Free adoption as a solution to abortion

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:59 am

Today's St. Paul Pioneer Press had the following story.

Mom Left Baby, with no question unasked

It noted that Minnesota has a law that, as long as a baby is presented to a hospital within 72 hours of birth and is 'unharmed', the baby can be left at the hospital to become a ward of the state, no questions asked.

In this particular case, the hospital screwed up a bit by asking questions they shouldn't have, but overall, the law has seemed to work, even if it has been used very sparingly.

Question:

Is this a reasonable policy?

Could Christian and other opponents of abortion support this policy?

Would this or a similar policy in conjunction with a ban on most abortions be a possible compromise between abortion foes and abortion rights advocates?

To avoid having the thread digress, please let's not get into the rationale for why abortion is right or wrong. The thread is intended to focus on this particular policy and whether those who disagree on the morality of abortion could support the policy or not, and why or why not.

We could discuss what 'most' means in the context of banning most abortions. Again, I will ask posters to focus on 'what they could live with' or what might prove 'doable' in the political and social context of the U.S, not what is right or wrong. We are assuming for the purposes of this thread that those that disagree on the rightness or wrongness of abortion are not going to change their minds, and neither side is likely to 'win' the morality debate within the political realm.

Ronin · Post by **Ronin** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:30 am

I thouth this was policy for most states. I think most Christians would go for this. Who would of thouht... an open minded Christian.. the world has surely ended!!

Jacurutu · Post by **Jacurutu** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:56 am

The reason women would have an abortion is not limited to having to care for their children afterwards. Pregnancy lasts for nine months, and a lot of that time is pretty miserable, what will morning sickness, being unable to drink or smoke, gaining lots of weight, bodily aches and pains . . . not to mention that whole "giving birth" thing. Therefore, I doubt that this would end abortions.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:56 pm

micatala wrote:
Cephus wrote:I honestly have no problem requiring that all women be implanted with Norplant at age 12 and it doesn't get removed until they're married and have passed, along with the prospective father, parenting classes. But if you think you opened a can of worms before, I just opened a bigger one.

You know, this might actually be an interesting idea to discuss. Yes, it obviously does open a big can of worms as it would be a huge change in current practice. However, is it really so unreasonable?

After all, we require people to be 16, pass a written test and a driving test, and show proof of insurance before we let them drive. This is for the safety of the person licensed as well as everyone else.

Is there not at least a slightly similar justification for regulating procreation? If a 14-year old gets pregnant, there are certainly fairly extreme ramifications for her and her parents, though not necessarily the wider society. There is also some slightly higher chance of death in the short term. If the girl or her parents do not handle their responsibilities, then the state is saddled with caring for the new child. If she has an abortion, there are some potential consequences for the girl, in addition to the cost.

Major problem; Catholics view any birth control as in violation of Gods will. And I think, I can't remember where I heard this, so I may have to research it a bit more: but I am going to put it out in the mean time: most politicians are Catholic (or at least the majority).

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:03 pm

Confused wrote: Major problem; Catholics view any birth control as in violation of Gods will. And I think, I can't remember where I heard this, so I may have to research it a bit more: but I am going to put it out in the mean time: most politicians are Catholic (or at least the majority).

Yes, the Catholic church teaches that birth control is wrong. However, the vast majority of Catholics feel this teaching is wrong and many ignore it.

I am sure there are a number of Catholic politicians, including congresspersons, but I highly doubt it is a majority. I believe we have had only one Catholic President ever (JFK) which doesn't indicate the Catholics have as much political power as you seem to be thinking.

In fact, I found the numbers here.

At present, 22.7% of Americans call themselves Catholics, which means the total number is around 61 million persons.

The increase of Catholics in the United States is also reflected in Congress, where they are the largest religious group. Currently, 153 congressmen are Catholics. Of the total number of Catholic legislators, 25 are in the Senate and 128 in the House of Representatives.

