Abortion
Jabriol
On 23-Jan-2000, "Bur...@irtc.net" <bur...@irtc.net> wrote:
> there is a little alternative called A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. There are
> so many married couples who want children but are unable to have them that
> if every aborted baby in the U.S. had been given up for adoption, they
> would
> all have a home with a loving family. Give me one good reason why this
> shouldn't be an alternative to abortion.
Because it is difficult to adopt a baby in the united states, that wahy
people buy thier babies in China.
--
Intellectual argument of the Issues at hand:
www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
Para asuntos Hispanos, en Castellano: www.onelist.com/subscribe/boriken
Alex Wolfson
: On 23-Jan-2000, "Bur...@irtc.net" <bur...@irtc.net> wrote:
:> there is a little alternative called A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. There are
:> so many married couples who want children but are unable to have them that
:> if every aborted baby in the U.S. had been given up for adoption, they
:> would
:> all have a home with a loving family. Give me one good reason why this
:> shouldn't be an alternative to abortion.
: Because it is difficult to adopt a baby in the united states, that wahy
: people buy thier babies in China.
: --
Ahem, adoption is an alternative to abortion. Who says it isn't?
Adopting domestically is no easier or harder than overseas. Its
just different. Seems to me that neither of you know what you are
talking about.
: Intellectual argument of the Issues at hand:
: www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
: Para asuntos Hispanos, en Castellano: www.onelist.com/subscribe/boriken
--
SlayerBud - The Mighty Shepherd
Jabriol
On 26-Jan-2000, Alex Wolfson <a...@netcom5.netcom.com> wrote:
> Ahem, adoption is an alternative to abortion. Who says it isn't?
> Adopting domestically is no easier or harder than overseas. Its
> just different
it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby in
china, than it is to adopt a child
in the USA..
but feel free to "educate" us..
can a jw adopt a child in the united states, knowing full well that they may
let that adopted child die, if it needs a blood transfusion?
--
Alex Wolfson
: On 26-Jan-2000, Alex Wolfson <a...@netcom5.netcom.com> wrote:
:> Ahem, adoption is an alternative to abortion. Who says it isn't?
:> Adopting domestically is no easier or harder than overseas. Its
:> just different
: it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby in
: china, than it is to adopt a child
: in the USA..
Bullshit...
I dont think you know a goddam thing about adoption domestic or otherwise.
How many times have you adopted?
: can a jw adopt a child in the united states, knowing full well that they may
: let that adopted child die, if it needs a blood transfusion?
Probably, and especially if the childs bmom is a Witness.
Dave Barnes
jab...@catalan.org wrote:
> it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby in
> china, than it is to adopt a child
> in the USA..
You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.
How many children have you adopted, or are you another one of those people who
feel a responsibility to force women to have the unwanted children, but take no
responsibility after it is born. (Untill they commit a crime, then you want to
throw the switch, yourself...)
--
Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine
Jabriol
On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:
> > it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby
> > in
> > china, than it is to adopt a child
> > in the USA..
>
> You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.
> How many children have you adopted,
one girl.. next question...
Bob
Jab.
Three copies of this one, each posted two minutes apart. Are you, like, having
tremors and hitting the send key more than once?
Jabriol
Jabriol
Alex Wolfson
: On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:
:> You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.
:> How many children have you adopted,
: one girl.. next question...
So you adopted a baby girl from China? And you refer to this adoption
in a public forum as "buying a baby"? Shame on you...
Do you have no regard for your little girls feelings?
People like you give aparents a bad name...
Dave Barnes
jab...@catalan.org wrote:
> On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:
>
> > > it very different I agree, the diference that it is easier to buy a baby
> > > in
> > > china, than it is to adopt a child
> > > in the USA..
> >
> > You mean easier than it is to adopt a healthy, white baby.
> > How many children have you adopted,
>
> one girl.. next question...
If true (and I have no reason to not believe you), I congratulate you on
following up on your convictions. You are the first person on this NG to say
this.
However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy white
children are hard to adopt. Yet non-healthy, non-white babies are more apt to
be born if abortion were made to be illegal.
Sue Tretter
> If true (and I have no reason to not believe you), I congratulate you on
> following up on your convictions. You are the first person on this NG to say
> this.
>
> However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy white
> children are hard to adopt.
Wouldn't that depend on one's perspective and whom you're viewing as the
"customer"?
If you are the neonate, adoption isn't usually difficult, time-consuming, or hard.
If you're the prospective adoptive parent, your perspective might be totally
different.
I wish more of us would try seeing adoption through the children's eyes.
> Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine
Good sig. And my new one: "Expecting the world to treat you fairly because
you're good, is like expecting the bull not to charge because you're a
vegetarian."
Anon.
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
Jabriol
On 26-Jan-2000, Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote:
> If true (and I have no reason to not believe you)
well it is... not I wanted too, but so goes life, later on we discovered
that the child was emtionally disturbed,
we did not adopt a infant, but a pre-teen child. It cost me about 38,000 in
a two week period, for shrink care, It was revealed the child was abused,
something that made my blood boiled, until it was explain too me that rape
is a part of natural selction in evolutiuon.. we adopted a defective
product.. a throw away..and I have been through hell and back.. In the nd we
kept the child until it left on it own legal ability when she became 16..
and has succefully reproduce two more equally un-fathered brats, the future
delinquents in our ever going evolved society.
> However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy
> white
> children are hard to adopt.
well maybe if the coathanger was so easily and legally easy to get.. there
would be more white babies to adopt.
Dave Barnes
<ses...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
Sue:
The reason that pro-lifers and pro-choicers (I refuse to distort their chosen
names to make a weak point, I wish others would do the same) is that we are
talking about two different things. We can never agree.
Pro-lifers, as the name implies, see the issue as "life". The child, the baby,
etc. It is the most important thing to them. The bible emphisizes life.
Pro-choicers, again as the name implies, see the "life" question as secondary to
the "liberties" question. American history and heritage emphisizes civil
liberties.
We shouldn't be going back and forth about "when does life begin", etc., but
which is more important? All life or the citizens civil rights. How does one
get beyound this issue?
I actually believe that the pro-life movement has caused more abortions to be
allowed, and not the other way. Many pro-choice people (like myself) are afraid
to concede ANYTHING to the pro-life forces out of fear that once we step out
onto that slippery slope, we won't get back. (Kind of a NRA mentality...)
An example - "late term abortions" - I personally believe that many pro-choice
people might be willing to give a little on this issue if they were so afraid of
what we see as the unreasonable pro-life forces out their waiting to exploit the
issue.
--
Sue Tretter
> Sue:
>
> The reason that pro-lifers and pro-choicers (I refuse to distort their chosen
> names to make a weak point, I wish others would do the same) is that we are
> talking about two different things. We can never agree.
Oh but I do agree with pro-lifers on many issues. And there is?was a group called
COMMON GROUND which brought pro-life and pro-choice advocates together in a retreat
setting so they could explore those areas of agreement that they did have, see that
the "enemy" was in fact another sane person (in most cases) who loved their family,
respected the ... Whatever.
I've lost track of the Common Ground group and don't know if it's ongoing.
I wonder about those who use words like "never", "always", etc. to discuss human
nature.
> Pro-lifers, as the name implies, see the issue as "life". The child, the baby,
> etc. It is the most important thing to them. The bible emphisizes life.
>
> Pro-choicers, again as the name implies, see the "life" question as secondary to
> the "liberties" question. American history and heritage emphisizes civil
> liberties.
Perhaps that's why I often describe myself as BOTH pro-life and pro-choice.
> We shouldn't be going back and forth about "when does life begin", etc., but
> which is more important? All life or the citizens civil rights. How does one
> get beyound this issue?
I believe a good start would be to realize that good people can hold divergent
positions and that it behooves none of us to try to push our religious/moral agenda
on an unwilling recipient.
> I actually believe that the pro-life movement has caused more abortions to be
> allowed, and not the other way. Many pro-choice people (like myself) are afraid
> to concede ANYTHING to the pro-life forces out of fear that once we step out
> onto that slippery slope, we won't get back. (Kind of a NRA mentality...)
I can understand that. But I thought you were going to say that the pro-life stance
against the anti-implantation pill has resulted in more abortions. I've often
wondered about that ...
> An example - "late term abortions" - I personally believe that many pro-choice
> people might be willing to give a little on this issue if they were so afraid of
> what we see as the unreasonable pro-life forces out their waiting to exploit the
> issue.
Well, if you're staking out a cause with such a defensive mind-set, I suspect that's
not the best method.
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
Sue Tretter
> well it is... not I wanted too, but so goes life, later on we discovered
> that the child was emtionally disturbed,
> we did not adopt a infant, but a pre-teen child. It cost me about 38,000 in
> a two week period, for shrink care, It was revealed the child was abused,
> something that made my blood boiled, until it was explain too me that rape
> is a part of natural selction in evolutiuon..
But those who are saying that rape is "part of natural selection in evolution"
are not also saying that rape is justified in our society.
> we adopted a defective
> product.. a throw away..and I have been through hell and back..
YOU have?
> In the nd we
> kept the child until it left on it own legal ability when she became 16..
Why are you using "it" instead of the more normal pronouns?
> and has succefully reproduce two more equally un-fathered brats, the future
> delinquents in our ever going evolved society.
Those "un-fathered brats ... future delinquents" would be your grandchildren,
would they not?
Btw, how does one produce an "un-fathered" child? Are we talking about
immaculate/virgin conception here, or cloning? Or are you using fallacious
terminology to convey that the children will be or are being raised without the
ongoing presence and support of their male parent?
Dave Barnes
<ses...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
> > An example - "late term abortions" - I personally believe that many
> > pro-choice
> > people might be willing to give a little on this issue if they were so
> > afraid of
> > what we see as the unreasonable pro-life forces out their waiting to
> > exploit the
> > issue.
>
> Well, if you're staking out a cause with such a defensive mind-set, I
> suspect that's
> not the best method.
Thanks for the intelligent conversation, its rare here.
Again, on "late term abortions", I have to be honest and say that I am unclear
of the details of the procedure and how/when it is used. There is so much
ProLife/ProChoice propaganda about it that it is hard to tell what is really the
truth.
Note to the rest of you: Please don't attach more ProLife/ProChoice propaganda
on "late term abortions" to this message.
Sue Tretter
> Sue T:
> > Well, if you're staking out a cause with such a defensive mind-set, I
> > suspect that's > not the best method.
>
> Thanks for the intelligent conversation, its rare here.
That's certainly not what I've been hearing of late from other a.a. posters!
> Again, on "late term abortions", I have to be honest and say that I am unclear
> of the details of the procedure and how/when it is used.
Don't you think that educating yourself on the procedure might be a dandy idea
BEFORE expressing an opinion on the pro-choice or pro-abortion issue?
