Let's Get Rid of Roe

Mort K A T--As a reader of posts, you are the one who fails. I wrote my post in such a manner that even a person with a kindergarten level of understanding should be able to comprehend. If you don't have the skills necessary to understand the relevance of my post in relation to the "right of privacy" issue addressed by the justices in Roe v. Wade, you ought to take a course in reading comprehension or forget it.

0 Replies

Address Douglas and Black's quotes directly-- Take the quotes and show their relevance word for word. I am sure you cannot do that so you hide behind meaningless generalizations.

As I said- You flunk with a F. Not even a D minus.

0 Replies

Of course, Debra L A W , cannot explain the meaning of Douglas's "penumbras formed by emanations". That's because Douglas became the laughing stock of the legal profession when he wrote such bovine excrement.

0 Replies

Oh unwise one--why don't YOU show me, word for word, why my post is NOT relevant. I am sure you cannot do that, so you hide behind your meaningless criticisms. I already wrote in a manner that was comprehensible to someone of kindergarten level. Accordingly, your childish demand that I spoon-feed you like a baby is denied.

0 Replies

Yes, You have not told me what "penumbras formed by emenations" mean and just where the "penumbras" formed by the "emanations" are found in the Constitution.

I am sure that you will deny that the phrase concerning "penumbras" and "emanations" are one of the most parodied and laughed at phrases in modern constitutional law.

But then you don't really know much about specifics in law--all you do is gasbag using generalizations.

Again, TAKE THE WORDS OF BLACK AND DOUGLAS WORD FOR WORD AND SHOW WHY THEY ARE CORRECT OR INCORRECT.

If you can't do that, go to read some of the wisdom and knowledge of Thurgood Marshall- the laziest Supreme Court Justice in recent memory.

0 Replies

Debra Law
Where in the constitution does it give the President the right to overturn congressional law and constitutional law by royal, oops, I mean presidential decree. Ive looked at the constitution and the way I read it he is supposed to push law, not overturn it.

0 Replies

rabel22:

Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution requires Congress to present legislative bills to the president for his approval. The president has the power to veto the legislation; the Congress has the power to override a presidential veto. The portion of the Constitution that allows what is known as a "pocket veto" is highlighted in bold below:

Quote:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

0 Replies

My question wasent about his power to veto. It was about his ability to overide law as passed by congress and overide constitutional law with a presidential proclimation as he did in wire taps without court approval. Isent this what King George did to the continental states during the 1700. Isent that why our continental congress wrote the constitution to protect our right to privecy. Is bush any different from King George. When did the president acquire the power to declare a law void on just his word.

0 Replies

Rabel 22- Do you read the newspapers? If you do, you may have noted the following- Chicago Tribune-Sunday December 18th--

Nancy Pelosi( you do know who she is, don't you, rabel?) was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee when President Bush first authorized the wiretaps said that she HAD BEEN INFORMED AT THE TIME, BUT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WIRETAPS>( I can find no charges emenating from Pelosi at the time showing her concern)

Senator Cornyn(R) Texas, said that CONGRESS WAS CONSULTED AT LEAST TWELVE TIMES CONCERNING THE WIRE TAP PROGRAM SINCE PRESIDENT BUSH INITIATED THE PROGRAM.

If you feel that the information above is inaccurate, please rebut it, using evidence and documenation, of course, otherwise it stands.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

My question wasent about his power to veto. It was about his ability to overide law as passed by congress and overide constitutional law with a presidential proclimation as he did in wire taps without court approval. Isent this what King George did to the continental states during the 1700. Isent that why our continental congress wrote the constitution to protect our right to privecy. Is bush any different from King George. When did the president acquire the power to declare a law void on just his word.

Your first post wasn't clear. This "clarifying" post isn't much better. If you want to talk about "wire taps" with respect to recent revelations about President Bush's domestic spying program, there are other threads on that topic.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

See also the respondent's Supreme Court brief:

Quote:

The Act provides no exception for medical emergencies in which delaying an abortion will cause serious medical damage short of imminent death.

