Sunday, January 20, 2008

Another Reason to like John McCain

McCain has always had a strong view on pro-life (check his record folks) - even though
THIS article may suggest he is using his adopted daughter as a stand on pro-life.....I say...So What?
Use me....I've always said I'm a poster child for pro-life, every adoptee is. Except for a few whacos you are going to find most adoptees say "thank goodness my biomom was pro life". Everyone has the right to live....doesn't the child have a choice?

I don't agree about his stand on stem cell reasearch but he is in the camp that three - 10 cells if not a human yet.....I disagree.

19 comments:

Gershom said...

Petunia, YOU may very well be a poster child for a pro-life agenda. Its possible your mother chose "adoption" because she didn't want to parent, and didn't want to terminate you. I don't know what her choices were, because I don't know her. BUT, I DO know MY MOTHER. AND I AM NOT A POSTER CHILD FOR PRO-LIFE. I wouldn't have been dead without adoption, adoption didn't save ME from abortion. Without adoption, i would have been with my MOTHER, not in a vacuum or a dumpster in the back of an abortion clinic. ALL ADOPTEES are NOT poster children for a pro-life agenda. Please don't speak for ALL adoptees, speak for YOURSELF.

petunia said...

Who knows about any of us born before it was legal to take a child's life. Maybe if it would have been legal then we would NOT have been with our biomoms but we would have been aborted in a time of such desperation. I am not only a poster-child for pro-life but also a poster child for adoption. I am MUCH better off being brought up with my parents than my bio parents. They are nice people but were NOT together. I am a happy (happy a** as some of the anti people say) adoptee and have had a great reunion....

Gershom said...

I wasn't born before it was legal, I was born in 1980. You be who you are, theres nothing wrong with that, and I'm not debating your truth. I'm debating YOU speaking for ALL adoptees. Thats what you did, and THATS what I'm saying isn't okay. Because that isn't MY truth. You said it was, JUST because I'M adopted.

Calm yourself, its not a we or them, thing. Adoptees come in all different sizes with all different feelings. Thats wonderful that you had a good experience with your adoptive family and it has been positive for you. I wish it was that way for everyone, that is how its supposed to be. That is good. Be a happy ass adoptee all you want, but stop worrying about us, or them or anyone, own your truth, its not a war. There is so much of your time being lost with this...year long agenda of proving how wrong anti-adoption is. Look back in your history its amazing.

I'm sorry that I don't read here regularly, but when I do, i know what the topic is going to be, how wrong the "anti"'s are. I've never been here and had it not be that topic.

That hurts me, because I'm not rude to you, I say more power to ya if your had a good life. But I DO see things wrong in the industry and I activly fight legislation for reform not for a worse situation for children but for a BETTER one. A better place for the CHILDREN. Isn't THAT who its supposed to be for?

You're wasting energy and time with this war on people who you don't even know or looked into their stance, because I AM anti adoption and I'm NOT against you or how you FEEL about adoption.

Do you believe in open records for adoptees at least? Can we find a common ground THERE? and work towards that together? Something, other than this continual we and they, happy or sad, stable unstable adoption slaughter. Its constant.

You're defensive, i didn't post anything negetive to you and even told you to be YOU in my first post, but you still had to insist that you were much better off with your adoptive parents, as if i'm here to tell you that you weren't. I don't know you. I can't tell you that.

be well.

Kippa said...

As a general rule I don't like to use my story to support an argument, because, like every other story, it's not representative (the devil being always in the details, you know).
But I'll break it here because it does seem at least somewhat relevant.

I've no doubt at all that if it hadn't been for the fact that it was possible to surrender a child for adoption under sealed records I'd have been allowed to marry my son's father, and our son would have been raised with us.
There's no way I'd have had an abortion. I wanted my son and didn't anticipate having to relinquish.
And I may say, that (unlike some who weren't so lucky) even though he was brought up in family of great people who have been very supportive of his reunion, he wouldn't have done 1/2 badly being raised by us. He should have been.

I'm pro-reform, which to me means being moderately anti-adoption. It also means that as both a reunited bio parent and an adoptive parent I have the obligation to seriously consider the pros and cons of adoption as they effect all parties.
I don't know the fine details surrounding the circumstances of our adopted son's birth and subsequent relinquishment nor am I willing to second guess them. But one thing I'm sure of and it's that I'm NOT going to assume that if he hadn't been adopted he'd have been aborted.

