South Dakota and Roe v. Wade

[AGBF]

The governor of South Dakota is reportedly "inclined" to sign this bill.

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — "State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.

Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

The bill directly targets Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. State lawmakers believe the nation's highest court is now more likely to reverse itself on the abortion issue because of the recent appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito."


article

 

[ammayernyc]

Isn''t this horrible... so glad i live in NY and could afford one if needed.

 

[MINE!!]

Thank God.. inncocent lives will be saved.. at least in South Dakota..

 

[Momoftwo]

Date: 2/24/2006 5:19:55 PM
Author: MINE!!
Thank God.. inncocent lives will be saved.. at least in South Dakota..

I agree.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 2/24/2006 5:07:29 PM
Author: AmandaPanda
Isn''t this horrible... so glad i live in NY and could afford one if needed.

hope you never need one, AmandaPanda, but if it comes down to it i''m glad you are in a state that allows it and that you can afford it. think what will happen to women who aren''t in new york and can''t afford it: coat hangers used to be one method.

movie zombie

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 2/24/2006 6:51:42 PM
Author: movie zombie

Date: 2/24/2006 5:07:29 PM

Author: AmandaPanda

Isn''t this horrible... so glad i live in NY and could afford one if needed.

hope you never need one, AmandaPanda, but if it comes down to it i''m glad you are in a state that allows it and that you can afford it. think what will happen to women who aren''t in new york and can''t afford it: coat hangers used to be one method.


movie zombie

Yep. Innocent women will die in South Dakota. Making abortion illegal doesn''t make it go away, it just drives it underground and kills women rather than embryos.

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 2/24/2006 7:31:50 PM
Author: cinnabar

Date: 2/24/2006 6:51:42 PM

Author: movie zombie

Date: 2/24/2006 5:07:29 PM


Author: AmandaPanda


Isn''t this horrible... so glad i live in NY and could afford one if needed.

hope you never need one, AmandaPanda, but if it comes down to it i''m glad you are in a state that allows it and that you can afford it. think what will happen to women who aren''t in new york and can''t afford it: coat hangers used to be one method.



movie zombie

Yep. Innocent women will die in South Dakota. Making abortion illegal doesn''t make it go away, it just drives it underground and kills women rather than embryos.

babies

 

[Maria D]

Not to worry, folks! Currently, there are about 800 abortions performed per year in South Dakota. If abortion becomes no longer legal in S.D., it wouldn''t take much for we liberals to set up a fund whereby 800 women per year with unintended pregnancies could have babies and then simply have them shipped to places like Darfur. There the babies could die without any compassionate, concerned "conservatives" worrying about "innocent life."

We can argue, and certainly this country has, back and forth forever about whether or not a fetus = human life with rights. Right now, what concerns me even more than the abortion debate is the erosion of contraceptive rights. I suppose those same compassionate souls in South Dakota will continue to do their best to prevent the easy availability of "Plan B" emergency contraception even though it does not end pregnancies but merely prevents them. As it stands now, the law in South Dakota allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception. Ah yes, I suppose those wenches in S.D. shouldn''t have been having unprotected sex in the first place, right? (Never mind if it wasn''t consensual, that soon won''t be enough reason to have an abortion there so why should it be enough reason to use e.c.? ) And if the condom broke? Well, maybe we shouldn''t be having sex at all unless it''s to pro-create. Wait a minute, that *is* what I learned in catechism class all those years ago, LOL! Gee, I wonder how long before the compassionate conservative pharmacist can refuse to sell me condoms?

Remember during the election there were a couple of pro-choice Bush supporters here who said they would be the first to march on Washington should he do exactly what we all knew he would do with the Supreme Court? Get your walking shoes ready....

 

[E B]

Date: 2/24/2006 7:31:50 PM
Author: cinnabar



Yep. Innocent women will die in South Dakota. Making abortion illegal doesn't make it go away, it just drives it underground and kills women rather than embryos.