> There is so much
> ProLife/ProChoice propaganda about it that it is hard to tell what is really the
> truth.
Hard but not impossible.
> Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine
I agree with Tom Paine on this.
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
BG
Rose Busch <ro...@roze.net> wrote in message
news:gyRk4.3586$4f5.9...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> ---
> Dave Barnes <bar...@uca.edu> wrote in message
> news:barnes-308432....@news.visi.com...
> > However, I still believe what I said, and perhaps you agree? Healthy
> white
> > children are hard to adopt.
>
>
> Yet non-healthy, non-white babies are more apt to
> > be born if abortion were made to be illegal.
Maybe the parents who choose to keep abortion legal would be better putting
that energy into properly raising their children and teaching them about the
responsibilities of have a child. Instead they find it easier to push their
child aside and if (or should I say when) she does become pregnant they can
say "don't worry dear, that's what doctors and dumpsters were made for!"
>
> $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then go up
as
> women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods. What
will
> the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when you had
a chance to be a child). And maybe after a few of those deaths you are so
concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl will
think twice about getting pregnant in the first place. If she does, and
chooses the sleazy backroom abortion and dies it would be tragic. But, you
tell me what makes her life more important than the baby she is murdering.
> --
>
> Carol...
> Too many people try a little kindness. As little as possible.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>
>
hereti...@my-deja.com
"BG" <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
snip
> > $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> > underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then
go up
> as
> > women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.
Of course, wealthy women will have no trouble convincing
docs that THEIR abortion is "therapeutic", or simply
vacationing where abortion is available.
That is what was going on before Roe.
What
> will
> > the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
>
> It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when
you had
> a chance to be a child).
Nope. You are wrong. Abortion was common, some estimate that the
RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
made abortion illegal.
> And maybe after a few of those deaths you
are so
> concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl
will
> think twice about getting pregnant in the first place.
May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon. Most women
don't have a choice in having sex or not.
Maybe we should just castrate males, if they are so irresponsible
as you seem to think.
> If she does,
and
> chooses the sleazy backroom abortion and dies it would be tragic.
Yeah, the bitch deserved it, right?
But, you
> tell me what makes her life more important than the baby she is
murdering.
Because a fetus is not a baby, rapo.
Only a rapist would insist that everything is the woman's fault.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Spouse
Rose Busch <ro...@roze.net> wrote in message
news:gyRk4.3586$4f5.9...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
back
> underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will
then go up as
> women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.
> the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
>
> Carol...
> Too many people try a little kindness. As little as possible.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
Dave Barnes
> Maybe the parents who choose to keep abortion legal would be better putting
> that energy into properly raising their children and teaching them about the
> responsibilities of have a child. Instead they find it easier to push their
> child aside and if (or should I say when) she does become pregnant they can
> say "don't worry dear, that's what doctors and dumpsters were made for!"
Maybe you are right, but SO WHAT? They don't do that!
If you want to live your life on maybe this, maybe that, fine. But stop
trying to change the real world with these goofy "maybe" rules.
Maybe we should all stop killing each other, so let's do away with the
military.
Maybe criminals should stop committing crimes, so lets dump the police.
--
Bem
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <YiCl4.6229$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "BG" <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
> snip
> > > $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> > > underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then
> go up
> > as
> > > women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.
>
> Of course, wealthy women will have no trouble convincing
> docs that THEIR abortion is "therapeutic", or simply
> vacationing where abortion is available.
> That is what was going on before Roe.
>
> What
> > will
> > > the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
> >
> > It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when
> you had
> > a chance to be a child).
>
> Nope. You are wrong. Abortion was common, some estimate that the
> RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
> Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
> made abortion illegal.
>
> > And maybe after a few of those deaths you
> are so
> > concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl
> will
> > think twice about getting pregnant in the first place.
>
> May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon. Most women
> don't have a choice in having sex or not.
Are you completely insane? Where do you come up with this crap. Amazing.
Baffling. Stupid
BG
<hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8775k8$otq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <YiCl4.6229$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "BG" <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
> snip
> > > $$$ If abortion becomes illegal it will not STOP, simply move back
> > > underground like it was when I was young. The death rate will then
> go up
> > as
> > > women start to die outside clinics and with questionable methods.
>
> Of course, wealthy women will have no trouble convincing
> docs that THEIR abortion is "therapeutic", or simply
> vacationing where abortion is available.
> That is what was going on before Roe.
>
> What
> > will
> > > the so called pro-life/non-choice crowd do then?
> >
> > It will not STOP but it most certainly will greatly decline (as when
> you had
> > a chance to be a child).
>
> Nope. You are wrong. Abortion was common, some estimate that the
> RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
> Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
> made abortion illegal.
If you believe that abortion was as common say in the 60's as it is now with
an Abortions-Are-Us clinic on every other corner you are reading to much of
your own Pro-choice garbage.
>
> > And maybe after a few of those deaths you
> are so
> > concerned about are publicized in our tragedy hungry media, a girl
> will
> > think twice about getting pregnant in the first place.
>
> May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon.
I am not the one who condones killing babies so, I do not believe I will be
the one spending an eternity in hell!!
Most women
> don't have a choice in having sex or not.
Oh BULL CRAP! First of all the statement "MOST women do not have a choice
in having sex or not" is ignorant at best. I guess ALL men must be rapists
then.
Secondly, if raped and medical attention has been sought the a D&C would be
performed to prevent the pregnancy.
> Maybe we should just castrate males, if they are so irresponsible
> as you seem to think.
I did not mention either gender specific. That is your doing. Perhaps a
little involvement on the parents part in teaching their children
resposibility and morals instead of leaving it up to the local school
district is in order. Or would that cut into your busy social calander?
>
> > If she does,
> and
> > chooses the sleazy backroom abortion and dies it would be tragic.
>
> Yeah, the bitch deserved it, right?
Not saying she deserved it but, there are many options above abortion.
>
> But, you
> > tell me what makes her life more important than the baby she is
> murdering.
>
> Because a fetus is not a baby, rapo.
Oh , you are one of the ones who believe it is not a living being until it
reaches voting age. I've heard ignorance is bliss, Is that true?
> Only a rapist would insist that everything is the woman's fault.
Only ignorance would induce such a response. What is it with the gender
specific accusations. Is this due to a guilty conscience or are you just
one of the women's libbers who believes all men are evil.
BG
putting
> > that energy into properly raising their children and teaching them about
the
> > responsibilities of have a child. Instead they find it easier to push
their
> > child aside and if (or should I say when) she does become pregnant they
can
> > say "don't worry dear, that's what doctors and dumpsters were made for!"
>
> Maybe you are right, but SO WHAT? They don't do that!
> If you want to live your life on maybe this, maybe that, fine. But stop
> trying to change the real world with these goofy "maybe" rules.
>
> Maybe we should all stop killing each other, so let's do away with the
> military.
>
> Maybe criminals should stop committing crimes, so lets dump the police.
Ahh, so you are one of the ones who likes to take the easy way out.
> --
> Every lie is welcome that suits its purpose. - Thomas Paine
Except the lie that an unborn fetus is not a "living" child.
Steve Stanley
<bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
> Ahh, so you are one of the ones who likes to take the easy way out.
Whatever the fuck that means...
BG
Steve Stanley <ssta...@pedif.com> wrote in message
news:sstanley-4A306B...@news.visi.com...
> In article <BUMl4.6300$ea3....@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "BG"
> <bgri...@sybercom.net> wrote:
>
> > Ahh, so you are one of the ones who likes to take the easy way out.
>
Exactly what it said. Rather than say "This is not right" and work towards
change" have opted for "Oh well, That's the way it is"
Because this thread has become cross-posted to alt.adoption.issues where it
is quite off topic I will not respond any longer in this group.
Petruccio
> RATE of abortion was about the same as it is now. Can you say
> Rumania? I knew you could! Now, go see what happened when Ceacescu
> made abortion illegal.
I didn't really want to get involved in this thread, but I really can't
listen to these bizarre lies without responding. Bernard Nathansen, founder
of the National Abortion Rights Action League, has admitted that he lied to
the Supreme Court about the number of so called "back alley abortions" in
order to fool them into thinking that they were helping women by legalizing
abortion. He has said that there have been more deaths to women by legal
abortion than there were by "back alley abortions" prior to Roe v. Wade.
Abortion was not so common back then and it is not safe now.
> May you spend eternity in hell being raped by every demon. Most women
> don't have a choice in having sex or not.
These are the sort of comments people make when they realize that their
argument has been demolished by the truth.
Rebecca Ebenezer
interested in adopting an international baby. I am Asian Indian and my
husband is black. We are having lots of problems having a kid and are about
to just forget about trying. We have tried for the past 3 years now so you
can understand our frustration. My question actually is can anyone give me
infomation about adopting an international baby. (LEGALLY PLEASE!!!) Prefer
one from India or of Asian back ground. Please help!
DeannaBefore
--
Peace freedom & justice
Deanna
"Rebecca Ebenezer" <kave...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:87g6f5$r3v$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
Al Borges
news:BcLm4.1494$NS3....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> (clip) has admitted that he lied to the Supreme Court about the number of
so > called "back alley abortions" in order to fool them into thinking that
they were > helping women by legalizing abortion. He has said that there
have been more > deaths to women by legal abortion than there were by "back
alley abortions" > prior to Roe v. Wade.
> Abortion was not so common back then and it is not safe now.
Oh really? Where did you get your [lying] statistics, Petruccio? The
original data has been posted by our government on the web for everyone to
see; other stuff has been posted elsewhere. Below is an abstract from the
Journal of the American Medical Association:
Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. Trends in the
mortality and morbidity of women. Council on Scientific Affairs, American
Medical Association. JAMA 1992 Dec 9;268(22):3231?9.
ABSTRACT: The mortality and morbidity of women who terminated their
pregnancy before the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade are compared
with post?Roe v Wade mortality and morbidity. Mortality data before 1973 are
from the National Center for Health Statistics; data from 1973 through 1985
are from the Centers for Disease Control and The Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Trends in serious **abortion?related** complications between 1970 and 1990
are based on data from the Joint Program for the Study of **Abortion** and
from the National **Abortion** Federation. Deaths from illegally induced
**abortion** declined between 1940 and 1972 in part because of the
introduction of antibiotics to manage sepsis and the widespread use of
effective contraceptives. Deaths from legal **abortion** declined fivefold
between 1973 and 1985 (from 3.3 deaths to 0.4 death per 100,000 procedures),
reflecting increased physician education and skills, improvements in medical
technology, and, notably, the earlier termination of pregnancy. The risk of
death from legal **abortion** is higher among minority women and women over
the age of 35 years, and increases with gestational age. Legal?**abortion**
mortality between 1979 and 1985 was 0.6 death per 100,000 procedures, more
than 10 times lower than the 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births
between 1979 and 1986. Serious complications from legal **abortion** are
rare. Most women who have a single **abortion** with vacuum aspiration
experience few if any subsequent problems getting pregnant or having healthy
children. Less is known about the effects of multiple **abortions** on
future fecundity. Adverse emotional reactions to **abortion** are rare; most
women experience relief and reduced **depression** and distress.
