There are too many kids without parents who are up for adoption in this world, why add another one?

There is an estimated half-million children in the foster care system in this country as it is. Is it not just as cruel to be throwing a child into that as well? Out of the estimated 285,000 children who exited foster care during FY 2008 (most recent stats I could find), only 19% were adopted. 10% outgrew the system. The majority just got sent back to the parent.

So, while it's easy to say "Oh, just put the kid up for adoption!" reality is much harsher.

NyNy - I think it's selfish for you to offer up someone else's body, time and money to satisfy YOUR moral position. I would guess that you are a man or you have never been pregnant to suggest this. I could be wrong. I don't know what this girl does for a living but....Does she have good insurance? Paid time off to go to Doc. appts? Does she have to stand for long periods of time at her job? Is she able to take breaks to pee or eat every five minutes? Does she get morning sickness? I am a stay at home mom of a 5 and 1 year old and the thought of taking care of them while pregnant was enough to make us decide not to have anymore children...and I have a supportive, awesome husband and good insurance. My point is simply carrying the child for the sake of not having an abortion seems like a really stupid idea. At least she is trying to be responsible and take care of the child she already has instead of becoming another underage baby factory. Kudos to her and let those without sin cast the first stone!!

BTuck...........

Without sounding too crass.....yes.

Terminate the unwanted pregnancy. It's a valid and reasonable choice.

No one wants an abortion, but honestly - it seems like not only the most reasonable answer - but the most humane. Another child of the state, to be forgotten and overlooked. Screw that, what kind of life is that?

its-all-your-fault & Torchy -

Just so you'll know, any woman can go to a private adoption agency and place their baby for adoption. The baby will go directly to the adoptive parents upon discharge from the hospital. The child will not go into foster care nor will it become a child of the state.

Usually, children are placed in foster care or become a child of the state if the child is taken from the parents (and no other relatives are available to take the child) for inadequate care.

If abortion is ever outlawed, there will quickly be a case sent to the Supreme Court which will argue that the Contraceptive Pill, the Norplant, the IUD, the Contraceptive Shot and the Contraceptive Patch are all methods of abortion and should be outlawed. I think those pressing the case could win.

"http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html"

OR how about letting individual people make the important and personal decisions they need to make that are for the benefit of themselves and their families.

Abortion is a selfish decision. So is giving birth to a child. Both decisions have a direct effect on the mother and her partner and children and no one else. Being selfish is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, being selfish can sometimes save your life.

Texas Mom-1759254 - yes, just so you know going to a private adoption agency - will not eliminate the fact that there are too many children available for adoption already. There are kids who are wards of the state - who are bounced from foster home to foster home and these private agencies only make the problem worse. Private agencies/industry, again, is not the solution - only part of the problem. Adoption for profit, how nice. I'm sure there are good agencies out there - but again - they only add to the problem not help it.

Both my kids were conceived while my wife was on the pill, one while she was on the depo shot...so even playing it safe or not being careless - always works out the way you intended.

Hi Texas Mom- The only problem with private adoption is the requests. A friend of mine used to work for a private adoption agency (this was back in 1993, btw), the number one baby request was "white infant female", followed closely by "white infant male". In every case, when babies of other ethnicity were available for adoption, the parents waiting to adopt would always be willing to wait longer for the baby they wanted. I know it is not palatable, but it is the unfortunate truth.

And hello BTuck- what about those instances where birth control fails? Not all unplanned/unwanted pregnancies are the result of carelessness.

Those who say there are too many babies waiting to be adopted already are not fully educated on the US foster to adopt system. While there are many children in the foster system, many of them have not yet had the birth parents ties severed and are not open to adoption.

Adoption is a very viable alternative in the US. There are many, many waiting parents who would have loved this child and provided for it. Black or white, healthy babies are adopted immediately and go to homes who have been approved by the state to adopt.

I am living a wonderful life. My birthmother gave me that life. She could have aborted me. She made a decision that gavemy parents who could not conceive a daughter that they love with all their heart and soul, me a life with a happy childhood, my husband a wife he loves, and my children (both bio and adopted) a loving mom. There is a lot of power in the choice of adoption.

I would not have an abortion myself, because I see how adoption is not only an option, but one that creates a series of events that is in a word - a blessing. This option was played out on MTV - so I can't argue with abortion being played out as well. I will not judge. I just wish there was more education regarding birth control (this girl really should have figured out that the shot wears out and used alternative form of birth control until the next shot was working). And, in the case of an accident, the options of both adoption and abortion are considered with equal diligence.

Knowing people who work in the foster care system, I can vouch for the fact most of those children are not available for adoption. Most children are in the foster care system because parents were judged to be unfit or because of circumstances that made it impossible for their parents to care for them. The goal of foster care is to give the children a safe environment while the parents do whatever they need to to be able to care for them, and then reunite the families.

Foster children are only available for adoption if a judge has severed parental rights. It usually has to be a pretty severe case, or a situation that has gone on for years. Occassionally parents willingly surrender their rights rather than make an attempt to be able to have their child back. Most foster children are not available for adoption.

Most babies are adopted through private agencies, many of which are nonprofit, not foster care.

As for JEM comment, anyone that would try to do what was stated (ban birth control pills and hormonal pills) would have a strong backlash against this. Since most women in this country use birth control pills as contraception, they aren't going to stop using it because a group of people object to them using it. This would be pushing this way too far.

