the streets or any of the drugs of that are used for common ailments (like Cytotec...stomach ulcers) which can be used to induce an abortion?

Then what are you going to do about birth control? Are you going to make sex education a mandatory class in the school system so all children have at least some form of sex education that is based on anatomy and physiology with absolutely no getting out of it, no religion in it, and no abstinence vs contraception bias? Are we going to pay for the birth control of those that can't afford them be it with condoms or the pill? Like it or not sex provides physical and mental health benefits and is shown to be important in a healthy relationship. So given its medical benefits I doubt you are going to be able to outlaw sex in unmarried couples. What about if you are like my sister and your that .01% that even if used properly the pill can fail on? or if the condom breaks even though used properly? Do we make those companies financially responsible? What about those guys that hate condoms. Guy slips it off during intercourse and gets a woman pregnant? Are we going to become stricter about fathers taking responsibility for their offspring? What kind of penalties will he face? Lots of things will have to be addressed and changed in regards to birth control if you make abortion illegal. How are you going to address that?

And I will get you guys have the fun of doing your own research, which is easy to do. You will find that most studies show that in instances of banned versus legal abortion that the laws have almost no effect on rates, in fact the rate actually goes up in countries with banned abortion. These countries also suffer more death of women (believe the last study showed about 47,000 I read) and 8.5 million more women with medical complications. Like the abortion rates in the United States have dropped a average of 12.5% in all bout two states since 2010, regardless of the regulations on abortions of those states (article is on this board somewhere). This is a quote from an older one involving the WHO (organization not the band)

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

http://www.nytimes.c...rtion.html?_r=0

So I am curious how people think all these issues (and no telling how many more) are going to be addressed? Who is going to regulate and investigate? Where is the funding going to come from? How are you going to enforce many of these things?

No intention to try to refute each point you make...your basic premise seems to be "if we can't save every one of the 1.2m aborted each year; then we can't save any of them; so let's continue to kill them all". So any rational person would outright reject that premise on its face. We have a moral obligation to try to address every one...we will likely fail...however, that is no premise or excuse to murder them all.

My basic premise is who and when will someone address these type of issues if we are going to make abortions illegal. Pretty much give the same response you did... avoid the issue and claim the questions are asked to maintain a kill em all mentality.

Fix those issues and others and I'm all on board for banning abortions with the exceptions of rape, incest, or medical needs of the mother.

We spend $113b each year in welfare programs for illegal immigrants. Close the border; kick them out and spend that money on home-growing our own children rather than murdering them. It's really all pretty simple if we truly want to...there are other responders on here relative to adoption, etc. These are not hard, intractable issues. They naturally flow from following our laws and our moral obligations. And again; your entire premise is bull****.

As much bull**** as yours and the next persons in fixing the issues. I'm not trying to have some dick measuring pissing contest with people on this. I was hoping for a real legitimate mature discussion. Too much to hope for on Aufamily though.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

And yet I have family that had to go overseas to adopt their multiple children due to the system in the United States. Being in their late 30s was a big big negative. They gave up on the US system after 2-3 years.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

And yet I have family that had to go overseas to adopt their multiple children due to the system in the United States. Being in their late 30s was a big big negative. They gave up on the US system after 2-3 years.

Yes. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the system here needs to be overhauled. But this notion that there's all these unwanted babies or would be just isn't so. They are wanted. The problem is they are either being aborted or the state and federal governments and the legal system is sand in the gears to making adoptions happen. That and the costs.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Perhaps then, there might be a better course of action for those who genuinely seek to save the lives of unborn children? Perhaps, forcing a child upon parents who do not want him/her appeals to one's personal political or religious beliefs but in fact, does little for the child? Is forcing a child upon parents who, do not want, will not love, and may not even take care of, "saving a child's life"? I doubt the true motives of some on the "religious right". I believe too many are more political than merciful, more self-righteous than selfless.

Filling the world with unwanted children is not the answer. Can you solve a problem by creating a problem? Putting unwanted children in homes where they are loved, wanted, cherished, nurtured does seem like a much more effective solution. Perhaps limiting abortion and opening up (even subsidizing) adoption is a more earnest, and prudent endeavor, than overturning Roe V. Wade?