Comment in: JAMA 1993 May 5;269(17):2211; discussion 22112.
Here is a copy of a government website:
Abortion-Related Deaths
Maternal deaths
Year1 Legal Abortions Legal abortions Illegal abortions
1970 36 109
1971 54 65
1972 24 41
1973 615,831 25 21
1974 763,476 26 7
1975 854,853 29 4
1976 988,267 11 3
1977 1,079,430 17 4
1978 1,157,776 9 7
1979 1,251,921 18 0
1980 1,297,606 9 2
Notes:
1. The odd grouping of years and missing data for some years are due to the
way data was
reported in the mix of sources we used.
2. 1958-1971 are estimates from the Population Council "inflated to
comparability with data for
later years".
3. Includes deaths from miscarriages.
4. Because there are so many difficulties in getting accurate reports of
abortion-related deaths, the
government stopped collecting these statistics in 1987.
Sources: National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 1994.
Hyattsville, Maryland:
Public Health Service, 1995. Table #17 (Data based primarily on reporting by
State health
departments and by facilities performing abortions.)
Abortion Surveillance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18.
Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher Tietze, The Population
Council, p 103
Regards, Al.
Petruccio
"Al Borges" <alb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:87gsgh$a24$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Oh really? Where did you get your [lying] statistics, Petruccio? The
> original data has been posted by our government on the web for everyone to
> see; other stuff has been posted elsewhere. Below is an abstract from the
> Journal of the American Medical Association:
You'll notice that all of the statistics regarding deaths due to abortion
prior to 1973 and after 1973 are percentages. Because of the tremendous
increase in the numbers of abortions, there have actually been more deaths
due to legal abortion than there were due to illegal abortions prior to
1973.
The statistics that you quoted that dealt with straight numbers rather than
percentages did not list any deaths prior to 1973.
The fact is that prior to 1973's legalization of abortion, there were not
only less deaths to pregnant women who procured abortion, but there were
approximately one and a half million less deaths to children. I'd say the
world was a much safer place pre 1973, especially for those who find
themselved totally unprotected by our federal government during the first
nine months of their lives.
Petruccio
Schuyler
Petruccio
and is a completely separate human organism from its mother. It is dependant
upon its mother for sustenance and most likely will be dependant upon others
for its sustenance and protection for the coming decade and more.
The fact that the zygote is small means that it has just begun the process
of life. One day it will become and embryo. Later it will become a newborn;
still later, a toddler. If nobody kills this child anywhere along the line,
it may make it to middle age and even, perhaps, may someday become a senior
citizen. Nowhere along that journey of life is it appropriate to kill that
person for the convenience of those around him/her.
Petruccio
P.S. My adopted son's middle name is Schuyler--good name!
"Schuyler" <schu...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:389F5F2C...@mail.utexas.edu...
patrice
Unless of course prior to 1973 abortions were illegal and therefore no
data was able to be collated, which I think is more accurate. They
legislated to allow abortions to save lives in most other countries, not
simply a matter of women demanding their rights, although that was
clearly a large part of it.
Di
Judy
> Unless of course prior to 1973 abortions were illegal and therefore no
> data was able to be collated, which I think is more accurate. They
> legislated to allow abortions to save lives in most other countries,
How do abortions save lives? Who's lives?
Judy
Jabriol
Career minded women who sleep the top.. those lives..
Zuul and Co.
patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
news:38AF2A17...@dial1.net...
> The lives of pregnant women who were dying from infection resulting from
> backyard abortions.
===========
And if abortion ever becomes illegal again they'll go right back to backyard
abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions so we may as
well keep them safe and legal.
--
Zuul....
Luke 14:13 - 14 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled,
the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.
Note: The WatchTower gives no charity and ignores the words
of Jesus.
<>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <><
patrice
"Zuul and Co." wrote:
>
> patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> news:38AF2A17...@dial1.net...
> > The lives of pregnant women who were dying from infection resulting from
> > backyard abortions.
> ===========
> And if abortion ever becomes illegal again they'll go right back to backyard
> abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions so we may as
> well keep them safe and legal.
Absolutely. If the pro lifers were really serious about preventing
abortions they would be lobbying for decent support provisions to
prevent women from having to make that choice in the first
place....AND by enabling poor and unsupported women to raise their
babies without the associated stigma of being an underclass of human
beings caused by poverty and circumstance. Sometimes preventing a child
from being born into a society which sees both mother and child as a sub
species, is in itself, child protection.
A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her children to
protect them from slavery.
Di
TerryG
drugs? There is no perfect anything. There will always be substance
abuse, abortion, murder, etc. But we are responsible for doing what we
can to reduce the occurence of what is wrong? We don't get a free ride
just because it's hard.
In article <zY5s4.10602$bz2.1...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
"Zuul and Co." <z...@zol.com> wrote:
>
> patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> news:38AF2A17...@dial1.net...
> > The lives of pregnant women who were dying from infection resulting
from
> > backyard abortions.
> ===========
> And if abortion ever becomes illegal again they'll go right back to
backyard
> abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions so we
may as
> well keep them safe and legal.
> --
>
> Zuul....
> Luke 14:13 - 14 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the
crippled,
> the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.
> Note: The WatchTower gives no charity and ignores the words
> of Jesus.
> <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <><
>
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
TerryG
patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Zuul and Co." wrote:
> >
> > patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> > news:38AF2A17...@dial1.net...
> > > The lives of pregnant women who were dying from infection
resulting from
> > > backyard abortions.
> > ===========
> > And if abortion ever becomes illegal again they'll go right back to
backyard
> > abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions so
we may as
> > well keep them safe and legal.
>
> abortions they would be lobbying for decent support provisions to
> prevent women from having to make that choice in the first
> place....AND by enabling poor and unsupported women to raise their
> babies without the associated stigma of being an underclass of human
> beings caused by poverty and circumstance. Sometimes preventing a
child
> from being born into a society which sees both mother and child as a
sub
> species, is in itself, child protection.
>
> A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her children to
> protect them from slavery.
>
> Di
Who are you to judge when a life is worth living? I'll take you to
parts of the world where you will be amazed at the terrible conditions -
BY YOUR STANDARDS!!! But you want to know what? Many are actually
happy. So quality of life has just as much to do with how one's
condition is perceived as it does with one's possessions. I'm sure
there are people who wouldn't want to be living your life. Does that
give them the right to say your life is worth living and then act on
that premise?
And how do you pretend to know what pro-life people do beside protest
abortion? You don't know. You just assume - because it fits your
little model of the world to do so. And oh by the way, how much is
enough for you to decide that life is worth living? How much parenting?
How much education? How much food? How much medical care? How many
bicycles? And how many people do you need to get to agree with you?
And who must they be? Do you really believe abortion would go away if
the US had the means to meet your minimum guidelines? Abortion is about
the appreciation of what humanity is all about. Why are we here? What
is expected of us?
I think you need to do a little more deep thinking about what the human
condition is all about. When you start with the basic truth that there
is no perfection anywhere in this world and relate that to what human
beings are expected to do with their lives, it leads to some interesting
conclusions - for me anyway.
pete
This thread is excessively crossposted. In particular, it has no
business in sci.anthro.paleo . Please delete S.a.p. from all further
posts to this thread. Also, please be aware in future that the
original crossposter who added all the groups to this thread,
"jabriol", is in the habit of crossposting irrelevant material
to groups whose content he finds objectionable. For S.a.p., apparently
the problem is that discussions of hominid development implicitly
assume evolution, which is something jabriol can't abide, so
he makes it his business to attempt to disrupt the group with
crossposts. In future, please, if you frequent a group where
jabriol is a regular poster, check when replying to his posts
that excessive crossposts (particularly from my perspective,
including s.a.p.) have not been appended to the distribution,
and trim them back to a sensible number (one, or two) before
replying. Thankyou
--
==========================================================================
vin...@triumf.ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Cheryl
>
>
> A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her children to
> protect them from slavery.
>
> Di
>
Just an FYI:
"Beloved" doesn't belong to Oprah. It was written by the Pulitzer Prize wining
author, Toni Morrison. Oprah just bought the rights so that she could make the
film version (not a bad version either, considering how complicated and intense
the book is).
Steve White
wrote:
> Who are you to judge when a life is worth living?
It happens frequently around alt.adoption, though I don't know about the
other forums.
Seriously, you're right to note that "worth" is the issue. A couple
thousand years ago, 99% of the people lived in grinding poverty -- a
material deprivation so basic and so intense that few of us today can
fathom it, or would wish for it. Yet without a doubt, most of the people of
those times would have described their lives as good in many different
ways, and would have thought that their lives were "worth" living.
> And how do you pretend to know what pro-life people do beside
> protest abortion?
She doesn't, just as you or I wouldn't know what the average pro-choice
person is doing besides protesting to keep abortion legal.
> Abortion is about the appreciation of what humanity is all about.
> Why are we here? What is expected of us?
Interesting notion, though I think that when you get down to the practical,
abortion is about women who are pregnant and desparately wish not to be.
steve
PS: and please -- I don't intend to get sucked into an abortion debate.
Neither side is going to change my mind.
Steve White
> Absolutely. If the pro lifers were really serious about preventing
> abortions they would be lobbying for decent support provisions to
> prevent women from having to make that choice in the first
> place...
And a good number of them are doing just that. You really don't know what
they're doing. Perhaps you should find out?
> ...AND by enabling poor and unsupported women to raise their
> babies without the associated stigma of being an underclass of
> human beings caused by poverty and circumstance.
This is just soap-box quality moralising.
> Sometimes preventing a child from being born into a society which
> sees both mother and child as a sub species, is in itself, child
> protection.
Again, more soap-box quality sermonizing. Our society at least doesn't see
mother and child as a sub species, though there was a time when our common
morality scorning out-of-wedlock births. That's different.
> A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her children to
> protect them from slavery.
Blah blah, more adoption = slavery bullshit. You're beginning to sound like
Mas.
steve
Jackie C.
>. Sometimes preventing a child
>from being born into a society which sees both mother and child as a sub
>species, is in itself, child protection.
That is so twisted..
>A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her children to
>protect them from slavery.
>
>Di
Sethe tried to kill her children because she was traumatized..
That was the point of the book/story, to me..
She had had it.. She had had so much abuse thrown at her, she was at
the end of her rope.. Heck the School Teacher said as much in his mind
when he stood there and saw her, almost insane..
