"Our adoption systems (plural as there is no single system) aren't bad when it comes to infants and that is what we are talking about here. Would be parents in the US find it difficult to adopt newborns because they are so rare. Sure, the public subsidized adoption of orphans (i.e. foster care) has got issues, but that isn't infants usually unless the infant is a special needs child do to a crackhead mother or other infirmity. A haelthy infant baby *will* find parents and will find them quickly. "

Having adopted and having been a foster parent, I'm going to say from experience that you'll need to add the word "white" in with healthy and infant in that last sentence. They even tell you that (and give you the stats) in the very first training class as a foster parent. Also, even foster care isn't 100% government subsidized, several non-profits work with the government on it. And if someone were to decide to become a foster parent, I heavily suggest that you go that route instead of directly through the state. Gives you an added layer of protection when someone decides to make your life shitty (which WILL happen).

The right to life trumps the right to choice. If ther mother's life is at risk, then the mother's right to life trumps the baby's if she so chooses. But the rights are as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, in order of precedence. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. And why do I make the assertion of that order? Because the framers were on the majority of the Christian and/or Jewish background and knew the 10 commandments were in order of priority according to God and that these rights were bestowed upon us by "the Creator" and would have put them in the Creator's order as they believed them to be.

So yes, the baby's right to life is a hihger right than the mother's right to Liberty and/or Pursuit if happiness unless you consider the baby both before and after birth to have less importance and therfore fewer rights than the mother or that somehow the act of being removed from mommy meant the Creator suddenly and magically endowed the baby with equal rights it didn't have before. Life, then Liberty, then the Pursuit of Happiness. Otherwise, any serial killer could claim their right to the Pursuit of Happiness trumped their victims rights to Life.

@SD - government subsidized doesn't in any way imply or explicitley state 100% government funded. I never said that so that is a fallacious argument. But I should have clarified "white" as you are correct. Asians also get adopted quickly, but black and/or hispanic have a much tougher time of it.

Peg and I were considering adopting an older child (grade school age) as we have the room and the love for one, but she is 57 and I'm 46 and it's tough in Ohio to become older parent's legally. But we may try anyhow (or even foster to adopt) as Ohio is in need of parents for older kids and willing to wave the age limitation under those circumstances. And we fully intended to do the training approach (it's actually the law in Ohio for fostering).

I don't see the relevance of this argument at all Draugnar. You're begging the question again. You're simply asserting once again that an unborn fetus has a right to life. I'm arguing that it doesn't. Not to the same extent as a person. It's exactly the case that a fetus is less important than the woman it lives within. Thank you once again for summarizing my point perfectly. And yes, I do think that rights extend to a baby once they're born. I don't think it has anything to do with a creator, but if you feel it does, then sure. It has to happen at some point. Why not then?

And again, the analogy to a serial killer is illegitimate as a serial killer's victims ARE NOT LIVING INSIDE HIM.

I think it's very telling that the pro-life side of this debate is so completely incapable of remembering or simply mentioning that a fetus lives inside of a woman. It's not about her for them. She doesn't matter, all that matters is the unborn fetus.

I adopted an older child, and yeah, parents of older children are severely in need. I don't think there is an age requirement here a state north of you, just a "fitness" requirement (you have to pass a pretty basic physical and even if you don't, there's methods of still doing it). I was not intending to argue with you, although I may have slightly misread, but that's okay, you misread me too. EVERY foster parent needs training, I was talking about something a little different.

I could go to the Department of Human Services (in some states this is called Youth and Family Services, whatever) and become a foster parent there. Or I could go to a reputable non-profit such as Catholic Social Services or some such and enroll there. I highly recommend enrolling with someone other than the state. You still get paid the same. You're still in the same "pool." It's just a matter of what happens when someone accuses you of something. If you are through the state, you're working with the same people who are investigating you and there's severe conflict of interest. If you're through another agency, they'll be (at least theoretically) working for you.

Also, the non-profits tend to be better staffed than the government so if you have a question like "what happens when x?" they can answer it in a more timely fashion.

Still nothing on government-subsidized birth control? This compromise would render all of the moral questions involved irrelevant for a huge number of women and unborn children at a tiny cost to the taxpayers.

But I guess that finding mutually agreeable compromises is no longer in style. The right only wants to win moral points.

@Mafia - Then I guess we have to disagree because I believe a life that can exist outside the womb should be granted the same rights as a life that has managed to escape that prison of darkness.

@AWB - Birth control, government funded or not, has three flaws. First, it is no guarantee of avoiding pregnancy when used. Second, in the heat of the moment, it is often not at hand. And third (only applies to government funded), why should I pay for some college girl to party it up and get her rocks off (or for some college senior guy to get his rocks off fucking the little freshmen girls)? I'm not here to pay for their entertainment. Let their mommies and daddies do that.