This would be an awesome response, if it had been typed before I posted. But I addressed most of these points already. And no one is forcing anyone on anyone. No one says they have to keep them or raise them.

Even if they are "unwanted", that shouldn't give us the right to kill them, much less tear them limb from limb.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Perhaps then, there might be a better course of action for those who genuinely seek to save the lives of unborn children? Perhaps, forcing a child upon parents who do not want him/her appeals to one's personal political or religious beliefs but in fact, does little for the child? Is forcing a child upon parents who, do not want, will not love, and may not even take care of, "saving a child's life"? I doubt the true motives of some on the "religious right". I believe too many are more political than merciful, more self-righteous than selfless.

Filling the world with unwanted children is not the answer. Can you solve a problem by creating a problem? Putting unwanted children in homes where they are loved, wanted, cherished, nurtured does seem like a much more effective solution. Perhaps limiting abortion and opening up (even subsidizing) adoption is a more earnest, and prudent endeavor, than overturning Roe V. Wade?

This would be an awesome response, if it had been typed before I posted. But I addressed most of these points already. And no one is forcing anyone on anyone. No one says they have to keep them or raise them.

Even if they are "unwanted", that shouldn't give us the right to kill them, much less tear them limb from limb.

So imposing your moral position is more important than a course of action that would actually save more of these children? Sounds like a very hollow "morality".

[TitanTiger 20,482]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Perhaps then, there might be a better course of action for those who genuinely seek to save the lives of unborn children? Perhaps, forcing a child upon parents who do not want him/her appeals to one's personal political or religious beliefs but in fact, does little for the child? Is forcing a child upon parents who, do not want, will not love, and may not even take care of, "saving a child's life"? I doubt the true motives of some on the "religious right". I believe too many are more political than merciful, more self-righteous than selfless.

Filling the world with unwanted children is not the answer. Can you solve a problem by creating a problem? Putting unwanted children in homes where they are loved, wanted, cherished, nurtured does seem like a much more effective solution. Perhaps limiting abortion and opening up (even subsidizing) adoption is a more earnest, and prudent endeavor, than overturning Roe V. Wade?

This would be an awesome response, if it had been typed before I posted. But I addressed most of these points already. And no one is forcing anyone on anyone. No one says they have to keep them or raise them.

Even if they are "unwanted", that shouldn't give us the right to kill them, much less tear them limb from limb.

So imposing your moral position is more important than a course of action that would actually save more of these children? Sounds like a very hollow "morality".

Virtually every law imposes a "moral position" of someone's on other people. For instance, those of us who believe slavery should be illegal did so from a moral position. Others disagreed with this position and saw no reason to treat black people the same as whites. We imposed the position that you can't own people - that people are not objects or property - on those who believed some people were of a higher stature or "more human" than others.

And in fact, a moral position is already being imposed in this situation, and it's startlingly similar to the one described above. The moral position that the child is just some meaningless object subject to the whims of others - "less human" and fit to be brutally killed - is being imposed on the human being in the womb. At least my "imposition" isn't taking another's life. If preventing the death of innocent humans is "hollow", then I question if you even understand the meaning of the term.

So, yes, the idea that a human being should not be torn limb from limb or discarded like some piece of garbage for the convenience of adults is a moral position. And I hope that one day enough of us can rip the blinders off our eyes and see that such treatment is beneath the dignity of the human person - both that of the child and that of the mother and that we "impose" that morality on the rest of us. Sorry, I don't apologize for wanting to impose basic human rights on society.

If you proposed a course of action that would save more children than not killing them, I must have missed it. By all means, please offer it or repeat it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Perhaps then, there might be a better course of action for those who genuinely seek to save the lives of unborn children? Perhaps, forcing a child upon parents who do not want him/her appeals to one's personal political or religious beliefs but in fact, does little for the child? Is forcing a child upon parents who, do not want, will not love, and may not even take care of, "saving a child's life"? I doubt the true motives of some on the "religious right". I believe too many are more political than merciful, more self-righteous than selfless.