And also, the issue was that she had had good masters before the
School Teacher.. and so the change, the abuse, was not able to be
borne..
A woman pregnant out of wedlock.. Is not the abused child.. not to
me..
Jackie
patrice
TerryG wrote:
>
> In article <38B12C5C...@dial1.net>,
> patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Zuul and Co." wrote:
> > >
> > > patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> > > news:38AF2A17...@dial1.net...
> > > > The lives of pregnant women who were dying from infection
> resulting from
> > > > backyard abortions.
> > > ===========
> > > And if abortion ever becomes illegal again they'll go right back to
> backyard
> > > abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions so
> we may as
> > > well keep them safe and legal.
> >
> > Absolutely. If the pro lifers were really serious about preventing
> > abortions they would be lobbying for decent support provisions to
> > prevent women from having to make that choice in the first
> > place....AND by enabling poor and unsupported women to raise their
> > babies without the associated stigma of being an underclass of human
> > beings caused by poverty and circumstance. Sometimes preventing a
> child
> > from being born into a society which sees both mother and child as a
> sub
> > species, is in itself, child protection.
> >
> > A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her children to
> > protect them from slavery.
> >
> > Di
>
> Who are you to judge when a life is worth living?
Heh! who's judging?
I'll take you to parts of the world where you will be amazed at the
terrible conditions - BY YOUR STANDARDS!!!
No. Not by my STANDARDS at all. If you read my post rather than react
to it you would understand that I was defending the poor and
unsupported, not condemning them.
But you want to know what? Many are actually
> happy. So quality of life has just as much to do with how one's
> condition is perceived as it does with one's possessions. I'm sure
> there are people who wouldn't want to be living your life. Does that
> give them the right to say your life is worth living and then act on
> that premise?
As I said above....read the post.
>
> And how do you pretend to know what pro-life people do beside protest
> abortion? You don't know.
Well let's see. Will anyone who has witnesses the pro-lifers lobby for
better provisions for the poor in the US to help them keep their babies
please put your hands up...including citations please.
You just assume - because it fits your
> little model of the world to do so. And oh by the way, how much is
> enough for you to decide that life is worth living?
Come again?
How much parenting?
> How much education? How much food? How much medical care? How many
> bicycles? And how many people do you need to get to agree with you?
> And who must they be? Do you really believe abortion would go away if
> the US had the means to meet your minimum guidelines? Abortion is about
> the appreciation of what humanity is all about. Why are we here? What
> is expected of us?
>
> I think you need to do a little more deep thinking about what the human
> condition is all about. When you start with the basic truth that there
> is no perfection anywhere in this world and relate that to what human
> beings are expected to do with their lives, it leads to some interesting
> conclusions - for me anyway.
And you might start with learning how to read and interpret posts.
Di
patrice
Steve White wrote:
>
> In article <38B12C5C...@dial1.net>, patrice <pat...@dial1.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely. If the pro lifers were really serious about preventing
> > abortions they would be lobbying for decent support provisions to
> > prevent women from having to make that choice in the first
> > place...
>
> And a good number of them are doing just that. You really don't know what
> they're doing. Perhaps you should find out?
Citations please.
> > ...AND by enabling poor and unsupported women to raise their
> > babies without the associated stigma of being an underclass of
> > human beings caused by poverty and circumstance.
>
> This is just soap-box quality moralising.
it's not me who is moralizing Steve. Your own voice must be echoing in
your ears.
>
> > Sometimes preventing a child from being born into a society which
> > sees both mother and child as a sub species, is in itself, child
> > protection.
>
> Again, more soap-box quality sermonizing. Our society at least doesn't see
> mother and child as a sub species,
If they can afford to keep their children without assistance from the
state that is.
though there was a time when our common
> morality scorning out-of-wedlock births. That's different.
What utter cods wallop Steve. What I constantly hear on this ng is
condemnation that people who get pregnant when they can't afford to
raise a child should not expect help from those of you who think society
does not owe them support. Afterall, you recently said yourself that the
majority of people in your society feel that "They made their bed, so
let them lie in it." So your attitude towards the poor is nothing, if
not grossly judgemental, stigmatizing, superior, and "holier than thou."
> > A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her children to
> > protect them from slavery.
>
> Blah blah, more adoption = slavery bullshit. You're beginning to sound like
> Mas.
Interestingly ,the point was about a mother protecting her children from
what she felt was a terrible fate. Not about equating adoption to
slavery......although legally it is, with the adoption order
transferring title of ownership of one human being to another.
Di
>
> steve
AdoptaDad
Interestingly ,the point was about a mother protecting her children from
what she felt was a terrible fate. Not about equating adoption to slavery......
although legally it is, with the adoption order transferring title of ownership
of one human being to another.
Duh. In order to *transfer ownership* to another, it had to be
*property* in the first place. It seems the concept of ownership is certainly
NOT unique to certain aparents.
Dad
Alex Wolfson
: Di:
No shit. I feel that the adoption decree trnsfers the responsibility of
parenthood to the apars not ownership of the child . The rights of property
infer that you can sell or destroy said property. Last I heard apars do not
have the right to sell or murder their kids.
--
SlayerBud - The Mighty Shepherd
The All-Powerful One
>From: adop...@aol.com (AdoptaDad)
>Date: 2/23/00 9:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000223094809...@ng-da1.aol.com>
>
>Di:
>Interestingly ,the point was about a mother protecting her children from
>what she felt was a terrible fate. Not about equating adoption to
>slavery......
>although legally it is, with the adoption order transferring title of
>ownership
>of one human being to another.
>
>
> Duh. In order to *transfer ownership* to another, it had to be
>*property* in the first place. It seems the concept of ownership is
>certainly
>NOT unique to certain aparents.
>
It sure isn't. You should check out the Origins forum on Delphi if you have
any doubts.
Ghoulagirl
This space is available for advertising, personal messages, or witty
observations about life. Act now!
asa...@my-deja.com
patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote:
>
>
> TerryG wrote:
> >
> > In article <38B12C5C...@dial1.net>,
> > patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:38AF2A17...@dial1.net...
> > > > > The lives of pregnant women who were dying from infection
> > resulting from
> > > > > backyard abortions.
> > > > ===========
> > > > And if abortion ever becomes illegal again they'll go right
back to
> > backyard
> > > > abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions
so
> > we may as
> > > > well keep them safe and legal.
> > >
preventing
> > > abortions they would be lobbying for decent support provisions to
> > > prevent women from having to make that choice in the first
their
> > > babies without the associated stigma of being an underclass of
human
> > child
> > > from being born into a society which sees both mother and child
as a
> > sub
> > > species, is in itself, child protection.
> > >
children to
> > > protect them from slavery.
> > >
> >
> > Who are you to judge when a life is worth living?
>
> Heh! who's judging?
You are, obviously, by supporting abortion as a means of preventing
poverty. Why are you not out shooting the homeless to save them from
their miserable (so YOU say) lives?
> I'll take you to parts of the world where you will be amazed at the
> terrible conditions - BY YOUR STANDARDS!!!
What's your point? Perhaps a stint of critical thinking will lead you
to understand why people live the way they live. Who should play rich
Big Brother?
> No. Not by my STANDARDS at all. If you read my post rather than react
> to it you would understand that I was defending the poor and
> unsupported, not condemning them.
Defending them? From what? How is abortion protective of them?
> But you want to know what? Many are actually
> > happy. So quality of life has just as much to do with how one's
> > condition is perceived as it does with one's possessions. I'm sure
> > there are people who wouldn't want to be living your life. Does
that
> > give them the right to say your life is worth living and then act on
> > that premise?
>
> As I said above....read the post.
*I* read it. It was bovine feces.
> > And how do you pretend to know what pro-life people do beside
protest
> > abortion? You don't know.
>
> Well let's see. Will anyone who has witnesses the pro-lifers lobby for
> better provisions for the poor in the US to help them keep their
babies
> please put your hands up...including citations please.
Actually, the burden of proof is on YOU to show how abortion,
abortionists, or abortion activists lobby for better provisions for the
poor in the US OR to help them keep their babies.
But I suppose I'll humor you, simply because I take a small amount of
joy from proving witless twits like you wrong.
http://www.pregnancycenters.org/listings.html
Pick a state--any state. Or if you prefer out of country, there's also
listings outside of the US.
Many of these centers provide money and supplies to poor mothers.
http://www.prolifeinfo.org/adoption.html
> You just assume - because it fits your
> > little model of the world to do so. And oh by the way, how much is
> > enough for you to decide that life is worth living?
>
> Come again?
You heard what he said.
> How much parenting?
> > How much education? How much food? How much medical care? How
many
> > bicycles? And how many people do you need to get to agree with you?
> > And who must they be? Do you really believe abortion would go away
if
> > the US had the means to meet your minimum guidelines? Abortion is
about
> > the appreciation of what humanity is all about.
Or NONappreciation as the case may be.
Why are we here? What
> > is expected of us?
> >
> > I think you need to do a little more deep thinking about what the
human
> > condition is all about. When you start with the basic truth that
there
> > is no perfection anywhere in this world and relate that to what
human
> > beings are expected to do with their lives, it leads to some
interesting
> > conclusions - for me anyway.
>
> And you might start with learning how to read and interpret posts.
> Di
You might start by addressing his question, I am interested to see HOW
MUCH???
How much is a human life worth to you? Is life only for the rich, the
pampered, the perfect, the planned, adults???
(Hey Terry--Slap it here, buddy!)
--A
That Damn Boo Kid
>It's not about aparents. It is about the construct of adoption itself,
in which the adoption order is based on transference of title, as in
property law. Once the adoption order is made the child legally belongs to the
adopters. The adoption order is a contract made between the adopters and the
agency/state as you know. >
Transference of "title"? That's a new one. Unfortunately it doesn't reflect
adoption law in the US.
It's nice to see you've cottoned on to the state's role in the whole mess. In
this country, the state assumes ultimate responsibility for children,
predicated on the belief that children are citizens with their own inherent
rights. That's why *no* parent has absolute rights over their child or
children -- they're not property.
>If it was not a contract adoptees would have free access to their own
OBC's whenever they wished. They would be free agents upon reaching
adulthood and would have the same legal rights as their non adopted
peers. But they don't, because only a legally binding contract based on
property rights has that level of control - in this case - over human
beings. >
No. Again, I can only speak for US law. The reason (and yes, it's a
piss-poor, unconstitutional reason) why adoption records are sealed in most US
states is because the state claims to have a compelling interest in the family
structure, and for the last fifty years or so mistakenly believed that the way
to maintain adoptive family sructure was to make it look, insofar as possible,
like a natural family during the lifetime and beyond of all involved.
