A Question of Morality

Would you support the criminalization of abortion if there was a clause making it legal for people of any sexual orientation to adopt children?

I think it would be wrong to agree to extend civil rights to one group by taking away the civil rights of women to control their own bodies. To me, the real moral question is whether the religious community has the right to impose their morality on society as a whole. A religious person views abortion as a sin, while an agnostic looks at it as a medical procedure. This is really a non-issue because most states already allow gay couples to adopt.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_adoption

It always struck me as strange that the same people that are against abortion are also against them being adopted by same sex couples. It just seems counter-productive. I also wonder how many LBGT people would become pro-life if adoption was on the table for them.

sparks wrote:

This is really a non-issue because most states already allow gay couples to adopt.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_adoption

You really think it's a simple non-issue? They don't make it easy for a heterosexual couple to adopt. Why in the world would you think it would be so cut and dry for a same sex couple?

There would have to be exceptions built in - the life of the mother or the quality of life for the eventual baby.

paul87920 wrote:

It always struck me as strange that the same people that are against abortion are also against them being adopted by same sex couples. It just seems counter-productive.

It is. People against abortion are pretty uniformly against anything that would actually help decrease pregnancies. It's quite a dichotomy. They're usually against sex ed and contraception yet support the demonstrably ineffective abstinence only programs. They vehemently oppose abortion but give those "aborted" in fertility clinics a pass. And then they care just enough about the unborn fetus to keep it alive 'til birth, but not enough to provide the expecting mother with any type of medical or financial support for the pregnancy or the child once it's born. It doesn't have to be healthy, just living. And they're certainly not adopting themselves, are they?

LoisLane wrote:

sparks wrote:

I think it would be wrong to agree to extend civil rights to one group by taking away the civil rights of women to control their own bodies. To me, the real moral question is whether the religious community has the right to impose their morality on society as a whole. A religious person views abortion as a sin, while an agnostic looks at it as a medical procedure. This is really a non-issue because most states already allow gay couples to adopt.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_adoption

So much blah, blah, blah...

You fail to grasp that there can be a difference in a person's personal beliefs about faith and their beliefs about the proper role of government. I have very strong beliefs about faith and the way I live my life, but I respect the rights of others to make their own decisions about how they live their lives. Our government should not be trying to legislate morality, whether it involves abortion,assisted suicide or what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.It is simple minded neocons like yourself that are arrogant enough to want to use government to force their beliefs on the country that have created a divisive atmosphere in our political system. True liberty is never achieved by force or coercion.

Heretic wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

It always struck me as strange that the same people that are against abortion are also against them being adopted by same sex couples. It just seems counter-productive.

It is. People against abortion are pretty uniformly against anything that would actually help decrease pregnancies. It's quite a dichotomy. They're usually against sex ed and contraception yet support the demonstrably ineffective abstinence only programs. They vehemently oppose abortion but give those "aborted" in fertility clinics a pass. And then they care just enough about the unborn fetus to keep it alive 'til birth, but not enough to provide the expecting mother with any type of medical or financial support for the pregnancy or the child once it's born. It doesn't have to be healthy, just living. And they're certainly not adopting themselves, are they?

Total b.s. Number 1, keep your pants on and you don't get pregnant. It is all about personal responsibility, which is lacking in todays society.

Fertility Clinics do NOT get a pass. As far as I am concerned, they are Frankenstienish.

There is plenty of free help for expectant mothers, housing, food, medical, etc.

One of my children is adopted, and special needs. I have a friend who has adopted 8 children, most of whom are special needs. There are plenty of people willing to adopt, but there are not very many children available, and in some cases, the adoption costs are outrageous.

Help for expectant mothers and even some for infants, but once that unplanned pregnancy reaches toddler stage, the pro-lifers lose interest in helping the mom.

That is NOT true. There are several organizations that will support the mother and child until they get on their feet.

Tiger1 wrote:

Heretic wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

It always struck me as strange that the same people that are against abortion are also against them being adopted by same sex couples. It just seems counter-productive.

It is. People against abortion are pretty uniformly against anything that would actually help decrease pregnancies. It's quite a dichotomy. They're usually against sex ed and contraception yet support the demonstrably ineffective abstinence only programs. They vehemently oppose abortion but give those "aborted" in fertility clinics a pass. And then they care just enough about the unborn fetus to keep it alive 'til birth, but not enough to provide the expecting mother with any type of medical or financial support for the pregnancy or the child once it's born. It doesn't have to be healthy, just living. And they're certainly not adopting themselves, are they?

Total b.s. Number 1, keep your pants on and you don't get pregnant. It is all about personal responsibility, which is lacking in todays society.

Fertility Clinics do NOT get a pass. As far as I am concerned, they are Frankenstienish.

There is plenty of free help for expectant mothers, housing, food, medical, etc.

One of my children is adopted, and special needs. I have a friend who has adopted 8 children, most of whom are special needs. There are plenty of people willing to adopt, but there are not very many children available, and in some cases, the adoption costs are outrageous.

Great plan,Tiger1. Teaching abstinence instead of providing better access to birth control has been an utter failure in this country. The first thing that needs to be done to lower the number of teenage pregnancies in the US is to start providing birth control confidentially in public schools.Access to birth control in schools would save the country billions of dollars for welfare costs for unwed teen mothers. Your contention that there are not many children available to adopt is completely false.Here is a link showing that over half a million children in the US are in foster care. The truth is that demand for healthy infants is high, but most children who are not adopted when they are babies will spend their entire childhoods in foster care,especially children with special needs. There are far more children in foster care than there are qualified families who are willing to adopt.