You're damn right I think adoption is far preferable to death, yes. I have two adopted nieces living in the furthest thing from a "less than suitable environment." I think it would be terrific if there was a reversable sterilization technique. Then we could all screw as much as we want and not have to worry about conception until we're emotionally and financially prepared to do so. As far as forced sterilization, heck, I'm all for it in the cases of those welfare moms who keep pumping out kids just to get bigger payments from the state. Many of those kids grow up unloved, in squalor, with no role models other than the drug dealer on the corner, get no education, and turn to crime. Look at that if you wanna gripe about being raised "in a less than suitable environment."
1. unfortunately, history has shown many times, that the law and ethics, morality and sense are not always in line with one another. as an american citizen, i respect and abide by the supreme courts decisions, but i do not agree with all of them. no one knows when "life" begins and for the supreme court or even the medical establishment to state they do is foolish. 2. killing a potential human life is far worse than condemning a child to a mother who does not want it. many people have risen above very very bad circumstances to add to the good of society. i am 100% for FULL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS in all matters, except when those rights infringe on others as when one's right to an abortion infringe upon the rights of the potential human life to exist. 3. yes, i concur with this. EXCEPT in horrendous, with out doubt cases when capital punishment may be permissible. 4. not accurate. one cannot extrapolate population growth in that manner. natural population control measures like war, disease, etc etc will certainly keep your projection from occurring. in addition, population growth is cyclical, ebbs and flows and sometimes becomes non existent as another poster pointed out on this thread ( japan ). i know nothing about chinese policy and cannot comment on your statements. 5. not accurate 6. i agree with you on these points. most pro lifers seem to have some alternative motives and research must continue for better and more effective contraceptives. furthermore, the pro life lobby needs to spend money on adoption and abortion alternatives if they are to be taken seriously. best, surfer
Since we don't know if the fetus is actually "life" you cannot make this statement from fact. Many unwanted children wish they were never born.
My perspective, is that given there is no scientific proof that a fetus is life, it cannot be considered murder. Yes, many do believe it is murder based on their religious beliefs, but until such time that science can establish that fact, it is just a medical procedure. If you are serious about your taking away the right for women to have an abortion, due to the protection of life, should men be given the right to legislate how women care for their children when born? Should men legislate that women should breast feed, stay at home rather than work, not smoke or drink during pregnancy, diet, etc.? Where does it end? The central issue, is who gets the right to decide? A woman on a case by case situation, or the government made up of men who make the laws?
it's the fact that we don't know if the fetus is life, why abortion is the wrong choice. it has nothing to do with religious beliefs but rather thought and reason have led me to these conclusions. the fetus, life or not, cannot decide for itself therefore it must be protected untill it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that it is not "life". surfer
If the fetus is not life as human life is legally defined, then there can be no murder. I failed to see you establish through thought and reason that a fetus constitutes life, in the same way a child once born is life. The fetus is "potentially" a child, but the issue is at what point from conception to birth does it constitute the same legal protection as granted to children and humans living outside of a womb. To further complicate it, bring in the cloning issues. It is the separation of church and state that is the core of our constitution, and laws are "supposed" to reflect moral and ethical decisions devoid of religious and political bias. Personally, I am against abortion, see it as a very last resort for a woman, yet also believe it is not my final decision to make, but hers.
you are continually missing my point. i don't establish that it is life only that it may be life. this is a logical and reasonable assumption. it is because we do not know if the fetus is a child and the fact that is may be is exactly why it must be protected at all stages of development. this is not a male/female or religious issue ( athough many confuse it to be ) but rather an issue of everyones rights born and unborn. the fundamental right to life supercedes most other rights. if the fetus is not human life, then abortion is no big deal. if the fetus is human life, abortion is a big deal. no one knows the answer to this question. unless you are a nihilist like dan, you must side with the possibility that it is life untill proven otherwise, not the other way around. best, surfer
no YOU are the one that's friggin CLUELESS!! It's not about YOU, it's all about another potential LIFE! Quit thinking of yourself for once!