If it WERE a contract Di, then aparents who were so inclined could add a clause
stating that they didn't want the records sealed much in the same way I could
add a clause to a sales contract on a house I buy saying that the former owners
will repair this or that, leave this or that, or provide this or that. They
can't, because it's not a contract. If it were a simple contract conferring
ownership then coercion and illegal surrenders of children towards and on the
part of first parents would be enough to render the adoption order null and
void. If someone sells you a car they don't actually own, and this comes out,
you don't own the car at the end of the day -- it goes back to the original
owner. Not so with adoption -- because of that "compelling interest" thing
(and no, Di, I don't think that this is okay).
Finally, it's not a contract because you can't hold a third party to a contract
they never made or agreed to -- also null and void.
If you're going to call it a contract then you really do your cause a disfavor,
in this country anyway. Those who oppose open records are calling
relinquishments a contractual agreement between first parents and the state
granting permanent anonymity, and using this as a reason to oppose opening
adoption records.
Knifchick
Con te patiro
su navi per mari
che io lo so
no, no, non esistono piu
con te io li vivro
The All-Powerful One
>From: patrice pat...@dial1.net
>Date: 2/23/00 11:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38B40F58...@dial1.net>
>
>
>
>AdoptaDad wrote:
snip
>> Duh. In order to *transfer ownership* to another, it had to be
>> *property* in the first place.
>
>Not so. It only has to be seen as property. e.g. slavery.
Wait a minute, I thought you hadn't mentioned slavery, Di.
>It seems the concept of ownership is certainly
>> NOT unique to certain aparents.
>
>It's not about aparents.
Of course not. It's about birthMOTHERS, just like EVERYTHING ELSE is about
birthMOTHERS. No one else counts or even matters.
It is about the construct of adoption itself,
>in which the adoption order is based on transference of title, as in
>property law. Once the adoption order is made the child legally belongs
>to the adopters. The adoption order is a contract made between the
>adopters and the agency/state as you know.
This must be another example of you not comparing adoption to slavery.
>If it was not a contract adoptees would have free access to their own
>OBC's whenever they wished.
Here in the U.S. we have a group actively opposing a recently passed open
records law in Oregon - that group is made up soley of birthMOTHERS. Just
thought I'd remind you, 'cause I know it must bug you like hell.
They would be free agents upon reaching
>adulthood and would have the same legal rights as their non adopted
>peers. But they don't, because only a legally binding contract based on
>property rights has that level of control - in this case - over human
>beings.
And ANOTHER example of you not comparing adoption to slavery.
Excellent. I think we're all pretty clear on the fact that nowhere have you
ever compared adoption to slavery. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
The All-Powerful One
>From: knif...@aol.comprplknif (That Damn Boo Kid)
>Date: 2/23/00 12:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000223123321...@ng-cf1.aol.com>
>
>Di wrote in response to Dad:
>
>
>in which the adoption order is based on transference of title, as in
>property law. Once the adoption order is made the child legally belongs to
>the
>adopters. The adoption order is a contract made between the adopters and the
>agency/state as you know. >
>
>adoption law in the US.
Did you know that Di has never compared adoption to slavery?
>It's nice to see you've cottoned on
Pun intended?
snip
>That's why *no* parent has absolute rights over their child or
>children -- they're not property.
Of course not, and nowhere has Di ever suggested they were or compared
adoption to slavery. Don't let her references to the U.S. slave trade and
"title" fool you.
snip excellent examples of why adoption isn't a contract which will in no way
interfere with Di's delusion that it is.
>If you're going to call it a contract then you really do your cause a
>disfavor,
>in this country anyway. Those who oppose open records are calling
>relinquishments a contractual agreement between first parents and the state
>granting permanent anonymity, and using this as a reason to oppose opening
>adoption records.
Details, details.
The All-Powerful One
>From: asa...@my-deja.com
>Date: 2/23/00 12:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8916ta$582$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <38B34504...@dial1.net>,
> patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote:
snip
>> Heh! who's judging?
>
>You are, obviously, by supporting abortion as a means of preventing
>poverty. Why are you not out shooting the homeless to save them from
>their miserable (so YOU say) lives?
Don't give her any ideas.
Steve White
> Here in the U.S. we have a group actively opposing a recently passed
> open records law in Oregon - that group is made up soley of birthMOTHERS.
> Just thought I'd remind you, 'cause I know it must bug you like hell.
Don't forget, it was a birthmother who managed to sink open records in
Illinois.
All-together now: Thank you, Melisha. Ya jerk.
steve
patrice
AdoptaDad wrote:
>
> Di:
> Interestingly ,the point was about a mother protecting her children from
> what she felt was a terrible fate. Not about equating adoption to slavery......
> although legally it is, with the adoption order transferring title of ownership
> of one human being to another.
>
> Duh. In order to *transfer ownership* to another, it had to be
> *property* in the first place.
Not so. It only has to be seen as property. e.g. slavery.
It seems the concept of ownership is certainly
> NOT unique to certain aparents.
It's not about aparents. It is about the construct of adoption itself,
in which the adoption order is based on transference of title, as in
property law. Once the adoption order is made the child legally belongs
to the adopters. The adoption order is a contract made between the
adopters and the agency/state as you know.
If it was not a contract adoptees would have free access to their own
OBC's whenever they wished. They would be free agents upon reaching
adulthood and would have the same legal rights as their non adopted
peers. But they don't, because only a legally binding contract based on
property rights has that level of control - in this case - over human
beings.
Di
>
> Dad
The All-Powerful One
>From: Steve White swh...@spammers.really.are.scum
>Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2000 10:02 PM
>Message-id: <swhite-A2F353....@nntp.ce.mediaone.net>
>
>In article <20000223141721...@ng-xe1.aol.com>,
>ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful One) wrote:
>
>> Here in the U.S. we have a group actively opposing a recently passed
>
>> open records law in Oregon - that group is made up soley of birthMOTHERS.
>
>> Just thought I'd remind you, 'cause I know it must bug you like hell.
>
>
>
>
>Don't forget, it was a birthmother who managed to sink open records in
>Illinois.
Darnit, I forgot about her. Well, I'm sure Di is supportive of her "sister"
bmom, since supporting the sisterhood seems to be a priority over everything
else.
>All-together now: Thank you, Melisha. Ya jerk.
Thank you, Melsha, not only for consigning your child to the hell of (forever
closed) adoption, but also for working hard to keep other adoptees in that very
same hell. I bet Di thinks you're a real hero just because you're both bmoms.
Jackie C.
>Di:
>Interestingly ,the point was about a mother protecting her children from
>what she felt was a terrible fate. Not about equating adoption to slavery......
>although legally it is, with the adoption order transferring title of ownership
>of one human being to another.
Di, Sethe was going to kill herself as well.. Did you read the book or
did you just see the movie? I do not think the movie got that very
important information across..
(for those that do not have a clue what I am speaking about.. the
original letter and or post was about the movie Beloved..book by Toni
Morrison. The main character, Sethe, killed one of her daughters
rather than letting her go back to the slave owner..)
> Duh. In order to *transfer ownership* to another, it had to be
>*property* in the first place. It seems the concept of ownership is certainly
>NOT unique to certain aparents.
>
>Dad
I did not own my bson..
I do not own my bson.. he owes me nothing.. His parents owe me
nothing..
Jackie C
Marley Greiner
http://www.bastards.org
The All-Powerful One <ghoul...@aol.com.net> wrote in message
news:20000224002626...@ng-de1.aol.com...
Actually, the Divine Ms M has been reunited with her bdaughter for years,
and the two of them worked together in this nefarious little scheme. It's
not about rights. It's not even about reunion. It's about a certain
somebody's $earch $Service and $tate contracts.
Marley
hurting
However, physical child abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse is not limited
only to families that have no adopted children. It is inclusive and
goes accross all borders of race, religion, and income. I have heard
and read of stories of adopted children who were abused by their loving
families.
Remember, the homestudy is based upon what the adoptive parents tellthe
social worker. What are some these families or adoptive parents
really like? Often we don't know until its to late.
Mary
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
asa...@my-deja.com
> >From: asa...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 2/23/00 12:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <8916ta$582$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
>
> >In article <38B34504...@dial1.net>,
> > patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> Heh! who's judging?
> >
> >You are, obviously, by supporting abortion as a means of preventing
> >poverty. Why are you not out shooting the homeless to save them from
> >their miserable (so YOU say) lives?
>
> Don't give her any ideas.
>
> Ghoulagirl
LOL!!
Alex Wolfson
: Some people think that adoptive families are just so wonderful.
: However, physical child abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse is not limited
: only to families that have no adopted children. It is inclusive and
: goes accross all borders of race, religion, and income. I have heard
: and read of stories of adopted children who were abused by their loving
: families.
And your point is what? That afamilies are the same as bfamilies?
: Remember, the homestudy is based upon what the adoptive parents tellthe
: social worker. What are some these families or adoptive parents
: really like? Often we don't know until its to late.
Not entirely. Criminal background checks are hard to fix.
AdoptaDad
Some people think that adoptive families are just so wonderful.
That really bugs you, doesn't it?
Mary:
However, physical child abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse is not limited only to
families that have no adopted children. It is inclusive and goes across all
borders of race, religion, and income. I have heard and read of stories of
adopted children who were abused by their loving families.
Of course - it happens. And frankly, I would hope there's a special
room in hell for adoptive parents who severely neglect or physically abuse
their adopted children. Can you imagine being abused by your birthfamily...
only to be adopted into a *loving home* where the abuse starts again?
Mary:
Remember, the homestudy is based upon what the adoptive parents tell the social
worker.
Is that all? Damn! I TOLD my wife she didn't have to clean the oven
and defrost the fridge.
It's obvious you've never been through a homestudy or the entire
qualification process. To imply that adoptive parents simply *dictate* their
homestudy to the social worker is so absurd... it's almost laughable. And the
homestudy is but one of several qualifications that must be met prior to
adoption.
Dad
HOOPS! (that'll get my number up)
Sue Tretter
> <snip>
> Not so. It only has to be seen as property. e.g. slavery.
I would say that you're missing a basic concept of true slavery, ie that the parties
are seen as inferior and powerless (slave) and superior and powerful (owner).
Rather like the origins of your country when convicts were dumped by the shipload.
> It seems the concept of ownership is certainly
> > NOT unique to certain aparents.
>
> It's not about aparents. It is about the construct of adoption itself,
The "construct of adoption" persists and endures because a significant number of
influential people validate it.
Seems to me that many of those influential people are adoptive parents.
And I'm not talking only about adoption practices I detest, but about those I admire
... much of what happens is predicated, imo, on the sensibilities of adoptive
parents.
> in which the adoption order is based on transference of title, as in
> property law. Once the adoption order is made the child legally belongs
> to the adopters. The adoption order is a contract made between the
> adopters and the agency/state as you know.