Filling the world with unwanted children is not the answer. Can you solve a problem by creating a problem? Putting unwanted children in homes where they are loved, wanted, cherished, nurtured does seem like a much more effective solution. Perhaps limiting abortion and opening up (even subsidizing) adoption is a more earnest, and prudent endeavor, than overturning Roe V. Wade?

This would be an awesome response, if it had been typed before I posted. But I addressed most of these points already. And no one is forcing anyone on anyone. No one says they have to keep them or raise them.

Even if they are "unwanted", that shouldn't give us the right to kill them, much less tear them limb from limb.

So imposing your moral position is more important than a course of action that would actually save more of these children? Sounds like a very hollow "morality".

Virtually every law imposes a "moral position" of someone's on other people. For instance, those of us who believe slavery should be illegal did so from a moral position. Others disagreed with this position and saw no reason to treat black people the same as whites. We imposed the position that you can't own people - that people are not objects or property - on those who believed some people were of a higher stature or "more human" than others.

And in fact, a moral position is already being imposed in this situation, and it's startlingly similar to the one described above. The moral position that the child is just some meaningless object subject to the whims of others - "less human" and fit to be brutally killed - is being imposed on the human being in the womb. At least my "imposition" isn't taking another's life. If preventing the death of innocent humans is "hollow", then I question if you even understand the meaning of the term.

So, yes, the idea that a human being should not be torn limb from limb or discarded like some piece of garbage for the convenience of adults is a moral position. And I hope that one day enough of us can rip the blinders off our eyes and see that such treatment is beneath the dignity of the human person - both that of the child and that of the mother and that we "impose" that morality on the rest of us. Sorry, I don't apologize for wanting to impose basic human rights on society.

If you proposed a course of action that would save more children than not killing them, I must have missed it. By all means, please offer it or repeat it.

It is the same solution you have already recognized. The solution lies in fixing and subsidizing the adoption process. Did you not read the post you responded to?

You continue to promote a legislative action that will not solve the problem. It is time for a more effective, more compassionate, approach.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

It is the same solution you have already recognized. The solution lies in fixing and subsidizing the adoption process. Did you not read the post you responded to?

You continue to promote a legislative action that will not solve the problem. It is time for a more effective, more compassionate, approach.

I was confused because I pointed out how many couples are waiting to adopt and you threw out the 'unwanted' canard all over again.

But the reason I said what I said is because the problem isn't merely utilitarian. Yes, I want to fix the adoption process, which will help with reducing abortions. I also want more support for mothers, more effective laws on child support from men spreading their seed, more support to allow girls that have a baby to be able to stay in school, paid maternity (and paternity) leave that's on par with other industrialized nations, etc. But I also wish for our laws to reflect an understanding that these are human beings with rights we're talking about.

There were those who thought we should hold off granting blacks their freedom because they weren't ready for it, it would cause all sorts of societal problems, there weren't enough jobs, etc. But even if every single one of those concerns were true, it's not up to others to decide the right time for human beings to be given the basic rights their dignity and worth deserves. You do what is right AND you deal with the other problems.

You don't keep killing human beings until we've got all of the kinks in society worked out. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

[alexava 6,973]

It is the same solution you have already recognized. The solution lies in fixing and subsidizing the adoption process. Did you not read the post you responded to?

You continue to promote a legislative action that will not solve the problem. It is time for a more effective, more compassionate, approach.

I was confused because I pointed out how many couples are waiting to adopt and you threw out the 'unwanted' canard all over again.

But the reason I said what I said is because the problem isn't merely utilitarian. Yes, I want to fix the adoption process, which will help with reducing abortions. I also want more support for mothers, more effective laws on child support from men spreading their seed, more support to allow girls that have a baby to be able to stay in school, paid maternity (and paternity) leave that's on par with other industrialized nations, etc. But I also wish for our laws to reflect an understanding that these are human beings with rights we're talking about.

There were those who thought we should hold off granting blacks their freedom because they weren't ready for it, it would cause all sorts of societal problems, there weren't enough jobs, etc. But even if every single one of those concerns were true, it's not up to others to decide the right time for human beings to be given the basic rights their dignity and worth deserves. You do what is right AND you deal with the other problems.

