Any idea how long the wait to adopt a child is Stevepax? Any concept of what families incapable of bearing children have to go through?
Stevepax- Is it possible that if I had been fighting against abortion thirty or forty years ago, I could have saved you?--Or did save you?
Mortkat wrote:Stevepax- Is it possible that if I had been fighting against abortion thirty or forty years ago, I could have saved you?--Or did save you?
Nice try Deadcat, but my mother aborted 3 long before it was legal. I am here nonetheless. Legality stops nothing, it just makes it more safe if it is. You're not going to stop abortion, you'll just change how it's done.
Stevepax wrote:Mortkat wrote:Stevepax- Is it possible that if I had been fighting against abortion thirty or forty years ago, I could have saved you?--Or did save you?
Nice try Deadcat, but my mother aborted 3 long before it was legal. I am here nonetheless. Legality stops nothing, it just makes it more safe if it is. You're not going to stop abortion, you'll just change how it's done.
Mortkat doesn't care about protecting women's health. He's foaming at the mouth in hopes that the Supreme Court will approve a N.H. statute that fails to provide a medical emergency exception for pregnant teenagers in the throes of a medical crisis. He doesn't care that a young woman's health is substantially endangered or ruined so long as the state can legally enforce a delay in medically-necessary treatment.
Why is abortion a political issue?
Why, because it stems from legislative actions and legislative actions, especially on such a critical issue, always involve politics.
It is clear that laws forbidding abortion were held by most states not too long ago. In fact, prior to 1973, not a single state had such unrestricted abortion such as abortion on demand.
The idea that there has been no movement on this issue is wrong. In fact, laws involving parental notification and partial birth abortion have been passed in many states.
We shall see whether Roe Vs. Wade will be revisited after Judge Alito is confirmed by the US Senate in January 2006 .
I think there is good reason to believe that Roe Vs.Wade will not be revoked but that it will be cut to pieces by state legislation which will, in effect, make abortions difficult to get.
While some would call that a bit silly to vote against something even if you agree with it simply because you fear a it will lead to further votes on something you support, you gotta do what you gotta do.
I appreciate your response but am still wishing to get a response (possibly from Debra_Law) to my original question. I don't think there is a response because I have never known any doctor to claim that an abortion is so much an emergency that parents cannot be properly notified to give consent. To me, this is simply a way of making sure that if someone, even a minor, wishes to have an abortion that she be allowed to do so without any outside influence (re: her parents). Yet for any other medical treatment, a minor needs parental consent prior to treatment unless it is an emergency. And if there is some emergency out there that would neccesitate an immediate abortion, then it is not neccessary to state that in any law requiring parental consent, is there?
Gosh, if my thinking is wrong here, please someone help me out.
Debra_Law wrote:Stevepax wrote:Mortkat wrote:Stevepax- Is it possible that if I had been fighting against abortion thirty or forty years ago, I could have saved you?--Or did save you?
Nice try Deadcat, but my mother aborted 3 long before it was legal. I am here nonetheless. Legality stops nothing, it just makes it more safe if it is. You're not going to stop abortion, you'll just change how it's done.
Mortkat doesn't care about protecting women's health. He's foaming at the mouth in hopes that the Supreme Court will approve a N.H. statute that fails to provide a medical emergency exception for pregnant teenagers in the throes of a medical crisis. He doesn't care that a young woman's health is substantially endangered or ruined so long as the state can legally enforce a delay in medically-necessary treatment.
Just for my info, but could you give me a reason that an abortion would have to be performed as a medical emergency that cannot wait for a parent's notification and approval? I mean, I understand that doctors must often perform medical services on minors without parental permission when such treatment is done in an emergency and parents are not handy to give consent. But I am unaware of any reason why an abortion needs to be done as an emergency procedure. And if there is one (certainly a possibility), then couldn't it be done under the same guidelines as any other emergency treatment right now and even if this law were passed?
While some would call that a bit silly to vote against something even if you agree with it simply because you fear a it will lead to further votes on something you support, you gotta do what you gotta do.
McGentrix wrote:Any idea how long the wait to adopt a child is Stevepax? Any concept of what families incapable of bearing children have to go through?