That can be a boon to the child ... or a detriment, or both.
> If it was not a contract adoptees would have free access to their own
> OBC's whenever they wished.
They do have access (and always have, I believe) in two of our 50 states.
> They would be free agents upon reaching
> adulthood and would have the same legal rights as their non adopted
> peers. But they don't, because only a legally binding contract based on
> property rights has that level of control - in this case - over human
> beings.
But in recent years, two states have provided adoptees with legal access, by popular
vote.
Birth mothers are among those holding up adoptee access in two more of our US states.
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
Sue Tretter
The All-Powerful One wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Here in the U.S. we have a group actively opposing a recently passed open
> records law in Oregon - that group is made up soley of birthMOTHERS. Just
> thought I'd remind you, 'cause I know it must bug you like hell.
SOLEY? Solely?
I guess the NCFA, Frank Hunsaker, the Mormon Church, adoption professions, those
with lots to hide, et al. had nothing to do with the actions of these first
mothers?
If that's your thinking, I strongly disagree!
> Excellent. I think we're all pretty clear on the fact that nowhere have you
> ever compared adoption to slavery. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I compare adoption to slavery, amputation and others things, quite often. Heck,
I've even made Holocaust comparisons, but to COMPARE is not necessarily to EQUATE.
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
AdoptaDad
Remember, the homestudy is based upon what the adoptive parents tell the social
we don't know until its to late.
SlayerBud - The Mighty Shepherd:
Not entirely. Criminal background checks are hard to fix.
So are income tax returns for the past 5 years. And damn... that PEE
test was hard to study for.
Dad
That Damn Boo Kid
>>Transference of "title"? That's a new one. Unfortunately it doesn't
reflect adoption law in the US.>>
> Did you know that Di has never compared adoption to slavery?
So I've seen!
>>It's nice to see you've cottoned on
> Pun intended?
LOL, no! I'm just ashamed it's not as good as Cheryl's 'anal sex' Freudian
slip :)
>>That's why *no* parent has absolute rights over their child or
children -- they're not property. >>
> Of course not, and nowhere has Di ever suggested they were or compared
adoption to slavery. Don't let her references to the U.S. slave trade and
"title" fool you. >
Of course not, and I won't let that fool me.
>snip excellent examples of why adoption isn't a contract which will in no way
interfere with Di's delusion that it is. >
LOL!
Rick Norell
>HOOPS! (that'll get my number up)
LOL! I'll even give ya a break by counting it twice since HOOPS was
all caps!
Best,
Rick
A-dad
Never be afraid to try something new,
Remember, amateurs built the ark.
Professionals built the Titanic.
Jabriol
On 20-Feb-2000, "Zuul and Co." <z...@zol.com> wrote:
> And if abortion ever becomes illegal again they'll go right back to
> backyard
> abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions so we may
> as
> well keep them safe and legal.
of course.. keep them home and pregnant, and out of the workforce...
take em off of welfare, where they then can depend on thier husbands..
( now jabriol put on his bullet proof vest, to protect him from bullet
proceeding out of the NOW{ national organization of mutt ugly women without
mates})
--
Intellectual argument of the Issues at hand:
www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
Para asuntos Hispanos, en Castellano: www.onelist.com/subscribe/boriken
TerryG
> >
> > In article <38B12C5C...@dial1.net>,
> > patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "Zuul and Co." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > patrice <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:38AF2A17...@dial1.net...
> > > > > The lives of pregnant women who were dying from infection
> > resulting from
> > > > > backyard abortions.
> > > > ===========
to
> > backyard
> > > > abortions. There is no way to stop women from having abortions
so
> > we may as
> > > > well keep them safe and legal.
> > >
preventing
> > > abortions they would be lobbying for decent support provisions to
> > > prevent women from having to make that choice in the first
> > > place....AND by enabling poor and unsupported women to raise
their
> > > babies without the associated stigma of being an underclass of
human
> > > beings caused by poverty and circumstance. Sometimes preventing a
> > child
> > > from being born into a society which sees both mother and child as
a
> > sub
> > > species, is in itself, child protection.
> > >
> > > A case in point is Oprah's Beloved, where Sethe killed her
children to
> > > protect them from slavery.
> > >
> > > Di
> >
> > Who are you to judge when a life is worth living?
>
> Heh! who's judging?
>
> terrible conditions - BY YOUR STANDARDS!!!
>
> to it you would understand that I was defending the poor and
> unsupported, not condemning them.
And if you had read my post, you'd realize that I'm taking you to task
for criticizing pro-life people because they don't "lobby for decent
support provisions". I'm telling you that you are making a value
judgement when you imply that women are justified to choosing abortion
because they feel their babies' live aren't worth living. Clearly, you
and I are not communicating but don't tell me it's because I'm not
reading your post. I just see through it a little better than you do.
>
> But you want to know what? Many are actually
> > happy. So quality of life has just as much to do with how one's
> > condition is perceived as it does with one's possessions. I'm sure
> > there are people who wouldn't want to be living your life. Does
that
> > give them the right to say your life is worth living and then act on
> > that premise?
>
> As I said above....read the post.
> >
> > And how do you pretend to know what pro-life people do beside
protest
> > abortion? You don't know.
>
> Well let's see. Will anyone who has witnesses the pro-lifers lobby for
> better provisions for the poor in the US to help them keep their
babies
> please put your hands up...including citations please.
Spoken like the true socialist you are. If the government doesn't
provide it, it can't happen. How about all the facilities for unwed
mothers that are privately supported? Can you imagine the government
running a home for unwed mothers? In your dreams.
>
> You just assume - because it fits your
> > little model of the world to do so. And oh by the way, how much is
> > enough for you to decide that life is worth living?
>
> Come again?
>
> How much parenting?
> > How much education? How much food? How much medical care? How
many
> > bicycles? And how many people do you need to get to agree with you?
> > And who must they be? Do you really believe abortion would go away
if
> > the US had the means to meet your minimum guidelines? Abortion is
about
> > the appreciation of what humanity is all about. Why are we here?
What
> > is expected of us?
> >
> > I think you need to do a little more deep thinking about what the
human
> > condition is all about. When you start with the basic truth that
there
> > is no perfection anywhere in this world and relate that to what
human
> > beings are expected to do with their lives, it leads to some
interesting
> > conclusions - for me anyway.
>
> And you might start with learning how to read and interpret posts.
And of course, you choose to completely ignore what I said. You dismiss
what I said by claiming I didn't read or understand what you said. I
understand you better than you understand you. And you still won't even
make an attempt to respond to what I said. Because you are incapable.
> Di
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Zuul....
> > > > Luke 14:13 - 14 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor,
the
> > crippled,
> > > > the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.
> > > > Note: The WatchTower gives no charity and ignores the words
> > > > of Jesus.
> > > > <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <>< ==== <><
> > >
> >
> > --
> > There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
TerryG
Steve White <swh...@spammers.really.are.scum> wrote:
> In article <88s1b9$fi9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, TerryG
<terry...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Who are you to judge when a life is worth living?
>
the
> other forums.
>
> Seriously, you're right to note that "worth" is the issue. A couple
> thousand years ago, 99% of the people lived in grinding poverty -- a
> material deprivation so basic and so intense that few of us today can
> fathom it, or would wish for it. Yet without a doubt, most of the
people of
> those times would have described their lives as good in many different
> ways, and would have thought that their lives were "worth" living.
>
> > And how do you pretend to know what pro-life people do beside
> > protest abortion?
>
pro-choice
> person is doing besides protesting to keep abortion legal.
>
> > Abortion is about the appreciation of what humanity is all about.
> > Why are we here? What is expected of us?
>
practical,
> abortion is about women who are pregnant and desparately wish not to
be.
Abortion is also about women who have been talked out of their unique
role in humanity. They've been convinced that their comfort is more
important than the lives that only they are capable of bringing into the
world.
>
> steve
>
> PS: and please -- I don't intend to get sucked into an abortion
debate.
> Neither side is going to change my mind.
TerryG
And isn't this presidential election getting exciting. Have you ever
heard so many politicians stand up with pride to say they're pro-life.
The pendulum is swinging.
In article <8916ta$582$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Who are you to judge when a life is worth living?
> >
> > Heh! who's judging?
>
> You are, obviously, by supporting abortion as a means of preventing
> poverty. Why are you not out shooting the homeless to save them from
> their miserable (so YOU say) lives?
>
> > I'll take you to parts of the world where you will be amazed at the
> > terrible conditions - BY YOUR STANDARDS!!!
>
> What's your point? Perhaps a stint of critical thinking will lead you
> to understand why people live the way they live. Who should play rich
> Big Brother?
>
> > No. Not by my STANDARDS at all. If you read my post rather than
react
> > to it you would understand that I was defending the poor and
> > unsupported, not condemning them.
>
> Defending them? From what? How is abortion protective of them?
>
> > But you want to know what? Many are actually
> > > happy. So quality of life has just as much to do with how one's
> > > condition is perceived as it does with one's possessions. I'm
sure
> > > there are people who wouldn't want to be living your life. Does
> that
> > > give them the right to say your life is worth living and then act
on
> > > that premise?
> >
> > As I said above....read the post.
>
> *I* read it. It was bovine feces.
>
> > > And how do you pretend to know what pro-life people do beside
> protest
> > > abortion? You don't know.
> >
> > Well let's see. Will anyone who has witnesses the pro-lifers lobby
for
> > better provisions for the poor in the US to help them keep their
> babies
> > please put your hands up...including citations please.
>
> Actually, the burden of proof is on YOU to show how abortion,
> abortionists, or abortion activists lobby for better provisions for
the
> poor in the US OR to help them keep their babies.
>
> But I suppose I'll humor you, simply because I take a small amount of
> joy from proving witless twits like you wrong.
>
> http://www.pregnancycenters.org/listings.html
>
> Pick a state--any state. Or if you prefer out of country, there's
also
> listings outside of the US.
>
> Many of these centers provide money and supplies to poor mothers.
>
> http://www.prolifeinfo.org/adoption.html
>
> > You just assume - because it fits your
> > > little model of the world to do so. And oh by the way, how much
is
> > > enough for you to decide that life is worth living?
> >
> > Come again?
>
> You heard what he said.
>
> > How much parenting?
> > > How much education? How much food? How much medical care? How
> many
> > > bicycles? And how many people do you need to get to agree with
you?
> > > And who must they be? Do you really believe abortion would go
away
> if
> > > the US had the means to meet your minimum guidelines? Abortion is
> about
> > > the appreciation of what humanity is all about.
>
> Or NONappreciation as the case may be.
>
> Why are we here? What
> > > is expected of us?