You don't keep killing human beings until we've got all of the kinks in society worked out. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

you hit on more of what i was talking about. all "unwanted" babies are not given up for adoption. they are kept and halfass raised by people who are not ready or willing to be parents. one of the biggest reason we need more prisons. i know people who have adopted, most of them asian or south american girls. they tried domestic adoptions but many those fall apart just about the time of birth and the would be parents lose a lot of money along with their sanity when this happens.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Senate set to vote Monday on defunding PP.

[Weegle777 78]

http://wnep.com/2015...cover-up-smell/

this is a subject i usually stay away from. I am no moral expert. no scientist or lawyer. i do support limits on term length but not sure where to draw the line. but no one against abortion has any input on what to do with over a million unwanted babies every year. i have to go with prevention on this one. the sooner the better.

Exactly, and noone wants you asking the questions that will need to be solved.

Given that there are roughly 36 couples waiting to adopt for every one child that is adopted, I'd say the answer to this question is self explanatory.

Perhaps then, there might be a better course of action for those who genuinely seek to save the lives of unborn children? Perhaps, forcing a child upon parents who do not want him/her appeals to one's personal political or religious beliefs but in fact, does little for the child? Is forcing a child upon parents who, do not want, will not love, and may not even take care of, "saving a child's life"? I doubt the true motives of some on the "religious right". I believe too many are more political than merciful, more self-righteous than selfless.

Filling the world with unwanted children is not the answer. Can you solve a problem by creating a problem? Putting unwanted children in homes where they are loved, wanted, cherished, nurtured does seem like a much more effective solution. Perhaps limiting abortion and opening up (even subsidizing) adoption is a more earnest, and prudent endeavor, than overturning Roe V. Wade?

This would be an awesome response, if it had been typed before I posted. But I addressed most of these points already. And no one is forcing anyone on anyone. No one says they have to keep them or raise them.

Even if they are "unwanted", that shouldn't give us the right to kill them, much less tear them limb from limb.

So imposing your moral position is more important than a course of action that would actually save more of these children? Sounds like a very hollow "morality".

Virtually every law imposes a "moral position" of someone's on other people. For instance, those of us who believe slavery should be illegal did so from a moral position. Others disagreed with this position and saw no reason to treat black people the same as whites. We imposed the position that you can't own people - that people are not objects or property - on those who believed some people were of a higher stature or "more human" than others.

And in fact, a moral position is already being imposed in this situation, and it's startlingly similar to the one described above. The moral position that the child is just some meaningless object subject to the whims of others - "less human" and fit to be brutally killed - is being imposed on the human being in the womb. At least my "imposition" isn't taking another's life. If preventing the death of innocent humans is "hollow", then I question if you even understand the meaning of the term.

So, yes, the idea that a human being should not be torn limb from limb or discarded like some piece of garbage for the convenience of adults is a moral position. And I hope that one day enough of us can rip the blinders off our eyes and see that such treatment is beneath the dignity of the human person - both that of the child and that of the mother and that we "impose" that morality on the rest of us. Sorry, I don't apologize for wanting to impose basic human rights on society.

If you proposed a course of action that would save more children than not killing them, I must have missed it. By all means, please offer it or repeat it.

Well stated Titan. I agree with you on that.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

It is the same solution you have already recognized. The solution lies in fixing and subsidizing the adoption process. Did you not read the post you responded to?

You continue to promote a legislative action that will not solve the problem. It is time for a more effective, more compassionate, approach.

I was confused because I pointed out how many couples are waiting to adopt and you threw out the 'unwanted' canard all over again.

But the reason I said what I said is because the problem isn't merely utilitarian. Yes, I want to fix the adoption process, which will help with reducing abortions. I also want more support for mothers, more effective laws on child support from men spreading their seed, more support to allow girls that have a baby to be able to stay in school, paid maternity (and paternity) leave that's on par with other industrialized nations, etc. But I also wish for our laws to reflect an understanding that these are human beings with rights we're talking about.