If you notice, those in politics don't want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. While abortion is another subject, a person running for political office who advocated or who tried to ban birth control pills or similiar type hormonal bills or used this as his/her political platform would be soundly defeated. Most of them would see what the public reaction to something like this would be before they even stepped into this issue.

people are so quick to make judgement and not look at what really matter. i had a child a 16 and it was hard. my mother was an drunk. my father was a crack head.and you know what i made my life work for me.i worked two jobs went to school part time and found me and my child a place to stay.his show is a joke they show the good. itz hard to raise a child these girls on these shows i feel sorry for theme. there not going to know what it really mean to be a mother. there no way i am going to let a man jump on me and put me in a hold of having a baby before i can take care of the first one that was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooodam dum wake up itz more to life then having welfare babies. wake up ladies itz time for a change

JEM-1989317 - I wish the Catholic church would understand the science behind CONTRACEPTIVES. It prevents anything from happening in the first place. There is no child to kill when taking a pill or getting shots every three months (which the girl in the story obviously couldn't keep up with).

If they want to say that contraceptives are evil because they prevent things from happening and are a "waste" of sperm and eggs that could have been used to create a life, then the Catholic church needs to

1. Prevent everyone from having premarital sex and let every married couple become a frickin' Duggard

2. Stop women from menstruating because that's what that process is - ridding the body of an unused egg

3. Stop men from masturbation (HAH!) because they are "abandoning" millions of sperm.

Contraceptives and condoms keep lives from beginning, which isn't a bad thing. I'd rather let the DNA go and not mesh than kill something with a beating heart - which abortion does. Let them make an argument - nobody will and if they do, they will lose because unfortunately pure science can trump made-up ideas/beliefs. You believe and live your life the way you want, if you think contraceptives are bad, don't have sex before marriage because you WILL get pregnant out of wedlock which I thought was against the rules too, but oh well. Nobody gives a crap anymore.

Contraceptives are paramount to preventing an unwanted pregnancy, no doubt. However, no contraceptive is 100% effective, even if it is used correctly. Even if multiple forms of contraception are used for each episode of sex, it may still fail and a pregnancy result (a colleague of mine had this happen).

Teenagers who get pregnant should always have abortions. They are not ready to be parents and should not have to give birth to provide a baby for another person.

Women should never be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption is Not the only answer that should be explored either. My husband's sister and her ex-husband adopted two kids, got them in record time because of their ability to "buy" them, but gave each of them a terrible upbringing. They would have been better off not to be born, than stuck with two people who used them as weapons to control all family events, and actually causing a rift between family members.

Now all grown up, neither of these brats EVER even call their Grandmother, and their mother treats her own MOther like she does not exist. This is the nightmare behind adoption.

Point is, it's her choice. Whether or not she has help from family.

That said, you go on national television to talk about it and then think its unfair when the anti-abortionists target you?

Gemini you're an idiot. If teenagers can't provide for a child because they are a child then that CHILD shouldn't be having sex. Sex = Babies! Babies having babies? What about babies having sex. Get real and teach children about being a responsible, not abortion.

There are websites dedicated to women who have had abortions and don't regret it. No one ever hears about that.

I'll have to throw in my lot with you two. While the people I know aren't getting abortions all over the place, there are a few that have. And I know NONE that have regretted their decisions.

The smaller percentage of women that have regrets are the ones sensationalized.

Its their schtick - that is...the schtick of the anti-womens choice movement; misinform, under educate and sensationalize.

I have to agree. There are several anti-abortion pregnancy organizations who advertise as if they are a wide-ranging women's health clinic when they are actually spreading misinformation about abortion and attempting to intimidate and guilt women into giving birth.

Or how many abused children are the result of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy? I agree that no one really wants an abortion, but the fact of the matter is that pregnancy happens even with birth control, and there are times when being pregnant is not what is best for the woman or her family...it is a very personal ( and very legal) choice...besides I wonder how many people who would say that abortion is wrong, would support the child until it is grown?

I still can not understand why everyone is focusing on the abortion. We need to look further and at the real problem "the decision". When two people decide to have sex they are making a decision and they need to understand the consequences, that even with birth control you can get pregnant. The same goes for someone who is doing drugs. Even if they close the doors and cover their bases you can get caught and go to jail. The only difference is there is no "abortion" option to get you out of jail. So why can we use this argument of free choice. I have the free choice to go and take a Plasma Screen Tv from the store but I still have to suffer the consequences. So why can women get abortions to cover there "mistakes" (This excludes rape and special cases) It ticks me off that we can justify abortions by saying we have free choice because you had the choice to not have sex. Same way I have the choice not to steal the tv or not do illegal substances.

tac210 - I don't believe in abortion. But since the idea is there, if I were put in the situation I really can't say I wouldn't consider it in a freak-out moment. I do believe abortions should be for dangerous conditions to mother/baby and for rape victims, not to fix "oopsies" you had with your boyfriend while thinking "it could never happen to me."

My problem is some women run around loose as an old screw and get pregnant again and again. They treat it like a CTRL+ALT+DEL for their sluttiness. Instead of using protection, they have multiple abortions which I do NOT support. It's dangerous and just irresponsible and disgusting. You can't close your legs or take a pill, then deal with your consequences.