> > >
> > > I think you need to do a little more deep thinking about what the
> human
> > > condition is all about. When you start with the basic truth that
> there
> > > is no perfection anywhere in this world and relate that to what
> human
> > > beings are expected to do with their lives, it leads to some
> interesting
> > > conclusions - for me anyway.
> >
> > And you might start with learning how to read and interpret posts.
> > Di
>
> You might start by addressing his question, I am interested to see HOW
> MUCH???
>
> How much is a human life worth to you? Is life only for the rich, the
> pampered, the perfect, the planned, adults???
>
> (Hey Terry--Slap it here, buddy!)
>
> --A
>
The All-Powerful One
>From: knif...@aol.comprplknif (That Damn Boo Kid)
>Message-id: <20000224131718...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
>
>Ghoulagirl wrote in response to me responding to Di:
>
>>>Transference of "title"? That's a new one. Unfortunately it doesn't
>reflect adoption law in the US.>>
>
>> Did you know that Di has never compared adoption to slavery?
>
>So I've seen!
I don't know where we got the idea that she had, do you?
>>>It's nice to see you've cottoned on
>
>> Pun intended?
>
>LOL, no! I'm just ashamed it's not as good as Cheryl's 'anal sex' Freudian
>slip :)
Yeah, that WAS a good one.
>>>That's why *no* parent has absolute rights over their child or
>children -- they're not property. >>
>
>> Of course not, and nowhere has Di ever suggested they were or compared
>adoption to slavery. Don't let her references to the U.S. slave trade and
>"title" fool you. >
>
>Of course not, and I won't let that fool me.
Good. I was worried for a second.
>>snip excellent examples of why adoption isn't a contract which will in
>no way
>interfere with Di's delusion that it is. >
>
>LOL!
Thank you for giving me the attention I need. See, in case you haven't
heard, in addition to my ability to cause strokes and migraines, I also have
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The lapdog told me. She even provided the
DSM definition (which if you ask me fits those holding her leash better than it
fits me). I didn't know they let yappy little dogs in libraries.
That Damn Boo Kid
>>> Did you know that Di has never compared adoption to slavery?
>>So I've seen!
> I don't know where we got the idea that she had, do you?
"We"? You're the one who made that mistake. However, I understand that's
typical of narcissitic personalities.
> Thank you for giving me the attention I need.
I'm there for you, bud.
>See, in case you haven't
heard, in addition to my ability to cause strokes and migraines, I also have
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The lapdog told me.>
I saw! Now you're a sociopath AND a narcissist!
> She even provided the
DSM definition (which if you ask me fits those holding her leash better than it
fits me). I didn't know they let yappy little dogs in libraries. >
I'm homeschooling.
Marley Greiner
http://www.bastards.org
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:894tc6$t5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Di:
> > Well let's see. Will anyone who has witnesses the pro-lifers lobby for
> > better provisions for the poor in the US to help them keep their
> babies
> > please put your hands up...including citations please.
>
Terry:
> Spoken like the true socialist you are. If the government doesn't
> provide it, it can't happen. How about all the facilities for unwed
> mothers that are privately supported? Can you imagine the government
> running a home for unwed mothers? In your dreams.
Why should the government run a bootcamp for bad girls? Women can take care
of themselves quite nicely, thak you, if left alone by the likes of you.
Abortion has nothing to with adoption, you bastard-hating baybee mongerer.
Marley
rkbose
TerryG wrote:
>
> Abortion is also about women who have been talked out of their unique
> role in humanity. They've been convinced that their comfort is more
> important than the lives that only they are capable of bringing into the
> world.
>
Unique? Nearly 3 billion people on this planet have done, are doing, or
will do the same thing. Important, perhaps, but scarcely unique?
Rupa
Prominent Zuul
Jabriol <jab...@Adeu-siau.net> wrote in message
news:Mnmt4.2410$pP5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> of course.. keep them home and pregnant, and out of the workforce...
** And some fundamentalists are trying to do just that.
> take em off of welfare, where they then can depend on thier husbands..
** I agree with this where possible. If welfare was stopped altogether
perhaps fewer fatherless babies would be born.
>
> ( now jabriol put on his bullet proof vest, to protect him from bullet
> proceeding out of the NOW{ national organization of mutt ugly women
without
> mates})
** Plenty of pretty ones out there without mates too. Or are just trying
to insult the women on all the groups you cross posted this to? Was your
daughter real ugly?
Is that why neither father married her and you threw her out on the streets
of Camden?
--
Zuul...
To see some of God's true love for all mankind and what he thought
of young virgin women... see JG 21:10 - 25 for a great <*GAG*> read.
~~ ><> ~~ ><> ~~ ><> ~~ ><> ~~ ><> ~~ ><> ~~ ><> ~~ ><> ~~ ><>
LilMtnCbn
>From: TerryG terry...@my-deja.com
>Date: 2/24/00 8:36 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <894tc6$t5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Terry, no offense, but have you even looked at posts by adoptees who may have
preferred to be aborted? Not me, but you're posting to alt.adoption, and you
seem to have all the answers for everybody. Have you actually talked to
adult adoptees who've had miserable experiences?
No flames, please, but this abortion thread, (along with intergalactic end of
times posts) have been crossposted here for a while now. It seems you people
are intent on denying women reproductive choices, but not listening to people
who have become the result of those choices (at least adoptees).
Please, at least IMO, read our NG or stop crossposting. Thanks!
patrice
Sue Tretter wrote:
>
> patrice wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > Not so. It only has to be seen as property. e.g. slavery.
>
> I would say that you're missing a basic concept of true slavery, ie that the parties
> are seen as inferior and powerless (slave) and superior and powerful (owner).
> Rather like the origins of your country when convicts were dumped by the shipload.
Or not unlike the bastard illegitimate child and his deviant and
therefore unworthy mother...if we want to be historically factual.
>
> > It seems the concept of ownership is certainly
> > > NOT unique to certain aparents.
> >
> > It's not about aparents. It is about the construct of adoption itself,
>
> The "construct of adoption" persists and endures because a significant number of
> influential people validate it.
> Seems to me that many of those influential people are adoptive parents.
> And I'm not talking only about adoption practices I detest, but about those I admire
> ... much of what happens is predicated, imo, on the sensibilities of adoptive
> parents.
>
> > in which the adoption order is based on transference of title, as in
> > property law. Once the adoption order is made the child legally belongs
> > to the adopters. The adoption order is a contract made between the
> > adopters and the agency/state as you know.
>
> That can be a boon to the child ... or a detriment, or both.
>
> > If it was not a contract adoptees would have free access to their own
> > OBC's whenever they wished.
>
> They do have access (and always have, I believe) in two of our 50 states.
>
> > They would be free agents upon reaching
> > adulthood and would have the same legal rights as their non adopted
> > peers. But they don't, because only a legally binding contract based on
> > property rights has that level of control - in this case - over human
> > beings.
>
> But in recent years, two states have provided adoptees with legal access, by popular
> vote.
And its been a long time coming.
> Birth mothers are among those holding up adoptee access in two more of our US states.
While I don't personally support their stance, I do believe that given
the judgmental and quite dismissive attitude many people have towards
birth' mothers on US ngs, it is quite understandable IMO.
Di
>
> Best
> wishes.
> Sue T.
asa...@my-deja.com
My man.
> And isn't this presidential election getting exciting.
It's not anywhere near as decisive as I thought it would be--I'm still
voting for Keyes in the primary, but it looks like it's going to be
Bush or McCain--I'm hoping if it HAS to be one of those two, it'll be
Bush, McCain isn't nearly as pro-life as I would like, and he is taking
stances on issues I couldn't care less about. Maybe I don't like him
as much because the liberal media does, and YOU know what THAT
means...Bush, however, seems to know what issues concern most
Americans. I think the problem lies in the fact that McCain thinks
he's some kind of everyman moderate...that and they are letting Dems
vote in the Rep primaries--what is THAT???
> Have you ever
> heard so many politicians stand up with pride to say they're pro-life.
> The pendulum is swinging.
I believe it is, and it is heartening indeed to see our candidates
stand up for their Christian beliefs too...like this quote which made
me think a little differently about Bush:
"Would you take an expression like 'What would Jesus do?' into
the Oval Office?" --New Hampshire Republican debate moderator Tim
Russert to Mr. Bush, who responded, "....It's my foundation and if it
costs me votes to have answered the question that way, so be it."
People are starting to catch on to the fact that abortion is hurting
the human race. It's senseless violence.
--Asaur.
DeannaBefore
>
>
> Sue Tretter wrote:
> > Birth mothers are among those holding up adoptee access in two more of
our US states.
>
> While I don't personally support their stance, I do believe that given
> the judgmental and quite dismissive attitude many people have towards
> birth' mothers on US ngs, it is quite understandable IMO.
> Di
Am I reading this right? The birth mothers who are helping to hold up
access are doing so because they are treated poorly in newsgroups?
--
Peace freedom & justice
Deanna
Sue Tretter
patrice wrote:
> Or not unlike the bastard illegitimate child and his deviant and
> therefore unworthy mother...if we want to be historically factual.
But unwed mothers and their offspring haven't been equally treated throughout history.
One has only to look at Mary the mother of Jesus to know that some bastards* are A-OK
in the eyes of large numbers of Christians of our day.
*I don't recall whether Joseph and Mary were married at the time of Jesus' birth -- I think
so,
which in the eyes of some would have removed the taint of bastardry.
> <snip>
>
> And its been a long time coming.
Yes, all the more reason, imo, to honor the sacrifices of those who made it possible.
> While I don't personally support their stance, I do believe that given
> the judgmental and quite dismissive attitude many people have towards
> birth' mothers on US ngs, it is quite understandable IMO.
Are you saying that their vilification is ample justification for denying equality to their
surrendered children???
Or are you saying that their vilification has resulted in their inability to come to a
logical, enlightened, humane conclusion on the issue?
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
The All-Powerful One
>From: patrice pat...@dial1.net
>Date: 2/25/00 7:30 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38B675CC...@dial1.net>
>
>
snip
>Or not unlike the bastard illegitimate child and his deviant and
>therefore unworthy mother...
Sounds like adoption is the LEAST of YOUR problems. You might want to work
on your self-image some, as well as your feelings about "bastards".
Oh yeah, and "bastard illegitimate child" is redundant.
Marley Greiner
rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:38B578B2...@pacific.net.sg...
Yeah, I love that: unique. Cats do it; frogs do it. Why should somebody
be forced to give birth to a squalling brat if they don't want to?
Marley
TerryG
convince me I mis-used the word. Humanity consists of two genders,
female and male. Females can give birth. Males can't. If that doesn't
mean they have a unique role, then why don't you explain that to the
rest of us???
In article <38B578B2...@pacific.net.sg>,
rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
>
> TerryG wrote:
> >
>
> > Abortion is also about women who have been talked out of their
unique
> > role in humanity. They've been convinced that their comfort is more
> > important than the lives that only they are capable of bringing into
the
> > world.
