BA> JB>>> happens over 800,000 times a year in the US,
BA> JB>>> 32M+  since Roe v Wade and involves 1 in 6 pregnancies.

BA> BA>> You really want to support another 32 million
BA> BA>> unemployed/unemployable welfare recipients in this country?

BA> JB> Wow.  You condemn them all to a life of poverty and don't
BA> JB> believe that  all life is precious and able to all significant
BA> JB> value to their Earth?

BA>On your first point I don't condemn them to anything, I simply noted
BA>that there aren't enough (paying) jobs for the people who are here
BA>now.  Adding 32 million to the population would simply aggravate the
BA>existing problem.

You miss the economics point people create jobs for other people and 
that a country's most valuable natural resource is its people.  I am not 
making an assumption here that all 32M of these people would have been a 
drain on society.  I also am not going down the liberal road viewpoint 
that there are too many people on earth and thus we ought to start 
population control.  When the liberals start lining up to solve the 
problem, starting with themselves, then I might believe they are serious 
about the issue.


BA>On your second point:  Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse
BA>Tung, etc. etc.
BA>So no, IMO *all* life is *not* precious etc. etc.

BA> JB> Is this an economics discussion with you?

BA>Pretty much.  Moral issues - such as this one - I leave to the
BA>individuals involved.

At least you are honest about it.  


BA> JB> I was adopted and am not unemployed nor unemployable.  I
BA> JB> actually support many of those exact types.  Your argument shows
BA>how shallow the left is and
BA> JB> how little they  value life.  At least they know how to place a
BA>price on it. 

BA>My sister is very sensitive on this particular issue.  My mother's
BA>physician *strongly*
BA>recommended that my mother abort that pregnancy.  Mom had recently
BA>(1948-50) had
BA>polio and was paralyzed from the waist down and in 1951 was still
BA>bedridden and not
BA>completely recovered.  There were very sound medical reasons for that
BA>particular abortion,
BA>and mom would have none of it, her *choice*; she did allow the
BA>obstetrician to do a
BA>hysterectomy at the same time my sister was delivered by C-section.

I guess you could say I am sensitive to this also, for different 
reasons.


BA> JB>>>  It is neither rare  nor infrequent.   

BA> BA>> Most of the anti-abortion folks, presumably including yourself,
BA> BA>> *also* oppose all forms of birth control.  I also note that I
BA> BA>> don't see any of the anti-abortion folks offering to adopt or
BA> BA>> support the resulting children if carried to term.

BA> JB> I am fine with birth control, including abstinence.  You don't
BA> JB> see any  because you aren't looking.

BA>I don't look for support for birth control measures - including
BA>abstinence.  I only
BA>take note of the very vocal opposition to all forms of it except
BA>abstinence - and
BA>that very vocal opposition seems to emanate from the same people who
BA>are also very (not just) vocally anti-abortion.

BA> JB>  How many babies get adopted outside of
BA> JB> this  country because the far left has intentionally made
BA> JB> adoption in the US  too difficult and risky ?  

BA>One reason adoptions are risky is the US legal system, not the 'far
BA>left.'

BA>If an absent father decides - ten years after the fact - that he
BA>really wants to raise the kid he didn't even know or care about at
BA>the time, he can have the adoption annulled and take custody of the
BA>child that he's never seen before. There have been some *really*
BA>nasty court fights over this sort of thing, and AFAIK the adoptive
BA>parents *always* lose.

BA>Parents who surrender their child for adoption often if not usually
BA>expect to never
BA>see it again.  Adoption records are supposed to be sealed and secret,
BA>but some adopted children have managed to get the information then go
BA>track down their biological parent(s), twenty or more years after the
BA>fact, show up at their door
BA>and say "Hi, I'm your kid... ."

BA>I was once acquainted with a lady who discovered years after the fact
BA>that the drunk who claimed to be her son's father - and who had
BA>visitation - was not related to the boy at all.  The judge refused to
BA>terminate the drunk's "parental
BA>rights" saying that the "boy needs a father."  Even a
drunken b*st*rd
BA>that beats
BA>the snot out of him every other weekend, apparently.  The boy's
BA>*real* father *offered* to provide child support and parental
BA>supervision (even though he had since married and had a family of his
BA>own, and he *voluntarily* underwent genetic
BA>testing to insure he was in fact the boy's biological father) when he
BA>found out he
BA>had a son - who was 15 at the time.  At the time the lady also had a
BA>steady boy friend that had 2 sons of his own (the oldest was a year
BA>younger than her son) and
BA>who provided a far better example (adult male figure) than that
BA>drunk.  Yet the judge
BA>sided with the drunk child beater, go figure.

I agree with the sealed records issue and the issue with the court 
system but I do not believe that is a reason why people in the US do not 
go through with adoptions.  I personally have not attempted nor ever 
plan to look-up my biological parents.  The courts have made the current 
adoption process next to impossible.  This is what drives people to 
foreign countries.   I know a number of couples who have adopted babies 
from Eastern Europe and China.  They attempted to go through the US 
system and gave up.


Jeff 

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Democrats --  The party of economic slavery ....


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10