If you read abortion stats, your supposed view is totally inaccurate. Its usually women who are middle-upper class and most likely educated. The ones who have multiple oopsies we usually refer to as welfare moms. Might want to cut through your stereo types before you make note of "facts" that are incorrect.

I support her decision to have an abortion but I also agree with you AZHockeymom. People should try and not get into this situation in the first place.

AND does anyone want to discuss why women need to have abortions in the first place?! If the economy was better and men and women could support a family on a blue collar job like they used to be able to in the 50s and 60s, we probably wouldn't see so many couples have to make hard choices like this......

My mom and dad supported me and my sister and PUT US THROUGH COLLEGE on a FACTORY WORKERS and a teacher's salary. You just can't do that anymore....

The baby in her womb would disagree with you!

lhneumanns, that is incorrect. A baby in the womb has no awareness that it even exists and wouldn't know or care if it was aborted or not. It has no stake or opinion in whether it is born or not. It doesn't care one way or the other.

Jane - it may not have "awareness" but it has a f*cking heartbeat, google it.

People who happen to be dead on a vent have a pulse too. They may be completely flatline on the EEG, have been so for years, and are no more alive than a block of concrete, but because they are intubated and medicated they will still retain a pulse. If the vent were pulled and meds discontinued, the likelihood of their imminent death is about 99.9%. Sure, some may linger in a persistent vegetative state, but they ultimately succumb without ever regaining consciousness. Again, these are people who have ZERO waves on the EEG, which is the same amount of cerebral activity a fetus prior to around 20 weeks has (18-22 weeks being the range).

The point is, a cardiac rhythm does not equate life. Cardiac nerve cells are made in such a way that, should the heart stop functioning for a prolonged period of time, any nerve cell may then begin the nerve sequence (become the impulse, rather than the sinoatrial node- the hearts true "pacemaker") that causes the heart to begin its contractions. That is called an ectopic focus, and it is completely independent of any impulse from the brain (it is pretty cool, when you stop to think about it). Either way, the heart does not need a functioning brain to beat, but a human does need a functioning brain to live.

Having been pregnant myself, I'm very aware that a fetus has a heartbeat. However, there is no consensus that this, in and of itself, makes a fetus necessarily "alive". I would counter that regardless of a heartbeat, an organism that cannot live on its own without the aid of a host cannot truely be considered "alive".

There are very many smart people out there, and none of them have come to a concrete conclusion of when "life" begins. Google it.

Whether a fetus has a heartbeat or not, it doesn't care one way or another if its born or not. It has no opinion on the subject.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientest to figure out when "life" begins. They are just walking on eggshells around it because chicks that have oopsies pull the whole "it's my right to choose" bit so they just say it's "inconclusive."

The woman's body doesn't make the baby's heart beat, something in the organism does. Maybe it isn't STRONG enough to live on its own, but it is functioning in some way on its own, therefore I believe it IS alive. Argue all you want, you have your opinon and I have mine. Science and politics doesn't have the balls to prove anything because they'll have people bitching at them left and right and they just don't want to deal with it.

Actually PGH, if you want to go purely off of a pulse, then yes the woman's body does indeed allow for the developing baby's heart to beat. If the woman ceases to have a pulse, the baby will certainly cease to have a pulse as well. Either way, as I said before: the heart doesn't need a brain to function, but a human needs a functioning brain to live.

Actually PGH, the woman's body DOES make the fetus' heart beat. Without the woman, there could be no heart beat.

PGH,

You should argue your point with reason...not emotion.

Politics via society has already determined when life begins. It's at birth. Pretty simple fact. A cluster of cells developing doesn't a human make. Neither does a bunch of unformed, immature and underdeveloped cluster of heart cells. No matter how you spin it.....it's not a "heartbeat" that could sustain life for a fully developed live human.

Kathy - while I agree children of today are WAY too careless, abortion should not be for "accidents." "Accidents" shouldn't happen and we should be stressing that, not "well, if you have an accident, just kill it and you'll be free from your sin" and crap. Instead of all the girls running for abortions they should be running for self respect and not opening their legs to any disgusting pig that gives them a nice smile.

Abortion should be there as a choice of option for a woman, regardless of your judgmentalism or vindictiveness.

Sorry, but I don't think sluts should have the right to choose over and over and over again for their mistakes.

PGH,

you say you dont think "sluts" should have the right to choose over and over again.... why?... why can't they make choices for themselves?

If a woman is constantly going out, having unprotected sex, and getting pregnant, than no. She should not just be able to go and have abortion after abortion. It's medically dangerous to do so, also. There was a girl in my highschool that had a couple abortions by the time we graduated. She was always meeting guys and having unprotected sex. Why should she get to avoid her mistakes and obviously wasn't learning from them?

because it's her body, and her life. and none of your buisness anyway.

And why is it your business that she should be allowed to do something like that?

Oh ok, promiscuous girls of the country, unite! Go out and get pregnant and have as many abortions as you can! It's ok! You won't DIE from it or anything! Of course I'll pay for it out of my tax money when you start getting so many you can't afford it! Yeah! It's your choice, it's ok.

There are some instances, where abortion really isn't the answer and we need to be pushing for people to use their f*cking heads and NOT getting pregnant in the first place. Guys too, they should WANT to wrap up so they don't get disease or have to deal with a baby-momma.

But it's ok, let people make stupid decisions.

yes let people make stupid decisions. It is their own right.