Adoption and abortion are separate issues that shouldn't be conflated

petunia said...

Kippa,
I always appreciate your comments...even though you may not agree you are always gracious. I know reading this seems to imply that I think all children who are adopted would have been aborted rather than kept. But that's not what I mean. I actually say I am a poster-child for pro-life because of my argument to people who believe abortion is okay. They think it is a choice....but what about the choice of the child? I could have been easily aborted because I was not planned and even though I was wanted I was not going to be in an environment that was good for me...my biomom had no means of support and she wasn't ready to be a mom. But she gave me a great life with a wonderful family....and I am eternally grateful she chose that for me. The child should have a choice of life as well....
I know most biomoms would not abort and I praise them for that....this has nothing to do with the biomoms but the people who so easily take the life of a child because it is an "inconvenience".

Kippa said...

". . . this has nothing to do with the biomoms but the people who so easily take the life of a child because it is an "inconvenience".

It's a myth that most people who decide to abort rather than carry to term do so because they want to avoid being "inconvenienced".
I know a lot of people who've had an abortion, and probably a lot more who aren't telling. I'd bet you know a few of the latter too (though you wouldn't know it, of course).

Very few people chose to abort a pregnancy with casual indifference. This I know.
It's not an easy choice, but I firmly believe that there are cases where abortion is the best and most humane decision, and one that a woman should be able to make for herself. Certainly, nobody else should be able to make it for her.

Once again the devil's in the details.

petunia said...

I don't believe most people have an abortion out of casual indifference...but it is almost ALWAYS selfish. The are a FEW cases of it being the mother's life or the child's and that would even be difficult to decide. We are talking about taking the life of another human being... we would all agree that shaking a newborn to death is wrong so why isn't it wrong to suck a child's body parts out of a womb?
I'm sorry, I still think a child has a choice of life too.... who are we to decide they don't deserve life?

Kippa said...

"I'm sorry, I still think a child has a choice of life too.... who are we to decide they don't deserve life?"
Who are we to decide a woman should carry a pregnancy to term if, for reasons of her own, she doesn't want to?
It may well be that her reasons aren't entirely selfish - like the woman who was the sole support of her seriously disabled husband and three young children, who chose to abort rather than relinquish her husband's child and her children's sibling for adoption. She had the wishes and needs of four people other than herself to consider.
It's all in the details, and very individual.

Even John McCain said in 1999 that he wouldn't support repealing Roe v. Wade because it would force X number of American women to undergo illegal and dangerous operations. He has since flip-flopped on that. (Actually I share your respect for McCain in general, though I wouldn't vote for him - which is hypothetical anyway, because I'm a Canadian)

There's an excellent article in the Philadelphia inquirer that you might like to read, though I very much doubt you'll agree with it. And of course it's your prerogative not to. Here's the link:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/
20080122_Lets_support_a_set_of_choices.html
Read it anyway, just to see where people who don't think the 'rights' of the unborn should trump the rights of the born are coming from.

petunia said...

Do you actually read outloud what you write? "who chose to abort rather than relinquish her husband's child and her children's sibling for adoption. She had the wishes and needs of four people other than herself to consider."
So if this woman had a newborn and bought the child home but decided she had too many people's needs in her home to "consider"...she could kill that child? That's what she would be doing...
MUCH MUCH better to know you did not end a life but gave that child a life somewhere else.... THAT is the epitome of selflessness. People try to cover their eyes and make believe it is not a child they are eliminating.

Kippa said...

It's rather rude to suggest I read my own words outloud. I know exactly what I said and why I said it.

I think your definition of 'selfish' is simplistic. If the pregnancy'd been carried to term and the resulting child relinquished, it could have had very negative effects on the whole family - husband, children, mother - and even possibly on the child-to-be (who may or may not have been relinquished to a 'good life'). As it was it seems to have been the best decision for that particular family under those particular circumstances.

I believe it was this woman's right (as well as her responsibility) to make her own decision based on her personal circumstances and those of her existing family.

And no, I don't think killing a newborn child is comparable to making the decision to end an unwanted pregnancy in the early stages.

petunia said...

John McCain has ALWAYS been pro-life. The full quote is here from 1999:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/
politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/
mccain082499.htm
(cut and paste in pieces)
Romney is actually the closest to my own views but McCain can beat Hillary (my prediction is it will be those two).

petunia said...