Absolutely. I just love that a bill signed to end abortions (if indeed signed) will be be signed by a man.

 

[E B]

Date: 2/24/2006 8:21:14 PM
Author: Maria D
Ah yes, I suppose those wenches in S.D. shouldn''t have been having unprotected sex in the first place, right? (Never mind if it wasn''t consensual, that soon won''t be enough reason to have an abortion there so why should it be enough reason to use e.c.? ) And if the condom broke? Well, maybe we shouldn''t be having sex at all unless it''s to pro-create. Wait a minute, that *is* what I learned in catechism class all those years ago, LOL! Gee, I wonder how long before the compassionate conservative pharmacist can refuse to sell me condoms?

How dare we women have sex without the possibility of pregnancy! If the condom so happens to break, of course it''s our burden to bear. We''re the ones able to carry the children. And when the man leaves (as they so often do), what then? Will men be, thanks to the government, forced to be an active presence in the child''s life? Of course not. Just as long as they send cash every month, everything''s A-OK.

 

[movie zombie]

and some don''t even send the cash........

movie zombie

 

[tanuki]

Here they are thinking ahead and gearing up for the 2008 election. They have to have something to show their base that they did for them.

So South Dakota passes a law that is so restrictive that it bans all abortions, even those that are from rape or incest.

Probably doesn't even include an exception for the mother's health.
(edited to add: according to MSNBC it doesn't. Which means if you would live but wind up a quadruple amputee - tough luck sweetie)

This gives the lower courts two years to turn it down as too restrictive, making it hit the Supreme Court sometime before the 2008 election.

So the Supreme Court throws out the law and all the conservatives all have to turn out to vote Republican again.

What have they got to lose?

The day the Republicans put a law forward banning abortion which is worded in some way that is not specifically designed to be thrown out of court
- that's the day you might have to start to worry about your right to choose.

This one is just politics.

 

[E B]

Date: 2/25/2006 4:44:21 PM
Author: tanuki
The day the Republicans put a law forward banning abortion which is worded in some way that is not specifically designed to be thrown out of court

- that''s the day you might have to start to worry about your right to choose.


This one is just politics.

That''s good to know Tanuki. That any woman anywhere would support a bill like this still blows my mind, though. It''s too unbelievable to comprehend.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/25/2006 4:44:21 PM
Author: tanuki
Probably doesn''t even include an exception for the mother''s health.

(edited to add: according to MSNBC it doesn''t. Which means if you would live but wind up a quadruple amputee - tough luck sweetie)

I know this is not your main point, tanuki, but I wanted to make sure the health and life issue was clear. This bill does not allow abortion if the mother''s health is at risk, but will allow it if she is going to die. (As if doctors are omniscient.) Your quadruple amputee scenario is not so farfetched given that gestational diabetes could, indeed, lead to amputation of a woman''s limbs.

 

[tanuki]

Yeah, so could a woman who comes in for her first OB visit and is noted to have a malignant lump in her breast.

If chemotherapy endangers the fetus but she might live long enough to bear the baby before cancer kills her, the law could could require her to wait it out before treatment. And penalize any oncologist who treated her with chemo if it led to a miscarriage

 

[fire&ice]

I did read that the law as written will be vetoed. He may consider the law if it held language about exceptions in incest, rape, etc. I wonder how far this will go - may be just grandstanding - dangerous slope though indeed.

 

[strmrdr]

Im of two minds on this one.
I hate abortion but its none of the government's business.
There is no right to abortion nor is there a right for the government to ban it either.
If a local town doesn't allow a clinic to operate within its boundaries then im ok with it.
But the state and the specially the feds have no business in it.
Regulating medical treatment is not a power given to the feds by the constitution.
Therefore it is an illegal power grab.
Nor do most state constitutions give them the authority either.

 

[monarch64]

No matter what, it comes down for me as the human right to make a choice, period. I am not happy at all with the decison SD has come to.