The undisputed record in this case, however, establishes that some pregnant minors experience medical emergencies that will not cause imminent death but that nonetheless require immediate abortions to prevent severe and permanent harm to their health. Respondent Dr. Wayne Goldner -- a New Hampshire obstetrician and gynecologist -- submitted an uncontested declaration providing examples of such conditions. As set forth in his declaration, those emergency conditions include preeclampsia, which is "a form of pregnancy-induced hypertension"; chorioamnionitis, which is "a serious infection of the placental lining"; other pelvic infections; and heavy bleeding from the uterus. . . .

As Dr. Goldner further explained, in many such emergencies the "teen needs an immediate abortion to prevent serious harm to her health." Dr. Goldner's declaration provides a cataglogue of the serious medical harm that minors face if they do not receive the immediate medical attention that is clinically indicated, including permanent damage to major organ systems, particularly the liver and kidneys; fluid in the lungs; the spread of infection throughout the body; loss of vision; permanent loss of fertility; and chronic pain. In short, these pregnant teens face the "real risk of a lifetime of permanent, significant health problems" as a result of the delays inherent in complying with the Act.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1144_Resp.pdf

Thanks for the response Debra_Law. I've looked over the list of risks that Dr. Goldner claims would qualify as a medical emergency. I don't see anything here that would preclude waiting for a parent to be notified that their daughter is choosing to have an abortion. I mean, notifying parents is a rather simple procedure, I would think. A nurse gets a phone number from the child and calls the parent.

Admittedly, I'm not a doctor. But if the medical diagnosis was anything other than pregnancy, I don't think any doctor would be doing any medical procedure on a minor without parental consent based on anything Dr. Goldner lists. But then, the agenda, in my opinion, is not a child's health, but rather some perverted view that abortion trumps anything else, including a parent's right to help minor children make medical decisions.

Ah well, guess we will continue to disagree on this one.

Merry Christmas Debra_Law.

0 Replies

"The health of the mother" is important, of course, but that issue comes in only infrequently. The "health of the mother was a sop thrown in by the abortion lobby. Coastal Rat is quite correct that a phone call to parents would not have a great deal of effect on "the health of the mother".

It is interesting to note that one of the patron saints of the Democratic Party- Jimmy Carter has been quoted on the subject of abortion:

"As I say in this book( Our Endangered Values) I have never believed that Jesus Christ would approve abortions unless the mother's life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest."

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
See also the respondent's Supreme Court brief:

Quote:

The Act provides no exception for medical emergencies in which delaying an abortion will cause serious medical damage short of imminent death.

The undisputed record in this case, however, establishes that some pregnant minors experience medical emergencies that will not cause imminent death but that nonetheless require immediate abortions to prevent severe and permanent harm to their health. Respondent Dr. Wayne Goldner -- a New Hampshire obstetrician and gynecologist -- submitted an uncontested declaration providing examples of such conditions. As set forth in his declaration, those emergency conditions include preeclampsia, which is "a form of pregnancy-induced hypertension"; chorioamnionitis, which is "a serious infection of the placental lining"; other pelvic infections; and heavy bleeding from the uterus. . . .

As Dr. Goldner further explained, in many such emergencies the "teen needs an immediate abortion to prevent serious harm to her health." Dr. Goldner's declaration provides a cataglogue of the serious medical harm that minors face if they do not receive the immediate medical attention that is clinically indicated, including permanent damage to major organ systems, particularly the liver and kidneys; fluid in the lungs; the spread of infection throughout the body; loss of vision; permanent loss of fertility; and chronic pain. In short, these pregnant teens face the "real risk of a lifetime of permanent, significant health problems" as a result of the delays inherent in complying with the Act.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/05-06/04-1144_Resp.pdf

Thanks for the response Debra_Law. I've looked over the list of risks that Dr. Goldner claims would qualify as a medical emergency. I don't see anything here that would preclude waiting for a parent to be notified that their daughter is choosing to have an abortion. I mean, notifying parents is a rather simple procedure, I would think. A nurse gets a phone number from the child and calls the parent.

Admittedly, I'm not a doctor. But if the medical diagnosis was anything other than pregnancy, I don't think any doctor would be doing any medical procedure on a minor without parental consent based on anything Dr. Goldner lists. But then, the agenda, in my opinion, is not a child's health, but rather some perverted view that abortion trumps anything else, including a parent's right to help minor children make medical decisions.

Ah well, guess we will continue to disagree on this one.

Merry Christmas Debra_Law.

