"No-choice", "pro-choice", etc.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Sara and/or John Hamilton wrote:


> <snip<></snip>

> >CLAIRE

> >

> >Dear Ian:

> >

> >I have never suggested that spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) or fetal

> >deaths due to natural causes be prosecuted as if they were intentional

> >(induced) abortions.

> >

> >As for the RCC posting a bond, I think it would be more cost-effective to

> help

> >with prenatal care and the adoption process, because there are so many

> people

> >out there waiting to adopt infants. If anyone wishes to dispute this, then

> >please explain why so many people go abroad to adopt. They wouldn't do that

> if

> >it were easier to adopt infants in this country.

> >

> JOHN HAMILTON

> The number of people waiting to adopt a child has no bearing on the abortion

> argument.  It is not moral to force a woman to continue a pregnancy just

> because some one else wants a baby.


CLAIRE

Why shouldn't it have any bearing on the abortion argument? It is immoral and
selfish for someone to want to abort a baby because she can't even wait nine
months and then give it up for adoption.

What about women who have brought deformed or retarded infants into this world,
and then relied on assistance from the state? Atheists on this list have
complained about these babies using up our tax dollars. If they have the right
to complain about  these children, then why can't I complain about women who
can't even consider giving up their baby for adoption to an infertile couple
(instead of aborting it).

~Claire

• Previous message: "No-choice", "pro-choice", etc.
• Next message: "No-choice", "pro-choice", etc.
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]