 

[rainbowtrout]

While I see a lot of problems with abortion and the way it can be used, I think that preventing it has less to do with the body politic wanting to preserve innocent life and a lot more to do with how women's bodies have been conscripted to the state. i guess maybe one could argue men go fight in war, women have babies.

It's also a way of enforcing reproductive sex as the only sex, another political motive--making babies for the country.

To not include an exception for the woman's health or cases of rape or incest is ABSURD. Oh, the woman should get over it and love her baby anyway? What if she has it and then kills it? I'm sorry, but first trimester abortion is NOT the same thing as infanticide. For goodness sake, some cultures don't even believe the body has a soul until seven days after birth. As for the lack of an exception for health, all I hear is "Your job is to have babies unless you might DIE and thus be unable to have more"

My stepmother had one when she was seventeen and has never regretted it. Why? She was addicted to heroin, in an abusive relationship, and in debt. Does she think about the baby every once in awhile? Yes. But with the knowledge that as a mother she made the right call. It has been very helpful for me to talk to her since it gave me both the knowledge of how awful abortion is, how unprotected sex is irresponsible, and how sometimes abortion is utterly necessary.


RE: birth control. I flat out don't believe abstinance pledges work. I think a culture of telling your children don't have sex unless you are in a good relatinship, prepared for the consequences, and USE protection is the responsible way to go. My mother drilled it into me that I wasn't to do it until I was 18 and in a good relationship--but she also didn't make sex dirty, taboo, and made damned sure I knew which end of a condom was up.



ETA: sorry for the rant. Yes, I do think that this is an attempt to get an abortion case through to the supreme court.

 

[XChick03]

rainbow, I agree with you about exceptions for health cases or rape or incest, and I used to argue that point in my poli science class. Though, it was pointed out to me that if there were exceptions based on that, its quite likely young girls who just didn''t bother to use protection will file false rape cases just to get an abortion. Then, not only are people finding a way around the law, but the police are wasting time on fake cases when there could be real rapists and murderes out there.

I''m more of a middle of the road person, I don''t think it should be abolished completely, because there are some cases where I believe its needed, but the thing is, it can be prevented and there''s always adoption. I do feel bad for young girls who end up pregnant, but they made the choice to have unprotected sex and its something they have to live with.

I guess this just hits close to home with me. About 6 months ago, I got pregnant. We used protection because neither of us was even close to being ready for a child. To be honest, I just didn''t want it at all, but I never considered abortion. My now FI wasn''t ready either and had mixed feelings on it. A week later, I had a miscarriage and I was devestated even though I never wanted a baby in the first place. After going through that, my views on abortion changed a lot. I just can''t understand why someone would choose to end the life of something they willfully created without even considering adoption. There are millions of people in the world who would kill to have a child and there are millions of people just throwing it away.

In any event, the law is going to be appealed, and probably reach the Supreme Court. Which, I am sure, this was only done so it would reach the SC.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/26/2006 11:02:35 AM
Author: XChick03
I do feel bad for young girls who end up pregnant, but they made the choice to have unprotected sex and its something they have to live with.

What is it that they have to live with?

 

[XChick03]

The fact that they created another life and it could''ve been prevented.

 

[tanuki]

Quote: "Though, it was pointed out to me that if there were exceptions based on that, its quite likely young girls who just didn''t bother to use protection will file false rape cases just to get an abortion. Then, not only are people finding a way around the law, but the police are wasting time on fake cases when there could be real rapists and murderes out there."

What criteria would you put in the law to determine whether a woman had "faked" her rape or not?

How would you handle "date rape"?