So, we have about 28% of Congress being Catholic. Among these, there are certainly many who do not consider it promote Catholic doctrine in their legislation, and there have been some very prominent disagreements between Catholic politicians and the Catholic heirarchy. Witness Presidential Candidates John Kerry's disagreement with his Massachusetts bishop over abortion policy.

jacurutu wrote: The reason women would have an abortion is not limited to having to care for their children afterwards. Pregnancy lasts for nine months, and a lot of that time is pretty miserable, what will morning sickness, being unable to drink or smoke, gaining lots of weight, bodily aches and pains . . . not to mention that whole "giving birth" thing. Therefore, I doubt that this would end abortions.

I certainly accept my proposal has a long road to hoe to become reality.

It also will not convince people who believe there is nothing wrong or harmful about abortion to change their stance. Certainly if one thinks of abortion as 'safe, effective birth control', one is not going to see any reason for its elimination or even that it would be good to reduce it in numbers or restrict it in any way.

However, in the current climate, the debate seems to be 'all or nothing.' My state is poised to possibly pass an extremely restrictive ban on all abortions, with essentially no exception for rape, incest, health of the mother, etc. Now, I do not equate abortion with murder, but I do consider it violence, and I do think it speaks very badly of our society that many consider it 'no big deal.' I would prefer to have reasonable allowances for extreme circumstances, but I do not consider the current 'abortion on demand' policy as appropriate either. It seems to me exploring creative options that are not at either extreme would be worthwhile.

Jacurutu · Post by **Jacurutu** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:35 pm

Society exists now such that the choice for abortion does exist -- that is the middle ground. No one is forcing people to have abortions in the United States; no one is ripping fetuses out of the wombs of pregnant women. Furthermore, I doubt that women go in and get abortions without considering their actions beforehand -- it's not the sort of thing that you go in and do in an offhand way. If a person is pregnant and against having an abortion, the avenue of adoption has been available for a very long time. The real issue is that there are also numerous solcial pressures (by local culture and family) not to give up any child to adoption. Furthermore, the actual act of giving birth is an intense and very charged event, and there is a large neurochemical release in the mother that immediately attaches her to her child once the child is born. It seems less likely that a woman will give up her child at this point, regardless of her ability to care for that child. Anyway, it is important to make both options equally accessible and not give preference to one.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:18 pm

Confused wrote:
micatala wrote:
Cephus wrote:I honestly have no problem requiring that all women be implanted with Norplant at age 12 and it doesn't get removed until they're married and have passed, along with the prospective father, parenting classes. But if you think you opened a can of worms before, I just opened a bigger one.

You know, this might actually be an interesting idea to discuss. Yes, it obviously does open a big can of worms as it would be a huge change in current practice. However, is it really so unreasonable?

After all, we require people to be 16, pass a written test and a driving test, and show proof of insurance before we let them drive. This is for the safety of the person licensed as well as everyone else.

Is there not at least a slightly similar justification for regulating procreation? If a 14-year old gets pregnant, there are certainly fairly extreme ramifications for her and her parents, though not necessarily the wider society. There is also some slightly higher chance of death in the short term. If the girl or her parents do not handle their responsibilities, then the state is saddled with caring for the new child. If she has an abortion, there are some potential consequences for the girl, in addition to the cost.
Major problem; Catholics view any birth control as in violation of Gods will. And I think, I can't remember where I heard this, so I may have to research it a bit more: but I am going to put it out in the mean time: most politicians are Catholic (or at least the majority).

You are correct. It is the whole 'things must be natural' concept. They will accept the rythem method, but people who use the rythem method tend to be called 'parents'.

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:07 am

Personally I find it incredible that those who seem to enjoy waving flags and abusing women who enter abortion clinics are the ones most opposed to a more realistic attitude towards teen sex and birth control

It is inconceivable to me that people would actually raise their children with a mindset that doesn't even consider them ever having sex.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but regardless of what church you go to, or what god you don't believe in, your children will eventually have sex.

