(May 16, 2018 at 7:45 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Just as an example as to why it's not the cure-all Pro-lifers tend to think it is, not an absolute rule. The assumption is that adoption will be a better life for a baby than living in a home that can't handle it. The Berkowitz case is an example of why this is not always true. Yes, it is an extreme case, but it does undermine the Pro-life point. There may be some cases where absolutism works, but it simply cannot work for all cases. That was the whole point I've been trying to hammer throughout not only that post, but the entire thread. It's not "don't send your babies up for adoption because he could grow up to be a serial killer." It's that adoption is not the panacea many think it is.

I don't think anyone ever claimed adoption cures the serious mental problems that Berkowitz had.

That may be, but adoption tends to be the silver bullet for pro-lifers. Don't think you can fit a kid in your schedule? Put it up for adoption! Your pregnancy causing a nervous breakdown so severe you're willing to kill yourself if you can't get rid of it? Just wait and put it up for adoption! My point is it's not all it's cracked up to be. Maybe I could have brought up the many who DON'T end up with good homes (or any homes at all), but the Berkowitz case is more familiar with me. Really, from my research, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Pro-lifers really tend to have a rose-tinted view of the other options.

(May 17, 2018 at 8:05 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: That may be, but adoption tends to be the silver bullet for pro-lifers. Don't think you can fit a kid in your schedule? Put it up for adoption! Your pregnancy causing a nervous breakdown so severe you're willing to kill yourself if you can't get rid of it? Just wait and put it up for adoption! My point is it's not all it's cracked up to be. Maybe I could have brought up the many who DON'T end up with good homes (or any homes at all), but the Berkowitz case is more familiar with me. Really, from my research, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Pro-lifers really tend to have a rose-tinted view of the other options.

You may note: all those arguments still apply after birth. Do you still have the same solution to the problem; at that time?

No one said, that doing the right thing is the easy thing.

I don't think I've ever seen any "pro life" arguments that don't drastically oversimplify the issues.

I think it's worth noting that whether or not abortion should be legal is not the same question as whether it is moral, either.

Quote:By around twenty weeks gestation, a human fetus can taste, dream, hear its mother’s voice, experience comfort and distress, and possibly (though it’s disputed) feel pain.

At 20 years a lot of ex-fetuses can't support themselves and are still living in mommy's basement.  

If a woman wants to have one, fine.  If she doesn't want to have one, that's fine too and I see no reason at all for me telling her that she has to give birth to it because she got unlucky one time when she got laid.

(May 17, 2018 at 8:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 8:05 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: That may be, but adoption tends to be the silver bullet for pro-lifers. Don't think you can fit a kid in your schedule? Put it up for adoption! Your pregnancy causing a nervous breakdown so severe you're willing to kill yourself if you can't get rid of it? Just wait and put it up for adoption! My point is it's not all it's cracked up to be. Maybe I could have brought up the many who DON'T end up with good homes (or any homes at all), but the Berkowitz case is more familiar with me. Really, from my research, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Pro-lifers really tend to have a rose-tinted view of the other options.

You may note: all those arguments still apply after birth. Do you still have the same solution to the problem; at that time?

No one said, that doing the right thing is the easy thing.

Sometimes, there really isn't any good thing to do, and it's really just a matter of trying to figure out which one is the least bad thing.

(May 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 8:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You may note: all those arguments still apply after birth. Do you still have the same solution to the problem; at that time?

No one said, that doing the right thing is the easy thing.

Sometimes, there really isn't any good thing to do, and it's really just a matter of trying to figure out which one is the least bad thing.

So if the choices are to love and care for another human being, or to kill it, and focus on my career, which option do I choose? How about career or let someone else care for that child? Which of these is the least bad?

(May 17, 2018 at 8:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Sometimes, there really isn't any good thing to do, and it's really just a matter of trying to figure out which one is the least bad thing.

So if the choices are to love and care for another human being, or to kill it, and focus on my career, which option do I choose?  How about career or let someone else care for that child?  Which of these is the least bad?

If a human has the mental capacity of a cat or chipmunk is it really a human in the ways that matter?

(May 17, 2018 at 8:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Sometimes, there really isn't any good thing to do, and it's really just a matter of trying to figure out which one is the least bad thing.

So if the choices are to love and care for another human being, or to kill it, and focus on my career, which option do I choose? How about career or let someone else care for that child? Which of these is the least bad?

And you're sure you actually have someone else who can take care of the child, and won't fuck it up so bad they'll probably wonder if they wished their birth mother actually had that abortion? Or that you yourself can do so?

Quote: So if the choices are to love and care for another human being, or to kill it, and focus on my career, which option do I choose?

Which ever one YOU want.  You see, that's what "choice" means.