I am chiming in because it seems you are for not allowing her to have an abortion if she so pleases. I feel all women have the right to decide what goes on in their body. Everyone has a right to their own body!! You know even if they are outlawed people will still have them. they will be more dangerous however, and your tax money will go to putting them in jail when they do get one or try to. Then you will paying to feed them anyway!!! Also your tax money will never pay for abortions, it will just never pass.

Women don't try to get have abortions. They aren't like "well im not going to protect myself and if i get pregnant ill just abort it".. that's just illogical. That is similar to saying "i'm going to get a kitten, but if it does something i dont like i will just throw it off a bridge." Women where born with what is known as maternal instinct. We naturally want to care and nurture our children. Abortions are also expensive and you risk never being able to conceive again. I don't think anyone likes that idea or they would have gotten their tubes tied.

But it's ok, let people make stupid decisions.

Well, if you're allowed to come here and make derogatory and inflammatory statements, why shouldn't others be allowed to make their mistakes as well. You can't legislate morality or intelligence.

Veggies - there are tons of women out there that don't just go out and get their tubes tied to prevent pregnancy. They DO see abortion as a multiple-time solution. They DO get careless because of the options of Plan B and abortion and such.

I'm done arguing on this subject.

I hear this often, the concept of using abortion as birth control, but I've yet to see any concrete evidence of it. I'd sure like to see some links or support for this point of view. I think its yet another unsupported, unsubstantiated, emotionally based argument. I know many women who've had abortions. I don't know a single one who uses it as a form of birth control.

Not to mention that its just a lame argument. Women don't go out having unprotected sex thinking "well, if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion." That's just silly. Abortion is an invasive and highly emotionally charged medical procedure. No woman takes the decision lightly.

i know of at least three women who think that abortion is a suitable form of birth control. you most likely know of at least one yourself but most women don't go around advertising this (could it be that they know its wrong?) so you probably don't know it. one of my best friends in high school and i no longer speak because she has now had a total of four- yes four- abortions (that i know of) and she still continues to have unprotected sex and refuses to go on any form of birth control because she thinks it might make her fat. it's infuriating considering i want a child and have fertility issues, and there she is in all her fertilness murdering babies whenever it's convenient

PGH,

First off.......A woman's sexual behaviors do not deem her character as a slut. She is free to control her body and choices without your self righteous opinions. Her moral compass is based on many other traits besides sex. Thats YOUR brainwashed opinion derived from YOUR religion or up bringing. Don't shove your personal beliefs into someones elses life. It's NONE of your business.

The vile you are preaching is so fear based it reeks of ignorance. If you think women routinly have abortions like facials...you are incorrect. Women today are very aware of their sexual reporoductive options and rights. I think you have been watching too much religious propoganda instead of researching hard stats and facts.

If you are a man....then there is really no point in discussing this matter anymore as you have no say over a woman's right to choose.

If you are a woman...then you scare me. I suggest you run to the closest library or bookstore and find some great feminist materials and free your mind a little from the BS have have been taught. The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti is a great place to start.

65% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Not to mention that 5 out of 4 people are bad with fractions...

Statistics don't lie, but statisticians DO.

Like that one JC.

Who cares if adoption isn't easy???? Why should she get some EASY way out when shes the dumbass who cant understand the birth control shot. I was adopted and Im sure it wasnt an EASY decision for my birthmom but at least she made the right choice.

Unless her own life is at stake she shouldn't be playing games with life. You make stupid choices and you have to sometimes suffer through hard consequences. Suck it up.

Also maybe she needs a HARD DECISION/reality check like adoption so she can ACTUALLY start paying attention to her birth control and stop getting pregnant.

emoney...

You have no right to dictate what women do with their bodies. You also have no right to force parenthood on anyone. If you make your choices based on your moral compass...fine. But others may not share your views.

My mother had me because abortion wasn't legal in the late sixties. If given the choice, she said she would have terminated the pregnancy...and I see her point. You can't miss what you never had.

emoney: You answered your own question. Do we really want a "dumbass who can't understand the birth control shot" raising yet another child? Think about that one.

It becomes my business what these women do with their bodies when their worthless kids go on welfare and I end up paying for it. I say free abortions and sterilization for all.

You make stupid choices and you have to sometimes suffer through hard consequences. Suck it up.

A child should never be punishment for a stupid choice. Each of us should make decisions that are best for us, regardless of what others might think of as being "easy" or not. Neither having an abortion or having a child is an "easy" decision. That anyone would say it is is terribly immature.

A child shouldn't have to BE PUNISHED for someone else's stupid choice. When you get pregnant you no longer get to make decisions that are best for YOU. The decision has to be best for everyone. INCLUDING THE BABY, (or fetus, or embryo, or whatever else terminology you want to use to dehumanize the LIVING BEING in your body).

I was also comparing abortion as the easier choice in comparison to adoption since my comment was based on someone saying that adoption isn't easy. I never said either was an EASY choice, what I was saying is why should they get to pick the EASIER of the two options.

Why shouldn't they be able to pick what they consider the "easier" of the two options? (Your definition, not mine.) That's the whole point of being able to make the choice for yourself. You make the best decision for yourself under the circumstances and conditions you live under at the moment, if taking an "easier" way is best, then why not? The fetus in a woman's body doesn't really have any stake in whether its born or not, so I don't think its unreasonable to consider everyone else's benefit first, including that of the woman carrying the pregnancy.