 

[XChick03]

I''m only sharing what my political science professor said. As far as "criteria," I doubt they would ever put any in a law. The only way to determine is a woman is lying about a rape, is if she later recants her statement or they investigate it and find serious evidence that she was never raped. As far as date rape, a rape is a rape, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

I think you''re misunderstanding me. I think there should be exceptions to the abortion law, for rape, incest, and other misfortunate circumstances. I am only pointing out, that if they do make exceptions, it would be hard for them to determine who is "worthy" of an abortion and who is not. I mean would they say, "Okay, you were raped by a complete stranger, you can have an abortion" or "I''m sorry, you have to have the baby but you can always opt for adoption. We just don''t feel that your health reasons are good enough for an abortion. You should''ve used birth control." There would be several shades of gray and since laws are usually written so that they are left with some room for determination, every judge would have a different opinion of what it meant.

I am only against abortion because of those who use it as birth control. I think its something that should only be done because you really can not have a baby for serious reasons. Not "Oh no, I had sex with two guys last week without protection and now I''m pregnant. Its okay though, I''ll just have another abortion." I just don''t think its fair to terminate the life you created because you didn''t care to use birth control. If those are the circumstances, there''s always adoption.

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 2/26/2006 11:02:35 AM
Author: XChick03
rainbow, I agree with you about exceptions for health cases or rape or incest, and I used to argue that point in my poli science class. Though, it was pointed out to me that if there were exceptions based on that, its quite likely young girls who just didn't bother to use protection will file false rape cases just to get an abortion. Then, not only are people finding a way around the law, but the police are wasting time on fake cases when there could be real rapists and murderes out there.


I'm more of a middle of the road person, I don't think it should be abolished completely, because there are some cases where I believe its needed, but the thing is, it can be prevented and there's always adoption. I do feel bad for young girls who end up pregnant, but they made the choice to have unprotected sex and its something they have to live with.


I guess this just hits close to home with me. About 6 months ago, I got pregnant. We used protection because neither of us was even close to being ready for a child. To be honest, I just didn't want it at all, but I never considered abortion. My now FI wasn't ready either and had mixed feelings on it. A week later, I had a miscarriage and I was devestated even though I never wanted a baby in the first place. After going through that, my views on abortion changed a lot. I just can't understand why someone would choose to end the life of something they willfully created without even considering adoption. There are millions of people in the world who would kill to have a child and there are millions of people just throwing it away.

In any event, the law is going to be appealed, and probably reach the Supreme Court. Which, I am sure, this was only done so it would reach the SC.

So, first of all I'm sorry you had to go through that. However I don't understand how you can say that 'young girls who end up pregnant' didn't use protection when you yourself were obviously mature and responsible and still had this happen...
No one seems to consider that it isn't just the young, probably non-financially solvent woman who has to live with this choice, it is the potential for a real baby with real needs. I view an fetus/baby/whatever you want to call the child in the first trimester as a potential, and one that carries great responsibility. SHOULD you bring this baby into the world? (I just read Beloved so this is a little on my mind right now.)

My BIG issue is adoption law. it is so hard and expensive to adopt a child! and there is a culture of shame where it is better for a woman to have an abortion rather than to go through the pregnancy and give the baby for adoption to a loving family. At the same time children are abused every day in foster care. Why why why!

This makes me SO angry. It becomes more socially acceptable for young women to put their lives, emotions and bodies through absolute hell (either through having an abortion or the baby) than to make 4 other people's live so much better (the babies, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother)


As far as using abortion as birth control, I wonder how much this really happens. We've all heard about it...but hearsay is unreliable. It is a painful procedure in all senses of the word and a somewhat risky one.

 

[E B]

Date: 2/26/2006 1:46:34 PM
Author: rainbowtrout

Date: 2/26/2006 11:02:35 AM

Author: XChick03

I just can't understand why someone would choose to end the life of something they willfully created without even considering adoption. There are millions of people in the world who would kill to have a child and there are millions of people just throwing it away.

Because often, they don't willingly create it. And when you think about it, how easy would it be to carry a baby to term, only to give it away? The bond between mother and child is nature's strongest...it should not be underestimated and I find it quite dangerous in these kinds of situations. When a baby could be going to a family who will give it so much more, the mother (who obviously isn't ready for a child) changes her mind. It's hers. Rightfully so, but it's not the best decision.