There were those who thought we should hold off granting blacks their freedom because they weren't ready for it, it would cause all sorts of societal problems, there weren't enough jobs, etc. But even if every single one of those concerns were true, it's not up to others to decide the right time for human beings to be given the basic rights their dignity and worth deserves. You do what is right AND you deal with the other problems.

You don't keep killing human beings until we've got all of the kinks in society worked out. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

I understand your position. Still, I find your desire to impose your will to be stronger than your desire to take action that will actually promote an effective solution.

It may well be both but, it seems convenient to dwell on the the problem as nothing but a moral issue without any practical measures that actually address all of the associated, implied issues. The moral outrage is nice but again, without real commitment and real results, it seems rather hollow and self-serving.

To me, streamlining and subsidizing the adoption process (both the birth mother and those adopting), negotiating limits on abortion rather than a complete overturning of Roe v. Wade, would save more lives and produce fewer consequences immediately. Is the "all or nothing" strategy convenient or, practical and effective? Is the real goal, furthering your sense of morality or, saving lives? If and when, you impose your idea of conception and what constitutes a human being, are you going to accept any responsibility for those lives after birth?

Remember, I do not disagree with your moral position. I disagree with the idea that waving the magic legislation wand is going to fix the problem. It's too easy, too convenient. I do not believe you can win the war on abortion any more than you can win the war on drugs. I think it is time to stop claiming moral superiority and start actually doing what it takes to save lives, meaningfully. I think it is time to do something that places an emphasis on the true value on human life, not a value on one's morality.

[homersapien 11,373]

Efforts to reduce abortion have to be directed toward the women (and men) involved. It's not an issue that should involve government.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Efforts to reduce abortion have to be directed toward the women (and men) involved. It's not an issue that should involve government.

I disagree. I think there is a duty to impose limits. I think the real problem is politics, not the government.

However, I think I understand the gist of what you are saying. Government cannot/should not be a force for imposing morality but rather, reflect a common moral standard? Of course, that requires a compromise which will be unacceptable to some. A democratic government cannot/should not seek to solve this problem? It cannot effectively be solved in the political arena? Is this a social/moral issue that society should resolve and, our laws should reflect?

Perhaps the tolerance of "big government" is relative to the issue at hand? Perhaps, "big government" is more a function of partisanship and, unwillingness to compromise than it is the policies of either dominant ideology? Perhaps the competitive desire for one's ideology to dominate is, in itself, destructive within the framework of democracy and, a government of the people? Is the concept of democracy losing favor?

Is any of this even relative to your post?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I understand your position. Still, I find your desire to impose your will to be stronger than your desire to take action that will actually promote an effective solution.

I think that's a big statement for someone who knows, literally, nothing about me on a personal level, where my money goes, or what efforts I support.

It may well be both but, it seems convenient to dwell on the the problem as nothing but a moral issue without any practical measures that actually address all of the associated, implied issues. The moral outrage is nice but again, without real commitment and real results, it seems rather hollow and self-serving.

I've clearly stated that I see this as a moral and practical matter. I think as a moral matter, that is the most important. After all, this isn't esoteric, abstract hypotheticals we're discussing here. Human beings are being killed. Some who can feel pain are being ripped limb from limb. But, realizing that it's going to take some time to change hearts and minds on this, I'm supportive of efforts to reduce or eliminate the financial pressures that lead to abortion as well as the obstacles and financial burdens to adopt.

So, I'm all about practical efforts to reduce the desire for abortion but I'm not content to let that be it.

To me, streamlining and subsidizing the adoption process (both the birth mother and those adopting), negotiating limits on abortion rather than a complete overturning of Roe v. Wade, would save more lives and produce fewer consequences immediately. Is the "all or nothing" strategy convenient or, practical and effective? Is the real goal, furthering your sense of morality or, saving lives? If and when, you impose your idea of conception and what constitutes a human being, are you going to accept any responsibility for those lives after birth?

You keep throwing out this "all or nothing" notion, which really makes me question whether it is my posts you are reading, or some version that you think people like me want that you've read into my posts.