FYI a heffer is a male bull who has been neutered. sounds like your the fool here.

Also; how dare you criticise a women for making a decision about her body based on her own feelings or abiliity to provide for a child financially or emotionally. I can see by your comments you have never had to make such a choice. When a person who is unable to care for a child brings one into the world they create a victim. The child becomes the victim of it's parents stress. Children who grow up in broken homes often turn to drugs and crime, and almost always grow up with emotional problems and have trouble in relationships. It is imposable to predict during gestation whether or not this child will become a disturbed adult. Therefore it is up to the parent to make an adult informed decision on whether or not to have their child. It is their body, their offspring, and entirely their decision.

BTuck: I'm sure MTV is taking taxes out of the SALARY that they are paying the kids to be one the show. I doubt any of your money is in their pockets. And it's ridiculous. Not rediculous.

@BTuck: And yet, you are posting all over this feed that this little girl (lets call her exactly what she is - a little baby girl herself) should go ahead and have this child so it too can use YOUR hard earned tax dollars to live off of, because it is the product of "these lowlifes" and they most certainly can't afford to support this child if they can't afford their first. This idea of yours is absurd.

@Women22: I commend you for making one of the most difficult decisions a WOMAN has to make.

-Unless you are (1) a woman, and (2) have had the painfully unpleasant choice of deciding to have an abortion or not, then you cannot judge another woman who has.

-And just to add to this, doesn't it state in the Bible - this is for all you high & mighty Bible-thumpers - to love thy neighbors as they are and that one cannot judge others until one is free of sin....and I'm pretty damn sure there isn't a person alive who is trully "sin-free", so all of you need to stop judging others and start looking in the mirror.

doesn't it state in the Bible - this is for all you high & mighty Bible-thumpers - to love thy neighbors as they are and that one cannot judge others until one is free of sin

No. It doesn't. It says to love God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole strength. And to love your neighbor as yourself.

If someone really believes that God is the one who makes babies possible, they can't really support taking away a gift that he's given. That would be just like stealing from Him. Unless you're supportive of aborting yourself, you really can't be supportive of aborting one of your own neighbors. =/

I'm not sure anyone here feels sorry for this young girl. But you seem especially punitive, like you really want her to suffer. I can't see what purpose that will serve.

And abortion isn't murder. The law doesn't see it that way. Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure which is a highly personal and private decision made by a woman with the assistance of her physician. It has no positive or negative effects on anyone beside the woman doing it.

jwhite1083- I really think God has more important things to worry about than the fertility of quite obviously fertile young people. Pregnancy and the ability to reproduce is a simple fact of biology. Granted, my belief is that biology (and all sciences, in fact) stem from God. But I don't believe God is directly involved with every single pregnancy. I would be willing to concede divine intervention if the parents-to-be were both proven sterile, otherwise, no.

And as far as being "supportive of aborting (oneself)", I have no care as to my death. I've been waiting for it since I was born. How I view my life has absolutely no bearing on others; I would never tell others how to live. Maybe everyone should learn to keep their nose within their own business.

Heifer: a young cow, especially one that has never had a calf.

my mistake... still makes her statement pretty far off.

achick do you really believe in God? If so you would understand that someone who is a lifegiver would be concerned with life.

Considering that Jesus was a Jew that adhered to the Mosaic Law, the idea that Jesus would have anything to do with abortion is proposturous.

this is just a bunch of bs to justify the fact that you are a murderer who killed a baby.

jwhite- Certainly, I love God and believe Jesus is His son and the Christ. However, I do not have an inflated ego over the fact that I am a human, and therefore am unconcerned about whether I live, die, or was ever born. Where do you come up with the idea that because I am female, I would be involved in the lives and decisions of other women? Also, why would you assume that because I am female that I must have given birth?

I do not think it is proper to feel as though any of us have cornered the market on God. I don't think Jesus would turn His back on any of us, considering all He sacrificed on our behalf. To think of oneself as "better" than others because one thinks of oneself as "righteous" smacks of pride to me. It reminds me of the German SS, with the insignia "God with Us" on their belt buckles.

JWhite........

You contradict yourself. If you believe that a "god" is the creator of all......one who is responsible for everything occurring in the world - then that would include the technology to perform abortions.

You can't have it both ways.

No ones contradicting themselves here. Just because God is life giver and is involved with every life brought to Earth, does not mean he is responsible for everything occuring in the world. God did not make this woman's choice to abort. She did. How is that God's fault?

The point is every child has the right to live. And no human has the right to take that life away. Yes a woman will suffer to give birth. Yes a child may not have a 3 bedroom house to grow up in. But a child is happy in the arms of their mother no matter where that may be or how much money may be in her wallet.

I'm terribly sorry that this woman had to suffer (by having the abortion or not) and I'm terribly sorry for the life that was ended. I just hope she learns to be more careful and decides to wait to have sex until she is in a position to provide for her family. I hate to hear that this could happen more than once to a woman.

If God is all knowing and therefor all controlling....

then he gave us brains....he gave us technology...he gave us medicine....

he gave us the means to abort an unwanted preganancy.

PERIOD.

"My son is grief stricken over this, but really has no control since he is estranged from her Mother who he never married, and he only provided the minimal support the court ordered for his daughter while she was growing up." There's your clue. No TV show will undo the damage that your granddaughter's lack of a stable home life did. It's not the world we live in today-why would you expect her not to follow in her parents' footsteps and have a baby out of wedlock?