In any event, the law is going to be appealed, and probably reach the Supreme Court. Which, I am sure, this was only done so it would reach the SC.

So, first of all I'm sorry you had to go through that. However I don't understand how you can say that 'young girls who end up pregnant' didn't use protection when you yourself were obviously mature and responsible and still had this happen...

Exactly.

No one seems to consider that it isn't just the young, probably non-financially solvent woman who has to live with this choice, it is the potential for a real baby with real needs. I view an fetus/baby/whatever you want to call the child in the first trimester as a potential, and one that carries great responsibility. SHOULD you bring this baby into the world? (I just read Beloved so this is a little on my mind right now.)

This is my biggest concern for women everywhere, including myself. I'm 22 years old and in many people's opinions, I'm at an age where I'd be able to support a baby. Yet I'm not done with school. If I were to get pregnant and have a child now, the chances of me finishing school would lessen greatly. I'm a person too, and for my entire life to suddenly revolve around a child I'm not ready for wouldn't be fair. Now, if we planned for him/her and I suddenly changed my mind, I'd say "too bad, Emily". But if I was in your situation, XChick03, I'd like to be able to make this choice myself. Accidents happen, and it's NOT fair that it's the mother's burden to bear. Oh, sure, the father could still finish school and become successful like so many are, but where would that leave me? If all of this seems selfish, well, I'm sorry. I want the best for my future children, and making a seemingly non-selfish choice (to keep an unplanned child) would, in my opinion, be extremely selfish.

My BIG issue is adoption law. it is so hard and expensive to adopt a child! and there is a culture of shame where it is better for a woman to have an abortion rather than to go through the pregnancy and give the baby for adoption to a loving family. At the same time children are abused every day in foster care. Why why why!

This makes me SO angry. It becomes more socially acceptable for young women to put their lives, emotions and bodies through absolute hell (either through having an abortion or the baby) than to make 4 other people's live so much better (the babies, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother)

I don't think it make's the birth mother's life better. Children grow to resent their birth parents while the birth parents ache for that tiny life they gave up so long ago.

As far as using abortion as birth control, I wonder how much this really happens. We've all heard about it...but hearsay is unreliable. It is a painful procedure in all senses of the word and a somewhat risky one.

When did we, strong independent women, start thinking this way? Thinking that if we were to accidently get pregnant, we'd have no choice but to carry the child to term and raise it, putting our own previously planned lives on hold FOREVER, even though it was the mistake of two? To me, that's just as awful as believing a woman's place is in the kitchen. It makes me sick to think of it.

I'll always believe in a woman's right to choose, whether it'd be my choice or not. It certainly isn't the government's choice.

 

[XChick03]

Date: 2/26/2006 1:46:34 PM
Author: rainbowtrout

So, first of all I''m sorry you had to go through that. However I don''t understand how you can say that ''young girls who end up pregnant'' didn''t use protection when you yourself were obviously mature and responsible and still had this happen...
Well, you make a good point. The only reason I disagree with abortion at all is because so many people have them for the wrong reasons. My cousin had one just because she want to get "fat."

No one seems to consider that it isn''t just the young, probably non-financially solvent woman who has to live with this choice, it is the potential for a real baby with real needs. I view an fetus/baby/whatever you want to call the child in the first trimester as a potential, and one that carries great responsibility. SHOULD you bring this baby into the world? (I just read Beloved so this is a little on my mind right now.)
You''re very correct. And I agree that a baby is a HUGE responsibility and diapers, forumla, clothes, etc aren''t cheap. I know how it feels to be overwhelmed with it, but thankfully, I have a wonderful fmaily and fiance to help me through it. I know all women aren''t that fortunate and I agree it''d be ashame to have a baby you can''t afford to take care of because what kind of life would that be for the child?


My BIG issue is adoption law. it is so hard and expensive to adopt a child! and there is a culture of shame where it is better for a woman to have an abortion rather than to go through the pregnancy and give the baby for adoption to a loving family. At the same time children are abused every day in foster care. Why why why!