Remember, I do not disagree with your moral position. I disagree with the idea that waving the magic legislation wand is going to fix the problem. It's too easy, too convenient. I do not believe you can win the war on abortion any more than you can win the war on drugs. I think it is time to stop claiming moral superiority and start actually doing what it takes to save lives, meaningfully. I think it is time to do something that places an emphasis on the true value on human life, not a value on one's morality.

Again, I don't think the moral and the practical are mutually exclusive.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I understand your position. Still, I find your desire to impose your will to be stronger than your desire to take action that will actually promote an effective solution.

I think that's a big statement for someone who knows, literally, nothing about me on a personal level, where my money goes, or what efforts I support.

I believe I qualified my statements properly.

It may well be both but, it seems convenient to dwell on the the problem as nothing but a moral issue without any practical measures that actually address all of the associated, implied issues. The moral outrage is nice but again, without real commitment and real results, it seems rather hollow and self-serving.

I've clearly stated that I see this as a moral and practical matter. I think as a moral matter, that is the most important. After all, this isn't esoteric, abstract hypotheticals we're discussing here. Human beings are being killed. Some who can feel pain are being ripped limb from limb. But, realizing that it's going to take some time to change hearts and minds on this, I'm supportive of efforts to reduce or eliminate the financial pressures that lead to abortion as well as the obstacles and financial burdens to adopt.

So, I'm all about practical efforts to reduce the desire for abortion but I'm not content to let that be it.

Fine but, I believe that the political efforts have the ability to undermine the real and practical efforts. How much do you divert from actions that can make an immediate impact to, the efforts to impose an absolute ban? Have you considered all of the possible implications of an absolute ban?

To me, streamlining and subsidizing the adoption process (both the birth mother and those adopting), negotiating limits on abortion rather than a complete overturning of Roe v. Wade, would save more lives and produce fewer consequences immediately. Is the "all or nothing" strategy convenient or, practical and effective? Is the real goal, furthering your sense of morality or, saving lives? If and when, you impose your idea of conception and what constitutes a human being, are you going to accept any responsibility for those lives after birth?

You keep throwing out this "all or nothing" notion, which really makes me question whether it is my posts you are reading, or some version that you think people like me want that you've read into my posts.

Could be. I admit that I detect something more from your posts than a genuine desire to effectively solve the problem (certainly in the near term). Perhaps it is the absolute insistence that you and, those like minded, are absolutely correct and, that ends the discussion. Or, possibly that, while I can appreciate the emotional side of the argument, I just do not see how it helps.

Remember, I do not disagree with your moral position. I disagree with the idea that waving the magic legislation wand is going to fix the problem. It's too easy, too convenient. I do not believe you can win the war on abortion any more than you can win the war on drugs. I think it is time to stop claiming moral superiority and start actually doing what it takes to save lives, meaningfully. I think it is time to do something that places an emphasis on the true value on human life, not a value on one's morality.

Again, I don't think the moral and the practical are mutually exclusive.

Can one undermine the other? Even potentially?

Can this be a sincere statement coming from someone with such an absolute position?

[homersapien 11,373]

Efforts to reduce abortion have to be directed toward the women (and men) involved. It's not an issue that should involve government.

I disagree. I think there is a duty to impose limits. I think the real problem is politics, not the government.

However, I think I understand the gist of what you are saying. Government cannot/should not be a force for imposing morality but rather, reflect a common moral standard? Of course, that requires a compromise which will be unacceptable to some. A democratic government cannot/should not seek to solve this problem? It cannot effectively be solved in the political arena? Is this a social/moral issue that society should resolve and, our laws should reflect?

Perhaps the tolerance of "big government" is relative to the issue at hand? Perhaps, "big government" is more a function of partisanship and, unwillingness to compromise than it is the policies of either dominant ideology? Perhaps the competitive desire for one's ideology to dominate is, in itself, destructive within the framework of democracy and, a government of the people? Is the concept of democracy losing favor?

Is any of this even relative to your post?

My assumption is that the pro-lifers's ultimate goal is to make abortion illegal. That places government in direct, authoritative control of what should be a personal (private) issue for the woman and whomever else she wants to involve.

[Weegle777 78]

Ending a life is murder. Murder is illegal. At least it used to be.