If your granddaughter is 21, then there's really nothing her father can do about it anyway.

As for the marriage part, there was a time when young kids automatically got married when they learned they were pregnant, but that didn't really turn out so well either. We have a better than 50% divorce rate in this country now, having babies doesn't seem to keep people together. I don't necessarily think its a bad thing that these kids aren't getting married. If you're not prepared for parenthood, how prepared can you be for marriage? One bad mistake doesn't fix another bad mistake. It just creates twice the trouble.

leonhl....you are absolutely correct...guess I didn't make myself clear...I wasn't sympathizing with my son, I was pointing out exactly what you stated, that what could he expect the outcome to be when he behaved the way he did toward his mother and child.

John..

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!

John ....and retroactive. I've seen some posts from some that should be retroactively aborted.

Johnredmoron............

You are a doofus!

to equate getting pregnant with discipline is one of the most idiotic statements I've heard. Why blame her? Tell him to curb his uncontrollable urges and keep it in his pants.

Why blame her? Because women are blamed for everything...whether its her fault or not. It would be just as easy to tell the guy to keep it in his pants, but we don't do that in our culture because we still foster an attitude that men are allowed to be as promiscuous as they please without any negative judgment on their promiscuity. That is reserved for the women they sleep with.

"...negative judgement...is reserved for the women they sleep with."

Janeinthisworld, you hit the nail on the head.

angela, I agree that it is her decision. But I don't agree that men will never understand how hard the decision is. There are COUPLES out there that are faced with this decision and it is just as hard on the men. I think it is up to the couple to make the decision, not John Q. Public. I applaud her for facing this difficult decision and at least TRYING not to get pregnant again. Afterall, she was on birth control.

BTuck,

You really are quite abnoxious aren't you?

And you may want to educate yourself. Killing a baby is called murder and is a crime. Abortion is legal...not the same.

Stop and think why you are so judgemental here....me thinks you are a fool.

Btuck, i will not question your child's mental state out of respect. However i will state it seems you have some pent up anger directed twords the fact that you had to raise a child and give up your youth. Seems you feel abortion is the easy way out, and resent someone who gets a break and dosnt give up their life due to one mistake.

I'm sorry you had to raise a child while you where still a child yourself. It is not fair however that just because you had the means to do so, that you bilittle someone who dosnt. It's called personal choice, and everyone has the right to it.

let me also add: you say you are not a murderer huh? well do you eat hamburgers? or smash spiders? How about buy leather or fur? unless you do none of those things, you are a murderer as well.

BTuck, you really do seem to have anger issues. It must be the old adage of "misery loves company" dictating your life, otherwise you wouldn't care in the slightest what another woman does.

animals are more alive than an ebryo.

BTuck,

The fact that you've never heard the expression " me thinks you are a fool" confirms for me your level of social standing and extended education. Meaning you are illiterate as well as socially inept.

So with that I will leave you alone as clearly you are not up to par.

Obviously, BTuck, you didn't read gramomster's post very well, because you didn't see the part where she DID learn from her mistake.

Like I said, you seem very punitive, like you really want people to suffer and be unhappy for their mistakes. That's too bad, because your time and energy could be spent in far more productive ways than being judgmental and vindictive.

Such an angry child btuck. not surprised you hate vegetables.. you obviously dont know what is good for you. Your statement is flawed. I obviously have a higher level of dexterity than an embryo, and trust me more brain power. How old are you anyway kiddo? does your mommy know how your acting. i think its past your bedtime.

Btuck,

I certainly understand your angst and applaude your decision to take responsibility for your actions and have your baby. You are obviously a strong individual. The problem we face as a society is that the genepool does not alway produce people that make good parents. Yes, in a perfect world boys and girls genitals would not function until they were finacially and psychologically ready to reproduce, but we all know that's not the case. While my moral compass tends to point more like yours, I tend to take responsibility for my actions I understand that abortion is probably a necessary evil. If there are people that decide that they should not reproduce, its probably a good idea. In too many cases, an unwanted pregnanct results in an unwanted child. These children often times grow up in dysfunctional households, or are placed into the state sposored care sytems (which includes foster care) and forever become a burden to the society. The lucky ones do get adopted and realize the benefits of a stable family life.

If you want to call abortion killing, fine. As a society we allow and even condone killing all the time. Our military kills innocents that get caught in between us and our goals, people die everyday from diseases because they can't get adequate care. So, while it may seem reprehensible to some, abortion is needed.

:( my bad

if you really think the decision to abort is easy, perhaps you ought to volunteer at a Planned Parenthood office. you'll see all sorts of difficult decisions being made, include whether or not to abort.

Sometimes if you start by becoming a licensed foster parent, you can eventually end up with a child who is available for adoption, and it won't cost nearly as much. I hope you are able to realize your dream.

Mike....

Let's be honest here. An embryo isn't a baby, toddler or human for that matter. An embryo only has the potential to become human. Thats like saying an acorn is a tree....which it isn't.

An embryo isn't another word for baby no matter how hard you try. An embryo is a cluster of specialized cells that if given a certain circumstance may develop into something else.

Don't lie just to further your arguement.

A seed is not a tree.

An embryo is not a baby.

