Banjo Paterson.

Thankyou for the four links. The two that speak about forced abortions seem to be just as real an issue today on a culture that forces mothers to abort, instead of seeing if this is the right choice for the women they persuade. The factors back then about the hardships and the shame of having a baby out of marriage and at a young age still exists. It's just that the persuasive force to force mothers to give up their babies has been moved to abortion instead of adoption.

The link about the mass graves of church adoption and orphanages and the link on a short list of adoption related scandals internationally were both eye opening. These point to a need to reform adoption when it's needed. The solution is not to replace it with abortion. Adoption is likely the last option a mother wants to take because of the heartache. If the mother wishes to keep the child and raise them up, I support that wholeheartedly. (I would look for solutions to make this a more supported option so that the parent isn't alone after they make this decision).

Even with the scandals to fix, adoption is a better option then abortion is. Neither should be forced on women who want to keep their children.

SteelRedux.

Start a topic on OLO. Three point to address is that capital punishment can't be fairly looked at without looking at the crimes that the punishment is called for; the chances of an innocent person being killed; and the cost of capital punishment. Each of those are worth balancing to see if there are situations that are of value for the practice, or if it's off balance and unfit as a whole. The only way to really judge it is by looking at as a whole instead of sidelining one issue and ignoring the rest.

Regardless, I lean more so against capital punishment. But when I hear about serial murderers and serial rapists, I don't lean against capital punishment at all. Start another topic and we can discuss the matter more.

To CHEERFUL,

Regarding abortion due to not remembering, that logic can be applied to those born as well. For instance I don't remember anything at one year old or earlier. One problem with many abortion rationalizations is that they can just as easily be applied to newborns or young babies. This is one of those rationalizations. A rule of thumb is that if the rationalization can be applied to a newborn which should not be killed (I hope most of us agree on that), then the rationalization is without merit and should be applied neither to babies newly born, nor to those still in the womb.

As for the right to abort or the right to life. Consider this. Do you ever compromise on your beliefs of right and wrong? If and when you have, were those justified compromises, or were they points where you just didn't live up to your standards, not that those standards are wrong? Here's my point, if a person's view of something being right or wrong is in error, then it should be changed, given rational reason, or experience without understanding the reasons to say "that standard was wrong." Then change and strive to not compromise your values still. Hope that makes sense.

As for the history trip a hundred years ago (or more) I would say that losing a life then was just as tragic as it is today. That it happened more often does not remove the harshness of it to the people and the families that lost someone due to injury or infection.

To Saltpetre.

You are explaining your position, and I am explaining mine. It's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I don't agree with it. I explained why on the issues I gave. Both for being against abortion, as well as a side topic that often comes up in abortion discussions, that men have no right to speak in the conversation (unless they agree that abortion is good, then let them speak). I can go into more detail if you want. But it is my opinion that the kind of rationalizations that tell one demographic or another to be silent actively fuels sexism, racism and any other prejudice. Both by adding resentment by the ones told to be quiet, as well as polarizing more those who in the vacuumed of silence make even more brash and unrealistic slander on the population that don't speak up and defend their case.

In the arguments for abortion, and that "it's a woman's body, it's her choice" the counter arguments that it isn't her body it's the baby's body, and the woman already made her choice when she had sex. A choice that the baby now suffers the consequence for if the mother deicides to kill him or her. If any of these counter arguments are made by a man, then those arguments are often left alone and instead focused on that it was a dirty man who has no business to say anything on abortion. Or it was a (insert insulting term here) Christian.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Adoption isn't the answer to an over sexed culture that no longer care to keep it in their pants or even tries to any more. But it is a solution to abortion. Namely because there are plenty of couples that want to have children and can't. More of that population then there are of willing mothers who would be willing to let their newborn be adopted. With that in mind (at least for now) adoption is always a solution because there is a surplus of people wanting and willing to be adoptive parents. If no other alternative come about where a child is adopted by a family member and the mother still gets to have contact with the child they gave birth to, then there is still the option of adoption agencies finding a suitable parent and the mother that gave birth loses contact with them. It's still a solution because it doesn't involve killing the baby.

Finding more solutions involve dealing with the underlying problems that are there before someone gets pregnant, and are likely problems still there after someone decides to abort. Abortion should not be a solution to poverty, to domestic abuse, to adultery, to teenagers with no restraint, and to any and all the issues that are faced in the world and ignored .... Until someone gets pregnant. I hope that helps understand my position. Abortion is a crime against the young that is sold as a solution to all issues ignored in the world. It's not just that all life is sacred, it's that abortion is just wrong.

NNS,

" .... the woman already made her choice when she had sex."

Ah, so Mary wasn't the only one to have an immaculate conception ? It happens all the time ? Or, perhaps, maybe, is it possible that there may have been a man involved who also wanted to have sex ? Slam, bam, thank you ma'am for one, perhaps nine months + labour + eighteen years of caring, for the other ? Plus a bit of social shaming ?

Certainly any man who has been involved in impregnating a particular woman may be entitled to have a say in whether or not the ensuing pregnancy should go to term - IF he is prepared to pay all costs while the woman can't work, until the child is, say, eighteen. I don't think any other man has any right to intrude into those decisions.

Then we get Trump, in his half-witted way, suggesting that women should go to jail if they have an abortion. So ..... it's not any sort of crime if a man has sex with a woman (or many woman) even if he is already married, but it is a crime if a woman seeks to terminate an embryo ? It's a weird world. If I were a woman, I would suspect that it's a bit skewed.

Joe

'Believe me, Runner, you are not a baby.'

believe it or not Joe there are multitudes of women that are opposed to butchering unborn babies.