A nurse's phone call doesn't suffice to satisfy the statutory notification provisions. The law requires the doctor (not the nurse) to personally deliver written notice to the parent at the parent's abode. Alternatively, the law allows the doctor to send written notification to the parent via certified mail, restricted deliver, return receipt. The law requires a 48 hour waiting period AFTER the parent is personally served with written notice. If the doctor fails to follow the notification provision and/or fails to wait the required 48 hours, the doctor is subject to both civil sanctions and criminal penalties.

If a doctor has an unconscious teen patient who can't provide the parental notification information or a teen patient who refuses to notify her parents, there are no adequate means for the doctor to deal with the medical emergency. A judicial bypass system is not the functional equivalent of a medical emergency exception.

Based on the teen's application, the judicial bypass system is designed to determine 1) whether the teen is mature enough to make the decision on her own, or 2) even if she is not mature enough, whether the abortion is still in her best interests. If a court determines a teen is mature enough to make the decision on her own, the court MUST authorize the abortion without requiring the teen to notify her parents. The judicial bypass system is not designed to deal with medical emergencies. The judicial bypass system is not designed to allow a judge to approve or disapprove of a doctor's medical judgment.

The KEY holding of Roe v. Wade is that the STATE may regulate abortions and may even prohibit post-viability abortions EXCEPT in cases, based on a doctor's good-faith medical judgment, that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or HEALTH of the woman. The Constitution requires a medical emergency exception to all state regulations that require any delay.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

"The health of the mother" is important, of course, but that issue comes in only infrequently. The "health of the mother was a sop thrown in by the abortion lobby. Coastal Rat is quite correct that a phone call to parents would not have a great deal of effect on "the health of the mother".

It is interesting to note that one of the patron saints of the Democratic Party- Jimmy Carter has been quoted on the subject of abortion:

"As I say in this book( Our Endangered Values) I have never believed that Jesus Christ would approve abortions unless the mother's life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest."

So what if the medical emergency exception is rarely invoked?

The vast majority of pregnant teens will consent to the notification requirement or will seek a court order to bypass the notification requirement. The vast majority of pregnant teens are NOT in the throes of a medical emergency when they seek to terminate their pregnancies. But, what about the pregnant teens who ARE in the throes of a medical emergency? FOR THEM, the Constitution requires a medical emergency exception to any state regulation that delays an abortion.

We're not talking about the time it takes to make a phone call. The notification provision at issue in New Hampshire has a 48 hour mandatory waiting period AFTER parental notification.

0 Replies

I certainly see your point Debra. But I'm still not quite convinced any of the problems listed by Dr. Goldner would qualify as an emergency that cannot wait the required time.

You say it is a good faith judgement on the part of the doctor as to whether or not it is an emergency. Doesn't that sound a bit like a conflict of interest when the abortion doctor may fear that if he doesn't decide it is an emergency, that the parents may just talk their daughter out of the abortion and thus rob him of income? I would hope doctors would have more ethics than that, but we both know better than to think they all would. Dr. Goldner's "emergencies" seem very broad indeed, at least to me.

Granted, you seem to believe that an emergency would be a very rare thing. I totally agree that from everything I have read, a true emergency would be very rare indeed. But somehow I think emergencies would be more common place unless the applicable "emergencies" were spelled out in the law. Of course, I could be wrong. (And hope I am wrong that this would be the case)

0 Replies

Stevepax wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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?

My point is that if you want a child, there are plenty to adopt. That was easy!

And once again facile. Do you understand why first time parents might not want to adopt a special needs child? Your attitude seems to be "The hell with those infertile couples. If they really want a kid, then they should be willing to adopt a special needs child."

Given the fact that there are quite a few fertile couples who are aborting babies because they anticipate that they will be of the special need variety, it is interesting that you can sympathize with their desire to abort such unwanted children but not with an infertile couple reluctance to adopt one.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

You are SO quick! That's exactly what I mean!

No, not really. It usually takes me a while to find the point of such muddled thinking.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Now, we all now that "special needs" is a euphemism for "difficult," or "trouble."

Not necessarily. It doesn't have to mean "difficult" or "trouble" at all. I think you are talking about children with personality problems. You can correct me if I am wrong. Special needs can mean anything from simple disabilities to very troubling issues. These children need parents worse than most!