Boston when a couple has a child they want in utero they talk about "the baby", when a child a woman wants, moves inside of her, she says, "feel my baby;" this has probably been the case since man first made up words. Biology does not say that their is a qualitative difference between baby and embryo. A tree is not a mammal and a seed is not an embryo, but an embryo is a baby, ask any pregnant mom who actually wants her baby what she has inside of her and she will tell you, "my baby."

Mike,

Semantics aside.

Biology absolutely makes a qualitative distinction between embryo and baby....and so does the law.

An embryo isn't a human. Period. It can't sustain life outside a host.......a "baby" can. That is scientific fact , not emotion. People are free to describe their intended baby, infant, fetus...whatever as they see fit. You can be angry at their semantics, but it's semantics just the same. You are letting emotions rule your reason.

What a woman or couple chooses to call their future child isn't up to you. It's their personal choice.

Boston is right, Mike. The terms that people use to describe their pregnancies are wholly dependent on their emotions, which are highly subjective and vary from person to person. The scientific terms used to describe a fetus at different stages are necessary for meaning and context and do not vary at all, they have very precise parameters. If this wasn't true, then you may as well say an unfertilized egg or a single sperm is a "baby" when certainly neither of them are.

Boston is completely right.

Biology dictates what constitutes a human being. An embryo isn't a person. You can change words to fit your needs but the 2 are very different.

If an embryo was capable of sustaining life outside a womb and functioning as a person....then we would have a different story.

Semantics is the point of this whole discussion words have power, in this case people are trying to use words to lie to themselves and others See definition 5 below from the Websters dictionary; and Notice the definitions above for embryo where it states that an embryo is the young of an animal prior to birth. Embryo in biology is a term used to seperate a fertilized zygot from an egg or a sperm so those comparissons are moot. No matter how you look at it, or try to spin it or wish it wasn't so; semantics, emotion, and reason all dictate that an embryo is a baby.

ba·by

–noun

1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.

Words are important, they have power. No one would support killing a baby, but mostwould support killing a parasite, therefore rebranding baby's embryo's is nothing but an attempt to evade the real question "should we abort babies." In short it is a falshood perpetuated by a social and political agenda, or perhaps a lie of convenience to some. Therefore the Semantics are key to this discourse; people have to use their words correctly.

So I have supplied material from a reputable libguistic source (Websters dictionary) to back up my assertion that the terms; fetus and embryo, are simply subdivisions of the term Baby, and that both fall under or are at least equal to the word baby; this because they share definitions. Hence an embryo or a fetus is a baby.

You who say I am wrong post a respectable objective source for your assertion.

Boston states; "An embryo isn't a human. Period. It can't sustain life outside a host.......a "baby" can. That is scientific fact"

I reply; Please show me one reputable scientific source where it is stated that in order to be human an organism must be able to sustain its own life?

Jane Says (hee hee); The terms that people use to describe their pregnancies are wholly dependent on their emotions, which are highly subjective and vary from person to person. The scientific terms used to describe a fetus at different stages are necessary for meaning and context and do not vary at all, they have very precise parameters.

I reply; Please supply the "precise parameters" for the periods under question and show where they state that the organism under discussion is not a living example of its species.

If you can't do these things I assert that both of your arguments above are invalid.

Mike,

You are truly arguing semantics here. I have had quite a few friends confide in me about their past abortions, but one was striking and seems relevant here.

I had a roommate in college who shared with me the story of her abortion, back when she was in her teens. She was raised in a Catholic household and thus did not use protection with her first boyfriend. When she described to me her experiences, she did not refer to the embryo as a "baby"- she actually referred to it as a parasite. Perhaps this sounds cruel, but this was the only way she was able to come to terms with aborting, having been raised in a strict catholic household. She described to me her experiences and how scared and unprepared she was. She was truly terrified of her family and made her decision after much soul searching. To her, the embryo resembled more a parasite than a baby. Now just imagine how this attitude would reflect on the upbringing of a child in this circumstance, had she chosen not to abort. I'm happy to say my roommate graduated college, got married and had a baby in time; she is actually pregnant again right now. She is a wonderful mother and has great instinct with her daughter. But this all happened nearly ten years later to a very different person than the scared teenager she was back then.

So just as arguing semantics is relative, you cannot attribute lofty ideals to all people and all situations. There is no telling what will happen to a child after their birth; and more importantly, there is no telling how an unborn child will turn out. Working in disability I can see how fragile birthing can be and the severe developmental delays that can occur without any warning or indication. It may be quite easy to adopt out a young, healthy child. But that is not the case for children born with the myriad of relatively common birth defects: CP, cleft lip/palate, hemangiomas, clubbed feet, syndactyl- there are hundreds of things that can make a baby immediately less desirable to an adopting couple. In my roomate's case, there is no question her parents would have made her keep the baby and keep it in the family. However, it is impossible for you or I to say how things would have turned out. What I do know is that my roomate is doing well with her new family and the children she now has are loved and wanted; please note, I use the plural "children" because her unborn child is now wholly wanted and accepted.

So my question to you is, how productive is your argument about the definition of an embryo? Will it further the cause of the thousands of unwanted and abused children in the foster system right now? Will it affect the size of my caseload, with all the previously drug-addicted parents who have regained custody and need state assistance for their developmentally delayed 8 year olds? Abortion is certainly not a perfect answer and, contrary to conservative viewpoints, it is hardly something pro-choice advocates wish to see happen. It is, however, (for lack of a better word) a neccessary evil. Until a better solution is found, abortion will probably remain the best choice for many girls/women out there; to say nothing of our society as a whole.