Oh, and I sure as fuck am not paying for them to have an abortuion either. Sorry, they got knocked up, they can pay for it by being *responsible*. Now, rape/incest cases are a different story. Birth control has nothing to do with them for obvious reasons and there should be some government funding to help the victims of rape with their financial situation as a result of that extremely intimate crime (oh wiat, ther is! The victims of violent crime fund!).

Sigh. Wow. Male privilege much Draug? It's your place to dictate the moral and medical choices for women, but it's not your responsibility how they got themselves there? Ugh. Disgusting. Dis-fucking-gusting.

The thing is, in many of those cases you're going to end up paying for that sex anyway, Draug. Most colleges have free condoms at their health centers, so those don't tend to be the places where the government sponsored free condoms would be going. No, the birth control in these situations would be going to people who would be very likely to have the children removed from them eventually or need government assistance for their children. You'd be paying for that sex after it happened, and a lot more, or you'd be paying a much more minimal cost for some rubbers. Personally, I'd choose the cost savings of the rubbers.

@Draugnar: 1 and 2 are false because The Pill and The Shot. As for 3, I'm more concerned about the working single mom who can't afford another kid OR birth control OR a gun, whom you won't let have an abortion if she gets raped (more likely if she's low-income) or her moral restraint slips. Either pay for the shot now or pay for food stamps and prisons later. As much as you'd like to see all "individual responsibilities" compartmentalized into nuclear-family islands, everyone WILL have to deal with the consequences of women not having access to birth control.

As for the after-the-fact measures, why not the ounce of prevention to keep more money in the victim fund?

@AWB - You are seriously deluded if you think *any* form of birth control beyond sterilization is 100%. Yes, the pill and the shot are always at hand cause they are active when taken (assuming one doesn't forget), but they are not 100% effective. In that, *you* are mistaken.

And if you refer to the new shot for men out of India. we are talking women's rights here. The men have no say. That is the argument. If the men have no say, they also have no responsibility. If I were single and some woman told me I had to get a shot so she wouldn't get pregnant, I would say "sign this piece of paper stating if you do get pregnant while we are sexually active that you will carry the baby to term and I will get the shot". With priviledge/freedom comes responsibility. If it is the woman's right to choose, it is here responsibility to A) choose the right partner and B) protect herself. To do otherwise is to admit the inferiority of womankind a snot being responsible for their actions.

This issue is just like all others: Conservatives base their opinions on hard, unadaptable philosophical views that are untethered to reality... and everyone else base their opinions off of evidence and pragmatism.

I don't intend on being too much of a bomb-thrower in here, but it's pretty plain to see.

@AWB - Once again you ingore the point someone is making. I never said rape victims couldn't get abortuions. I never said women can't get them at all. I believe up through the 2nd trimester any woman should be allowed to choose. But only when the life of the mother is at risk should third trimester abortions even be considered.

Twist words much? Learn to read ever?

@TWA - how is an insistence that a woman who has had 6 fucking months to decide if she wants the baby or not, be forced to carry to term (early term if necessary) a life that can now survive without her unless that life threatens her own?

A rape victim will decide to get rid of it or not very quickly after discovering she is pregnant from that rape, so rape doesn't come into play in the third trimester.

My view is reasoned and comes from evidence and pragmatism. Evidence that the baby is now alive (not just a life or even a human life, but able to survive the world without a biological incubator) and pragmatism in that it gvies the mother 6 fucking months to choose.

I'm with Draug on this one. 3rd trimester abortions that aren't done as a direct result of danger to the mother are highly suspect. However, I believe there are very few of these cases.

I support abortion in all cases up through the end of the second trimester. A lot of women don't even realize they're pregnant yet in the first trimester, my wife didn't. Once it gets to the third trimester, I would agree that IN MOST CASES there has now been enough time to decide, and as the pregnancy progresses the danger to the mother increases.

Wow, you're a nice guy.

"Yes, the pill and the shot are always at hand cause they are active when taken (assuming one doesn't forget), but they are not 100% effective. In that, *you* are mistaken."

I didn't say they were, and I don't see how that makes any kind of difference.

"And if you refer to the new shot for men out of India. we are talking women's rights here."

I wasn't talking about that... but I can't see any reason why I shouldn't be. Sure, free shots for men too. Get the shot, don't become a pop. Everyone wins.

"The men have no say. That is the argument. If the men have no say, they also have no responsibility. If I were single and some woman told me I had to get a shot so she wouldn't get pregnant, I would say 'sign this piece of paper stating if you do get pregnant while we are sexually active that you will carry the baby to term and I will get the shot'."

I don't think you'd be having sex with her at that point.