I'm not focusing on children with personality problems. Down Syndrome children are children with special needs. Spina Bifida babies are children with special needs. Babies with gross deformities are children with special needs. These are the sort of unwanted special needs babies that are being, regularly, aborted by fertile couples.

These children do need parents. I don't know how one child can need parents more than another, but certainly they need parents. If your argument was that fervent Pro-life advocates have a special obligation to adopt these children then I would agree with you. You know what? Many do, but clearly there are not enough people adopting special needs kids, and if one is to argue that such children should never be aborted then there is an associated obligation to see that they are not raised by The State or a series of mercenary foster folks.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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?

Sneering? Not really, but I will concede this. If a loving Christian couple who abhore abortion are serious about adopting, they should be loving and Christian enough to snap up one of those children that are already here who need parents the most! If they're not willing to do that, they aren't as Christian and loving as they like to act, and they shouldn't have a problem with abortion.

You keep insisting that these special needs children need parents "the most." All children need parents equally. If children are born without special needs but do not receive loving parenting, they will become kids with special needs soon enough.

However, unwanted does not equal special needs. There are plenty of physically normal fetuses that are aborted because they are inconvenient (unwanted).

If one argues that no child should be aborted, no matter what handicaps or deformities they may evidence in utero, then, again, I agree that one has an obligation to exert as much or more time and energy towards seeing that the unaborted special needs baby is properly cared for.

In my opinion, this is a failing in the Pro-Life mindset: Quality of life does have meaning. There is nothing particularly wonderful about arguing that life must be preserved no matter what the quality of that life may be. It is not enough to argue that the Down Syndrome baby should not be aborted. There are no laws that prohibit parents from turning a Down Syndrome child over to the State, and if there were, there can never be a law that requires couples to be loving and nurturing parents. Walking away from an institutionalized child feeling smug that one saved them from abortion is hardly the mark of one of God's children.

Without a corresponding willingness to provide the unwanted with quality of life, advocation for their live birth is hollow.

Having said this, there certainly is room for someone to oppose abortions of convenience, and not be obligated to adopt children with special needs.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

Yep, you are 100% correct. I feel that the pregnant woman has the choice as to whether she carries to full term or not! It's her body, and her choice! Yep, gotta agree with that one all ther way!!

So, for you, it is strictly a matter of the woman's choice? After 8 months of pregnancy she decides she would rather have a BMW, and so abortion is A-OK. A woman learns she is pregnant with a boy, but would rather have a girl and once again abortion is A-OK. A women allows herself to get pregnant so that she can coerce a man to marry her. He does, but she's not ready for a kid and so shortly after the honeymoon, -abortion - A-OK?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

It is not the pregnant womans fault that the couple is infertile. It is not the pregnant womans fault that they aren't rich. It is not the pregnant womans fault that they may only get one shot at parenthood. It is not Steves fault that these conditions exist. It is not his problem, and he has no business sticking his big nose in their business. It's not for him to decide someone elses fate, and he won't do it.

MOST IMPORTANTLY! It is not the pregnant womans duty to carry a child she does not want to carry, and deliver this child so that poor Joe and Mary lunchbucket can have a pearly white child. It isn't her duty, it isn't her job, and it isn't her problem!!

No it is not. Pregnant women have no obligation to infertile couples.

Alas, you have not chosen to leave it here.

You are arguing that infertile couples should not oppose abortion unless and until all of the special needs kids have been adopted, and I have already explained why I think this is wrongheaded.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Arguing that abortion somehow addresses the issue of unwanted children is amazingly facile.

I'm sorry Finn, but with respect to the woman that is pregnant with the unwanted child, it takes care of it quite well!!

I'm sorry Steve-O but that's practically the definition of facile. How many of the special needs kids do you think were unwanted before their birth? How many of these kids do you think the State forced their mothers to bear? The vast majority of these kids could have been legally aborted if their mothers did not want them while they were fetuses. Abortion is easy and prevalent. Surely the problem of unwanted special needs children is not a problem of restricted abortion. What would you suggest? A better test for whether or not a mother will want her kid after birth and a policy of forced abortion for those who do not pass?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

That's fine, if it is the choice of the woman with the unwanted child to carry it to full term and deliver it to Joe and Mary. However as pointed out before, she is in no way obligated to provide Joe and Mary with that perfect pearly white child.