This makes me SO angry. It becomes more socially acceptable for young women to put their lives, emotions and bodies through absolute hell (either through having an abortion or the baby) than to make 4 other people''s live so much better (the babies, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother)
I definitely agree with you on this. Adoption laws are crazy considering how many children there are in need of good, loving homes. Putting a child up for adoption isn''t always best for the child because being bounced from foster home to foster isn''t a great life, but its still a life. So I guess the question you''d have to ask yourself is: would you rather not have a child or have a child who could either find a great, loving family or be bounced from home to home until adulthood? It definitely wouldn''t be an easy choice for most women and I understand that. If they''re going to make abortions illegal, they need to do something about the adoption laws, of course, there isn''t a whole lot they can do, I guess.



As far as using abortion as birth control, I wonder how much this really happens. We''ve all heard about it...but hearsay is unreliable. It is a painful procedure in all senses of the word and a somewhat risky one.
You make an excellent point with this. I''ve actually wondered the same thing. I know three people who''ve had abortions, and two didn''t "need" them. The first was my cousin, who I mentioned above. She was 26, engaged, had a great job, and a family who happily help her and she told me she didn''t want to get "fat." That I just don''t understand. The other two didn''t have the means to raise a child and were very young and wanted to finish school. And both of the father''s disappeared at the mention of "pregnancy." That I can understand.

I guess I am not really against abortion so much after all. I understand firsthand how things can happen and I''m don''t think its fair that because a woman was raped or the condom broke that her whole life should be ruined, but then again, I don''t think its fair that a baby isn''t given a chance at life. The more I think about it, the more I am for abortion, but at the same time, I still don''t really like it. I guess I am just not completely sure where I stand.

 

[rainbowtrout]

Date: 2/26/2006 2:10:18 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 2/26/2006 1:46:34 PM

Author: rainbowtrout

Date: 2/26/2006 11:02:35 AM


Author: XChick03


I just can''t understand why someone would choose to end the life of something they willfully created without even considering adoption. There are millions of people in the world who would kill to have a child and there are millions of people just throwing it away.

Because often, they don''t willingly create it. And when you think about it, how easy would it be to carry a baby to term, only to give it away? The bond between mother and child is nature''s strongest...it should not be underestimated and I find it quite dangerous in these kinds of situations. When a baby could be going to a family who will give it so much more, the mother (who obviously isn''t ready for a child) changes her mind. It''s hers. Rightfully so, but it''s not the best decision.


In any event, the law is going to be appealed, and probably reach the Supreme Court. Which, I am sure, this was only done so it would reach the SC.

So, first of all I''m sorry you had to go through that. However I don''t understand how you can say that ''young girls who end up pregnant'' didn''t use protection when you yourself were obviously mature and responsible and still had this happen...


Exactly.


No one seems to consider that it isn''t just the young, probably non-financially solvent woman who has to live with this choice, it is the potential for a real baby with real needs. I view an fetus/baby/whatever you want to call the child in the first trimester as a potential, and one that carries great responsibility. SHOULD you bring this baby into the world? (I just read Beloved so this is a little on my mind right now.)


This is my biggest concern for women everywhere, including myself. I''m 22 years old and in many people''s opinions, I''m at an age where I''d be able to support a baby. Yet I''m not done with school. If I were to get pregnant and have a child now, the chances of me finishing school would lessen greatly. I''m a person too, and for my entire life to suddenly revolve around a child I''m not ready for wouldn''t be fair. Now, if we planned for him/her and I suddenly changed my mind, I''d say ''too bad, Emily''. But if I was in your situation, XChick03, I''d like to be able to make this choice myself. Accidents happen, and it''s NOT fair that it''s the mother''s burden to bear. Oh, sure, the father could still finish school and become successful like so many are, but where would that leave me? If all of this seems selfish, well, I''m sorry. I want the best for my future children, and making a seemingly non-selfish choice (to keep an unplanned child) would, in my opinion, be extremely selfish.