Mike, I never said a developing fetus wasn't human, only that the correct term for it is not "baby". If you want the parameters then I suggest you Google "stages of human development" or "fetal development". That will give you the scientific definitions of what a fetus is called at what period of its development. Those are concrete and are agreed upon by the scientific and medical community.

Unless we can agree on specific terms to describe things, then we can't really have a conversation about it because we don't really know what each other means by the words we use. When I hear a woman talk about her baby in utero, I know that she means fetus, but she is using a word of endearment by calling it her baby. I do not fault her for that, as she has an emotional connection to this potential life. But it simply isn't the correct term.

SLMS said "So my question to you is, how productive is your argument about the definition of an embryo? Will it further the cause of the thousands of unwanted and abused children in the foster system right now? Will it affect the size of my caseload, with all the previously drug-addicted parents who have regained custody and need state assistance for their developmentally delayed 8 year olds?"

MY Reply; First off, good post you are much more thoughtful than most here, but your post is still just an anecdotal appeal to emotion, a cross breeding of two logical fallacies. And as far as your question above goes it is an irrelevent association , another kind of logical fallacy, a discussion about the best cure for cancer will not affect your case load but still has value. Likewise any discussion of truth has value and that is what my post is about; being truthful to ourselves and each other.

Baby and fetus share definitions, the logical form is therefore; If a=c and b=c, than a=b. If a baby is the a human fetus (see webster definition above) and an embryo is the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month (see webster definition origional post) than it follows that an embryo is a baby.

Jane I have cited my sources and presented my argument in a logical form, you have done nothing but say, "No it's not."

Provide some effective contrary sources, illustrate the logical errors in my assertions or...

...please stfu because I can listen to unsupported nonsensical ramblings anywhere, and I am just not interested in yours.

Mike.......

We can use names for any variety of things depending on our personal definition and for the case that is is relative to......that is semantics.

Bottom line...an embryo ( original conversation topic) is not a self sustaining, independant, sentient being. It exists only in part of it's host and will cease to exist if removed from said enviornment.

You calling it anything other than what it is due to your personal ideals will not alter it's reality.

2nd bottom line......a woman can decide for herself without guilt, shame or fear of society's hang ups when she will , if ever, give birth . You are not part of that equation. For men, I suggest you know your partner well and realize once you let your 1/2 of the DNA out you relinquish any further ownership of what choices may be made in reference to it's possible development.

Thats semantics.

well said

we are women hear us roar!

Have you adopted?

In the immortal words of the late great George Carlin:

"I don't see any of these christian conservatives adopting any crack babies, that might be something Christ would do."

Carlin must be blind. Almost every family in the US that adopts or fosters is a Christian one and most orphanages are run by Christian religious organizations.

Carlin is not blind, please reread he was singling out crack babies.

A lot of foster children are crack babies living with Christian foster parents. Blind or willfully ignorant.

i will never understand why the baby doesn't get a choice in the matter.

The fetus isn't aware that it even exists. It doesn't care if its born or not.

Carlin must be blind. Almost every family in the US that adopts or fosters is a Christian one and most orphanages are run by Christian religious organizations.

This is so incorrect, I don't even know where to start. There are no orphanages in the US, much less Christian ones. There are state run facilities for some specific kinds of children, but they are hardly Christian ones. Families of every religious background, as well as no religious background, both foster and adopt.

Christians have crack babies too. They also become pregnant unintentionally. How many of the girls on "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom" are young Christians? Amber Portwood is being charged with domestic violence and endangering her child and she is a Christian.

Jane

There are orphanages in the USA..They come in different names..Foster Care,Child care,State Care,Adoption Agency.The list goes on..Oh and yes the fetus knows it exists..Once you pluck it arms and head off you can see how it wiggles trying to survive.It is called the Silent Scream..

No Smead, you are incorrect. You can twist words all you want. There are no orphanages in the United States. We have a foster care system which places children with foster parents in their home. Sometimes, there are group homes, but these are still not orphanages. Calling foster care an orphanage doesn't make it an orphanage, it just means you're using the wrong terminology.

Again, a fetus is not aware of its own existence. It doesn't have the brain development to be aware of anything other than instinctual reactions. In fact this development doesn't come until several months after the birth of a full term pregnancy. A fetus has no desire to survive, since it doesn't know its even alive.

Its one thing to be opposed to abortion, but its something different to purposely deceive people and manipulate their emotions by spreading such blatant falsehoods.

Smead....

C'mon. Don't embelish and flat out lie.

The anti-abortion propoganda of a silent scream is totally false.......and you know it. If you don't know it I suggest you educate yourself quickly. Please explain to me how a cluster of cells can scream? Absurd.

Scare tactics don't work any longer because women are educated in what an abortion actually means.

jennifer,

How can a woman be a survivor of an abortion? You mean to say she was a product of a failed abortion attempt.

Yes, but I think you probably knew what I meant.

are all of those people in your vagina? My guess is you just have some sand up there instead. You really need to clean it out.

first off let me point out that embryos do not incubate in the vagina, but in the uterus.

Now to speak to what you were trying to say; So all I have to do is shove people into my Vagin@ then I can abort them?

judging by your name, i doubt you have one... or at least where born with one.

Veggie point is I can get one if I want one, and for the sake of aborting some people it might even be worth it!