Any time you want to adopt achild, there are thousands of special needs kids just waiting for someone to step up ... RIGHT THIS SECOND! Not to mention the thousands worldwide that need parents RIGHT THIS SECOND. There's no need to create any more unwanted children.
Stevepax wrote:McGentrix wrote:Any idea how long the wait to adopt a child is Stevepax? Any concept of what families incapable of bearing children have to go through?
Any time you want to adopt a child, there are thousands of special needs kids just waiting for someone to step up ... RIGHT THIS SECOND! Not to mention the thousands worldwide that need parents RIGHT THIS SECOND. There's no need to create any more unwanted children.
You're right, there are thousands of "special needs" kids waiting for someone to adopt them.
And your point is?
It's (your point) difficult to fathom, but it seems that you are somehow suggesting that childless couples should adopt "special needs" kids rather than argue against abortion.
Now, we all now that "special needs" is a euphemism for "difficult," or "trouble."
This is not to say that these poor children don't need loving families, because surely they do and God bless those who find it in themselves to brave the problems associated with a "special needs" kids and adopt them, but is there any reason to implicitly sneer at couples who choose not to adopt "special needs" kids?
On the one hand we have individuals who have no problem with fertility (except that they are fertile) whom stevepax feels it is perfectly OK for them to end the lives of their "unwanted" children.
On the other , we have infertile couples who, unless they are quite rich and look to overseas opportunities, are never going to have but one adopted child, and who seem to be considered by stevepax as somehow shallow because they do not want to to take their first (and only) step into parenthood with a child that, tragically, comes equipped with a load of baggage.
Arguing that abortion somehow addresses the issue of unwanted children is amazingly facile.
Every healthy, white baby born in America is wanted, and if born to a reluctant mother, will be adopted in the blink of an eye.
The unwanted children are non-white, disabled or older than two years of age.
Since there are hundreds of thousands of such unwanted children, it would seem that abortion ain't doing the trick.
It would seem that you pro-abortion mavens (particularly those of you who predicate your position on the issue of "unwanted children") need to do a better job in making sure that the women who are likely to give birth to an "unwanted baby" make the choice for abortion.
Stevepax wrote:McGentrix wrote:Any idea how long the wait to adopt a child is Stevepax? Any concept of what families incapable of bearing children have to go through?
Any time you want to adopt achild, there are thousands of special needs kids just waiting for someone to step up ... RIGHT THIS SECOND! Not to mention the thousands worldwide that need parents RIGHT THIS SECOND. There's no need to create any more unwanted children.
You're right, there are thousands of "special needs" kids waiting for someone to adopt them.
And your point is?
It's (your point) difficult to fathom, but it seems that you are somehow suggesting that childless couples should adopt "special needs" kids rather than argue against abortion.
Now, we all now that "special needs" is a euphemism for "difficult," or "trouble."
This is not to say that these poor children don't need loving families, because surely they do and God bless those who find it in themselves to brave the problems associated with a "special needs" kids and adopt them, but is there any reason to implicitly sneer at couples who choose not to adopt "special needs" kids?
On the one hand we have individuals who have no problem with fertility (except that they are fertile) whom stevepax feels it is perfectly OK for them to end the lives of their "unwanted" children.
On the other , we have infertile couples who, unless they are quite rich and look to overseas opportunities, are never going to have but one adopted child, and who seem to be considered by stevepax as somehow shallow because they do not want to to take their first (and only) step into parenthood with a child that, tragically, comes equipped with a load of baggage.
Arguing that abortion somehow addresses the issue of unwanted children is amazingly facile.
Every healthy, white baby born in America is wanted, and if born to a reluctant mother, will be adopted in the blink of an eye.
The unwanted children are non-white, disabled or older than two years of age.
Since there are hundreds of thousands of such unwanted children, it would seem that abortion ain't doing the trick.
It would seem that you pro-abortion mavens (particularly those of you who predicate your position on the issue of "unwanted children") need to do a better job in making sure that the women who are likely to give birth to an "unwanted baby" make the choice for abortion.
The bottom line is that regardless of whether one is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, an argument that the world needs abortion because it doesn't need any more "unwanted babies" is ludicrous.