My BIG issue is adoption law. it is so hard and expensive to adopt a child! and there is a culture of shame where it is better for a woman to have an abortion rather than to go through the pregnancy and give the baby for adoption to a loving family. At the same time children are abused every day in foster care. Why why why!

This makes me SO angry. It becomes more socially acceptable for young women to put their lives, emotions and bodies through absolute hell (either through having an abortion or the baby) than to make 4 other people''s live so much better (the babies, the adoptive parents, and the birth mother)


I don''t think it make''s the birth mother''s life better. Children grow to resent their birth parents while the birth parents ache for that tiny life they gave up so long ago.


As far as using abortion as birth control, I wonder how much this really happens. We''ve all heard about it...but hearsay is unreliable. It is a painful procedure in all senses of the word and a somewhat risky one.

When did we, strong independent women, start thinking this way? Thinking that if we were to accidently get pregnant, we''d have no choice but to carry the child to term and raise it, putting our own previously planned lives on hold FOREVER, even though it was the mistake of two? To me, that''s just as awful as believing a woman''s place is in the kitchen. It makes me sick to think of it.


I''ll always believe in a woman''s right to choose, whether it''d be my choice or not. It certainly isn''t the government''s choice.

OK, I''m sorry that I am not more apt with the html or I would shorted the above quote

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that the child does not necessarily resent the parents. One of my close friends is adopted and he says he is so grateful to his birth mother for having the sense to give him up and into his wonderful family.
By giving the baby up for adoption, I DID NOT mean into govermental care. I meant giving it directly to a family you meet and discuss the decision with, or don''t depending on what you both want.

 

[E B]

OK, I'm sorry that I am not more apt with the html or I would shorted the above quote

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that the child does not necessarily resent the parents. One of my close friends is adopted and he says he is so grateful to his birth mother for having the sense to give him up and into his wonderful family.
By giving the baby up for adoption, I DID NOT mean into govermental care. I meant giving it directly to a family you meet and discuss the decision with, or don't depending on what you both want.

Oh, I know, and I didn't mean to say that "all children" resent their parents...but many do. And I agree with you regarding adoption and how it's a wonderful thing. The problem is, so many children around the world are without homes. Thousands die of starvation every day. Where are the loving parents to give these children homes? Probably at an adoption agency, seeking a white baby.

I don't mean to sound bitter, I really don't. I just don't see the point in bringing additional unplanned children into the world when there are so many already born that won't ever get the chance to have a wonderful life because of *insert reason here* (not white, too old, too much trouble adopting overseas, etc.).

 

[rainbowtrout]

EBree: I''ve struggled with that idea (that there are so many children without homes, we have a population problem,etc) even when thinking about whether I would have my own natural children. On the one hand, I see it as somewhat obsence to spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments when there are so many orphaned children. On the other, I talked to my FMIL about this. Her perspective as a child shrink was this:

It''s a wonderful and giving thing to do. Just we forewarned, unless and sometimes even if you adopt an infant from another country, these children often have severe and lifelong mental problems from abuse, orphanages, etc. They will most likely never be normal or lead full lives and you have to accept that. Of course her perspective is tilted from seeing only the problem cases. But it still made me think a bit more about adoption.

I don''t know if the issue is whiteness, is it? A pretty high percentage of the adopted kids I know arent the same race as the parents.

Bottom line, it isn''t an easy issue and there are no easy answers. I see both our attidues towards birth control, abortion, and our attitudes towards adoption as forcing women down a path that they should not have to take unless they want to. It''s hard enough to be a good mother. By "our" here I mean the attitude of more conservative American politics, just to be clear.

XChick03: I think the most important thing you have said is that you aren''t sure. That''s totally OK and more people should admit that it''s a tough issue and it''s so very hard to stand in someone else''s shoes and make the call...