> >
>
> Unique? Nearly 3 billion people on this planet have done, are doing,
or
> will do the same thing. Important, perhaps, but scarcely unique?
>
> Rupa
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
TerryG
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.bastards.org
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:894tc6$t5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Di:
for
> > > better provisions for the poor in the US to help them keep their
> > babies
> > > please put your hands up...including citations please.
> >
> > Spoken like the true socialist you are. If the government doesn't
> > provide it, it can't happen. How about all the facilities for unwed
> > mothers that are privately supported? Can you imagine the
government
> > running a home for unwed mothers? In your dreams.
>
take care
> of themselves quite nicely, thak you, if left alone by the likes of
you.
> Abortion has nothing to with adoption, you bastard-hating baybee
mongerer.
You're exactly correct and thank you for the admission. Women who abort
their babies do take care of themselves - but only for the short run,
mind you.
Now what kind of name should I call you? Nah! I'd rather not sink to
your level.
>
> Marley
TerryG
The NG tool I use automatically posts to all NGs to which the post I'm
responding to was posted.
What percentage of the adoptees wish they had been aborted? What
percent of planes crash? You want to ban flying too?
>
> No flames, please, but this abortion thread, (along with intergalactic
end of
> times posts) have been crossposted here for a while now. It seems you
people
> are intent on denying women reproductive choices, but not listening to
people
> who have become the result of those choices (at least adoptees).
>
> Please, at least IMO, read our NG or stop crossposting. Thanks!
Again, what percent of all the people who were adopted wish they had
never been born. Any chance you're getting a slightly skewed sampling
in the alt.abortion NG? Why would a happy, satisfied adoptee even
want to know about alt.adoption unless they're thinking of adoptin
themselves? I've personally known many people who were adopted and I
don't know of a single one who would ever say they wish they had never
been born. And, hey, some of them have had some tough times. But, tell
me, who the hell hasn't? With your ridiculous logic, why don't we just
nuc the whole planet so we can put that 5% out of their misery!!!!!!!
The All-Powerful One
>From: "DeannaBefore" mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca
>Date: 2/25/00 10:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <OVwt4.3215$Zs.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>>news:38B675CC...@dial1.net...
snip
>> While I don't personally support their stance, I do believe that given
>> the judgmental and quite dismissive attitude many people have towards
>> birth' mothers on US ngs, it is quite understandable IMO.
>Am I reading this right? The birth mothers who are helping to hold up
>access are doing so because they are treated poorly in newsgroups?
Would this really surprise you? It wouldn't surprise ME.
The All-Powerful One
>From: Sue Tretter ses...@azstarnet.com
>Date: 2/25/00 10:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38B69AAA...@azstarnet.com>
>
>patrice wrote:
snip
>> While I don't personally support their stance, I do believe that given
>> the judgmental and quite dismissive attitude many people have towards
>> birth' mothers on US ngs, it is quite understandable IMO.
>
>Are you saying that their vilification is ample justification for denying
>equality to their
>surrendered children???
Well, DUH!
>Or are you saying that their vilification has resulted in their inability to
>come to a
>logical, enlightened, humane conclusion on the issue?
I would say that this inability stems less from vilification on Usenet ngs
than it does from some innate character deficiency on the part of these
birthmothers.
The All-Powerful One
>Message-id: <38B6A215...@dial1.net>
>
>
>
>TerryG wrote:
snip
> Clearly, you
>> and I are not communicating but don't tell me it's because I'm not
>> reading your post. I just see through it a little better than you do.
>
>While I have 20-20 vision.
If that's the case, it's too bad that you insist on wearing those blinders
all the time.
snip
>> Spoken like the true socialist you are. If the government doesn't
>> provide it, it can't happen.
>
>Oddly enough
Yes, I'm sure.
>I have been an employer almost all of my working my life.
Really? What have you been employing people to do? (This should be REALLY
good!)
>Although I suppose I could be a closet socialist.
You're a closet something, that's for sure.
snip
>> And of course, you choose to completely ignore what I said. You dismiss
>> what I said by claiming I didn't read or understand what you said. I
>> understand you better than you understand you.
>
>Don't flatter yourself.
Like it takes a genuis to figure YOU out.
> And you still won't even
>> make an attempt to respond to what I said. Because you are incapable.
>
>What have you said that is worthy of a reply?
Evidently, you felt this post of his was worthy of a reply, or you wouldn't
have written the above.
TerryG
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
> rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:38B578B2...@pacific.net.sg...
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Abortion is also about women who have been talked out of their
unique
> > > role in humanity. They've been convinced that their comfort is
more
> > > important than the lives that only they are capable of bringing
into the
> > > world.
> > >
> >
> > Unique? Nearly 3 billion people on this planet have done, are doing,
or
> > will do the same thing. Important, perhaps, but scarcely unique?
> >
> > Rupa
>
somebody
> be forced to give birth to a squalling brat if they don't want to?
>
> Marley
Most people I would differentiate from dogs, cats, frogs, etc. You, I
would not. Is it any wonder you are pro-abortion when you hold mankind
(yourself, actually) in such low regard!!!!
Get a real life, will you? Better yet, why don't you save one.
Sue Tretter
asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> People are starting to catch on to the fact that abortion is hurting
> the human race. It's senseless violence.
Do you agree that God (if you believe in a Christian God) is the author of
more abortions from the beginning of time than most of us can probably even
imagine?
And can you tell us what facts support your assertion that "abortion is
hurting the human race"?
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
Sue Tretter
DeannaBefore wrote:
> "patrice" <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> news:38B675CC...@dial1.net...
> >
> >
> > Sue Tretter wrote:
>
> > > Birth mothers are among those holding up adoptee access in two more of
> our US states.
> >
> > While I don't personally support their stance, I do believe that given
> > the judgmental and quite dismissive attitude many people have towards
> > birth' mothers on US ngs, it is quite understandable IMO.
> > Di
>
> Am I reading this right? The birth mothers who are helping to hold up
> access are doing so because they are treated poorly in newsgroups?
Were you asking me, Deanna?
If so, I didn't think that Di was limiting her comments to the newsgroups, but
was probably saying that the "dismissive attitude" found on ngs is endemic.
But I'm not sure ... that's why I asked for clarification.
And my understanding is that alt.adoption isn't a "US ng" but a world-wide ng,
primarily frequented at this stage by US residents.
Best
wishes.
Sue T.
rkbose
TerryG wrote:
>
> Please look up the word "unique" in the dictionary and then try to
> convince me I mis-used the word. Humanity consists of two genders,
> female and male. Females can give birth. Males can't. If that doesn't
> mean they have a unique role, then why don't you explain that to the
> rest of us???
>
I suppose you might be grammatically correct: giving birth is a uniquely
female attribute (though, as Marley pointed out, not exactly a uniquely
human one). But so what? Any of 3 billion people on the planet can do
it; is it special just because the other 3 billion can't?
Rupa
Cheryl
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > Here in the U.S. we have a group actively opposing a recently passed open
> > records law in Oregon - that group is made up soley of birthMOTHERS. Just
> > thought I'd remind you, 'cause I know it must bug you like hell.
>
>
INCORRECT -- the group(s) that have opposed the inaction of Measure 58 include the
following:
-Franklin Hunsaker (attorney and adoptive father, head counsel for lawsuit against
M58)
-SIX anonymous birthmothers (who have filed suit against the state of Oregon to keep
Measure 58 from being enacted stating that it violates their rights to privacy)
-The NCFA and Bill Pierce
-The Mormon Church (indirectly, they are big time supporters of the NCFA)
-The ACLU (Oregon state chapter, David J. Fidanque director)
-The Boys and Girls Aid Society of Oregon (Lauren Greenbaum)
-Catholic Charities
-Warren Deras (attorney and adoptive father)
Over 500 birthmothers (including raped birthmothers) actually took out an ad in the
Oregonian in SUPPORT of the measure. There were many more who wanted to participate in
that ad, but couldn't because of space limitations. We also had many adoptive parents,
and others touched by adoption who were side by side with the adoptee rights activists
involved with getting Measure 58 passed!
The courts have thrown the lawsuit out twice now, but Hunsaker and his Anonymous Six
continue to stall the measure by tying it up at the State Supreme Court level. For
more info on Measure 58, please see their official home page at:
<http://www.plumsite.com/oregon/>.
Please cease and desist with spreading incorrect and inaccurate information about
Measure 58!
Cheryl, Proud Bastard
IrishBlssn
closed) adoption, but also for working hard to keep other adoptees in that very
same hell.
snip
Ghoulagirl>>
Excuse me Ghoulagirl, but wasn't it you who suggested in a recent thread that
souls chose their circumstances before entering this lifetime? If so, it would
seem that you and others chose your stated "hell" of not knowing, presumably to
learn by that in this lifetime? Could that be what you meant when you wrote in
that thread?
Irish
May the road rise up to meet you
May the wind be always at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face ...
Kathy
>Message-id: <896dr3$vk7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>> Yeah, I love that: unique. Cats do it; frogs do it. Why should
>somebody
>> be forced to give birth to a squalling brat if they don't want to?
>>
>> Marley
>Most people I would differentiate from dogs, cats, frogs, etc. You, I
>would not. Is it any wonder you are pro-abortion when you hold mankind
>(yourself, actually) in such low regard!!!!
If I throw a stick will you leave?
>Get a real life, will you? Better yet, why don't you save one.
And your crybaby whiny-butt opinion sucks
eggs. SO THERE!
Kathy
Bmom closed adoption reunited from relinquishment 1969 on 101797
Oxford dictionary: WONKY
1. crooked, off-centre, askew
2. loose, unsteady
3. unreliable reunited closed adoption
Kathy
>Date: 2/25/00 8:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <896bqt$trq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Marla:
>> Terry, no offense, but have you even looked at posts by adoptees who
>may have
>> preferred to be aborted? Not me, but you're posting to alt.adoption,
>and you
>> seem to have all the answers for
>everybody. Have you actually
>talked to
>> adult adoptees who've had miserable experiences?
>What percentage of the adoptees wish they had been aborted? What
>percent of planes crash? You want to ban flying too?
ONLY if you are the pilot.
>Why would a happy, satisfied adoptee even
>want to know about alt.adoption unless they're thinking of adoptin
>themselves?
EGads....You are one of many,
Too many freaks, not enough circuses....
> I've personally known many people who were adopted and I
>don't know of a single one who would ever say they wish they had never
>been born
>And, hey, some of them have had some tough times. But, tell
>me, who the hell hasn't? With your ridiculous logic, why don't we just
>nuc the whole planet so we can put that 5% out of their misery!!!!!!!
I see your point, but I don't understand a word you're saying. Is this English?