I am in full support of tax incentives to encourage parents to put their daughters (and with recent promising results in potential male bc) and sons on some type of long term birth control.

We deny children access to schools if they don't have their shots, but we ignore the fact that biology and maturity don't often run at the same pace.

People who raise their children with such a taboo on sexuality not only endanger their children's futures, they make their children potential targets. If you aren't willing to take adequate time to raise a child who has a healthy understanding of human sexuality in perspective, there is always someone out there willing to teach them how to be taken advantage of. Whether that person is another youth just along for the ride, or an adult to use them for their own sick purpose.

I fail to understand why the abortion issue is debated as a legal one, it is not. It is a sexuality issue. Simple math, reduce unwanted pregnancies, and you will reduce the number of people who have an abortion.

And to all you sign wavers out there, What are you waiting for? Roe v Wade might be around another decade, but the answer needs no supreme court. Nor does it require punitive actions towards women who often are in financial or personal situations that are bad enough already.

Quit fighting basic biology and get realistic. European teens have sex later, with fewer partners, have less abortions and a lower rate of STDs. Perhaps we should see what they are doing that we aren't.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:05 am

Vladd44 wrote:Personally I find it incredible that those who seem to enjoy waving flags and abusing women who enter abortion clinics are the ones most opposed to a more realistic attitude towards teen sex and birth control

Look at the people you're talking about though. These are people who don't have a realistic attitude about ANYTHING! They believe in magical sky pixies, after all.

It is inconceivable to me that people would actually raise their children with a mindset that doesn't even consider them ever having sex.

To anyone with half a clue, yes, it is inconceivable, but remember who we're talking about here.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but regardless of what church you go to, or what god you don't believe in, your children will eventually have sex.

And studies show that the more you try to force them not to, the earlier and more often they'll do it.

I am in full support of tax incentives to encourage parents to put their daughters (and with recent promising results in potential male bc) and sons on some type of long term birth control.

I'd be in favor of requiring, by law, every single girl between the ages of 15-18 to be implanted with Norplant to stop pregnancy. No choices, no options, you get it done and when you turn 18, you have to demonstrate that you're responsible enough to actually care for a child, then you get to have it out. This whole culture has gone to hell, people are breeding, not because they should, but because they can.

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:10 pm

Brother Cephus,

I agree that to expect rational thought from irrational people is a bit of a stretch. But truth be told, I dont think most xians understand what it is they claim to believe in enough to be guilty of believing in very much.

I'd be in favor of requiring, by law, every single girl between the ages of 15-18 to be implanted with Norplant to stop pregnancy.

Of course I cannot go with you on this, I am not a fan of government intervention.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:31 pm

Cephus wrote:
Vladd44 wrote:Personally I find it incredible that those who seem to enjoy waving flags and abusing women who enter abortion clinics are the ones most opposed to a more realistic attitude towards teen sex and birth control
Look at the people you're talking about though. These are people who don't have a realistic attitude about ANYTHING! They believe in magical sky pixies, after all.

It is inconceivable to me that people would actually raise their children with a mindset that doesn't even consider them ever having sex.
To anyone with half a clue, yes, it is inconceivable, but remember who we're talking about here.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but regardless of what church you go to, or what god you don't believe in, your children will eventually have sex.
And studies show that the more you try to force them not to, the earlier and more often they'll do it.

I am in full support of tax incentives to encourage parents to put their daughters (and with recent promising results in potential male bc) and sons on some type of long term birth control.
I'd be in favor of requiring, by law, every single girl between the ages of 15-18 to be implanted with Norplant to stop pregnancy. No choices, no options, you get it done and when you turn 18, you have to demonstrate that you're responsible enough to actually care for a child, then you get to have it out. This whole culture has gone to hell, people are breeding, not because they should, but because they can.

I am not. There is this little matter of side effects. The use of hormones does have the potential of increasing cancer risks. Therefore, I feel it is every person who wishes to use a hormone to educate themselves on the risks, and decide of the risk/benefit ratio is right for them.