"With priviledge/freedom comes responsibility. If it is the woman's right to choose, it is here responsibility to A) choose the right partner and B) protect herself. To do otherwise is to admit the inferiority of womankind a snot being responsible for their actions."

There's that "individual responsibility" mantra again... and again, I ask what happens when it breaks down? It's one thing to talk about your moral ideals for human behavior, it's quite another to deal with what actually happens in the real world. Women get raped. Women have heat-of-the-moment flings. Not all of them have MY strength of moral restraint (I'm actually abstinent, by the way, because I don't like sex).

I don't see how your disapproval of someone else's sexual conduct has anything to do with preventing abortions from being necessary in the first place through a bit of public expenditure.

Though I thought it obvious, I should probably point out that I wasn't specifically referring to anything you said, Draug.

@TWA - Thatwasawkward when I had to point out that abgemacht and SD are generally in agreement with me.

"Once again you ingore the point someone is making. I never said rape victims couldn't get abortuions."

The GOP says that.

"I never said women can't get them at all. I believe up through the 2nd trimester any woman should be allowed to choose."

That's cool.

"But only when the life of the mother is at risk should third trimester abortions even be considered."

That's perfectly fine as long as you're serious about being pro-choice for the first two trimesters and the abortion doesn't get delayed by administrative procedure until it's too late.

"Twist words much? Learn to read ever?"

I didn't twist a damn thing. My argument was that if you don't allow abortions, you have to provide free birth control. You're pro-choice until the third trimester (but still aren't okay with preventive birth control, for some vaguely moralistic reason).

@AWB - You claimed my argument #1 (that boirth control isn't 100%) was invalid because of the shot and the pill. *You* claimed this. So *you* made the argument and now you are saying it isn't relavent? Di why did *you* make the argument to begin with. <*facepalm at AWB's stupidity*>

Individual responsibility never breaksdown. The individual maybe become irresponsible, but then they deal with the consequences *for themselves*! I've covered the women get raped previously in that same message (you just selectively read it) and said I'd support any and all measuers financially to helping the woman whether she wants to keep the baby, give it up for adoption or about it in the first two trimesters. I already do in the victims of violent crime fund in my state.

And I neither disapprove or approve of their sexual activity. I don't give a fuck if the girl fucks the entire football team or the boy fucks the whole cheerleading squad. I just care that they take responsibility for their actions and, if they can't, that those who *are* responsible for their actions (parent's for teenagers) foot the bill for the after effect. Remeber, I'm only against third term abortions being a choice unless it is to protect the life of the mother.

The question is: what if the person who is responsible in the end analysis is...you? That is, if the child is going to be born into a situation where no one is able to care for it so it's going to be a drain on the state whether through WIC or similar programs or becoming a ward of the state. Surely you're not advocating that an unfit parent be forced to parent?

"My argument was that if you don't allow abortions, you have to provide free birth control."

False. The third option is I'm against thrid trimester abortions and against paying for any abortion that isn't a result of rape, so I expect people to pay their own way. I get that, realistically, I'm paying one way or another. But I expect people who are old enough to live on their own and fuckto be mature enought o pay their own way in *all* aspects of life and take responsibillity for their actions and I expect the parents to take financial responsibility for the actions of those living under their roofs.

@SD - Of course not. That is why we have adoption agencies and foster care and the like. Again, we come back to my restriction being to one where the mother's life isn't at risk and the child is clearly viable outside the womb which is actually later than the start of the thrid trimester but it makes for a simple line in the sand as it were. And my abhorence to paying for another's abortion or birthcontrol is a matter of adults taking responsibility for their own actions. the reality is I'm going to pay one way or another for irresponsible assholes. But I have a right to bitch about it and at least have TPTB declare them irresponsible assholes even if unofficially than paying for everyone to get a free ride. Maybe some of the freeloaders in the "pay for borth control" scenario will earn responsibility and get some fucking pride that they would learn/gain if everything is handed to them for free. you grow up wuick when major changes to your life occur and you suddenly take on the responsibility fo/to another person, be it marriage or child birth.

If I had the choice between just paying a little more in taxes for universal birth control or have to pay for a kid in foster care who will probably end up in jail, I think the choice is clear.

I have an idea: let's built one fewer black hawks each year and use that money to give everyone birth control.

I can speak from experience when it comes to how good the Pill at least is. I've been one it 9 years and have never had a pregnancy, opps or whatever. Also, I do tend to forget taking it at the same time every day. It's like 99% accurate in preventing pregnancy. I know the shot is suppose to be a bit better. The other option is a IUD which physically prevents a pregnancy from happening.

From reading these comments it seems the majority, not everyone, is ok with 1st and 2nd trimester abortions. Why can't this be accepted as a reasonable compromise between both sides? I understand third trimester abortions only in the case of the mother's life or if some truly dreadful malformation has occured.