This is hardly the dominating argument you perceive it to be.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
The unwanted children are non-white, disabled or older than two years of age.

And they need parents more than most. Joe and Mary should be happy to open that loving Christian home to one of these horribly unfortunate children.

Again with the "more than most."

If Joe and Mary (Gosh, do we have an allegory going on here?) argue that special needs children should not be aborted, then yes, they have an obligation to help make a home for the children who are born against the will of their mothers.

If Joe and Mary argue that abortions of convenience should not be legal than they have no larger duty to make a home for the children who they might agree should be aborted.

You have this sneering perception of Christians that taints your entire argument. Not all Christians oppose abortion. Some Christians find that abortion in certain circumstances in OK.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

You are 100% correct, we should make certain that abortion is available to those who need it most! Matter of fact, we should make it a free service for them. Like I said, you are right on the button with this one!

So what will you do about the children who are welcomed by their mothers to the world, but who, afterwards, become unwanted?

Infanticide? A law that requires all professed Christians to adopt them?

What is your obligation to these children? It is all well and good that you insist that infertile couples adopt them, but what is your role? Or is it our position that you have paved the way for abortion of any and all unborn children and therefore if the mother was stupid enough to not avail herself of this way out then what's a progressive brother to do?

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.

You just contradicted your statement in the previous paragraph!

Only if you are incapable of perceiving sarcasm.

It is exactly what we need to do in conjunction with aggressive sex education and free methods of contraception available to anyone who wants it.

And again I ask you want is to be none with the babies who are wanted, but who become unwanted as toddlers?

[/quote]

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
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.

What is truly "ludicrous" is your unwanted vs. wanted babies argument.

Finn tells us that people (apparently, WHITE people) are against abortion in order to increase the pool of adoptable white babies and to hell with those non-white or disabled babies (especially if they're over the age of two). Nobody wants those babies. They aren't adorable. Those are the babies that should have been aborted. Although Roe v. Wade has done nothing to rid this country of the scourge of those damn unwanted problem babies, it has diminished the wanted supply of those desireable and adorable little white babies necessary to ease the pain for infertile white couples--so we have to get rid of Roe v. Wade.

Finn's anti-abortion cry: "Infertile white couples don't want non-white problem babies--no one wants those babies--infertile white couples want perfect little white babies--ban abortion to increase the supply of wanted white babies."

When are you going to make up banners and organize a rally to the capitol city to deliver your anti-abortion message to the whole country?

Incoherent nonsense.

0 Replies

Several points (sorry, where I work, this forum is filtered out, limiting my ability to read responses):

1.) No one answered why abortion is a political issue but restated that it is a political issue.

2.) A child who is labeled special needs may have all sorts of problems, from spina bifida to depression. Most are learning disabled and many are physically disabled as well. I have substitute taught in special needs classrooms. Special needs children can destroy a marriage. It takes a lot of emotional and mental energy to raise one of these children.

3.) Part of the reason why it takes so long to adopt a kid is too many parents want the blue-eyed blonde package.

4.) Frankly, I was surprised that people offered to adopt the baby born to the girl in the first Dr. Phil family.

5.) Does anyone have any data on how many adoptions are really successful? By successful, I mean where the family remains intact and the kids turn out alright. I'm thinking of a friend who adopted a boy after having her reproductive system destroyed by the birth of her first kid. The natural born child was a success but the adopted child was sent to live with another friend.

6.) I recently read a piece written by a young emergency room doctor about mothers who deliver in the ER. First of all, these are largely young kids who are in denial about being pregnant and who seek to hide the pregnancy from their parents. Second, the lack of care these women received during their pregnancies meant for some pretty rough births. In each case the doctor described, the baby was still born or died shortly there after. One was encephaletic (sp?) and the other had been dead in utero because the mother had blood pressure problems. Pooh-Poohing health risks to the mother does not make anyone look sophisticated.

7.) Why should the parents necessarily be consulted? Had my own daughter (28 this month) become pregnant as an unmarried teenager, I would have wanted her to have an abortion. Had my daughter elected for me not to know about a pregnancy, it would have been fine with me.

8.) I think there is nothing worse than a young woman who gives her baby up for adoption. We all know of women who have had multiple pregnancies and adoptions. Tubal ligation is the correct route for them.

0 Replies

Let's Get Rid of Roe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know