After eight weeks a child has fingernails....
I just could not believe that anyone can hear themselves say it's better to end a life because it may be "to much" or "traumatic" for a family. I guess cutting up a child, with a heartbeat, and sucking the bloody limbs and pieces through a hose into the garbage bin is less traumatic than a relinquished child to a family a birthparent can pick themselves. I guess then the evidence is gone....but either way, never forgotten.

Kippa said...

"John McCain has ALWAYS been pro-life."

In his personal beliefs, yes.
However (from your link) in 1999 he said:
". . . certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
However, in the previous year he'd said "yes" when asked if he supported the complete reversal of Roe v. Wade.
It's a compromise, but I think it's a reasonable one.

Personally, I think it cruel and unusual punishment to force a reluctant woman to carry to a pregnancy term only to be obliged to relinquish her child at the end of it.
It depends very much on one's belief system, of course. I know a young woman who relinquished because she was opposed to abortion (for religious reasons) and adoption was pretty clearly the best option under the circumstances (I know what they were and agree).
I respect her choice just as I respect the choice of the woman with the family. Their decisions were right for them.

Tishslp said...

"And no, I don't think killing a newborn child is comparable to making the decision to end an unwanted pregnancy in the early stages."

Right there is the crux of the issue, IMO. How could any woman who chooses abortion believe that the fetus destroyed is a human life? I mean, truly, the vast, vast majority of women would never kill their child and would choose whatever option they could to honor the life of the child, no matter what the circumstances.

Much easier to comfort yourself with the "fact" that a fetus is not a human. That a fetus is like whatever living thing you are okay with cutting to pieces while still alive and sucking down a tube into the garbage.

Wow. Petunia, I took your advice and read over what I wrote and it sounds so harsh. I can understand, Kippa, where you or anyone taking the "other side" in the abortion debate would be uncomfortable or even offended by the words I wrote, which is totally not my intention (blunt though I sometimes can be!).

But it IS the truth that I know. And I honestly can't find a gentler way to present the truth of what abortion is, what a fetus is and how that process takes place.

Because, in all honesty, to suggest that abortion is a "compassionate" choice to someone who believes in life at conception is analogous to telling an overwhelmed mother, any mother, that euthanizing her 6 month old child is the "compassionate" choice over relinquishment or kinship placement because, you know, they COULD end up with one of the rare adoptive families who are not happy or because, at 6 months, your baby doesn't have as much "right" to live as your older children. And this isn't even completely analogous because euthanizing a child is different from cutting them into manageable pieces while still alive to be sucked down a tube.

So, when you take two such explosive topics as abortion and adoption and try to discuss them with each other, how do you keep from having the discussion degenerte into just a back and forth of "you're wrong", "no, YOU'RE wrong"? It's just so discouraging to me, sometimes.

Maybe there's a way? What do you guys think? Can we hold our own beliefs close while not attacking others? Especially when we perceive an attack? Or better just to stay silent?

Kippa said...

"Can we hold our own beliefs close while not attacking others? "
I don't think either Petunia or myself have attacked each other. A disagreement doesn't add up to an attack - at least not in my book (but I'm insensitive). Petunia blogs her opinions and invites responses. I respond with my opinions. Very civilized. And I consider an exchange of views, even if they differ, a positive thing.

Don't think for a minute that because I support reproductive choice for women that I'm an enthusiast for abortion. I think of it as a sometimes necessary evil, as evidently does John MacCain, who wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade *despite* his personal convictions because he knows that the lives of thousands of women would be endangered if that happened. It's a pragmatic compromise.

I simple believe women's lives matter, and that it would be wrong for government (or anyone) to curtail an individual woman's decision over something which should be her personal choice (and responsibility) according to her beliefs.

That said, I don't think doctors who oppose abortion on moral grounds should be forced to perform procedures that are anathema to them.
But equally those doctors who want (also on moral grounds) to make their services available, shouldn't be penalized.

Freedom of choice. It's the American way :)

Tishslp said...

I don't think there's attacking going on here, either....I was talking in more general terms than that. I do think there is room for reasonable discussion and I think there are people who have the ability to do it. It's good to see it here.

One thing I've noticed about pro-life vs pro-choice discussions is the reluctance of many to address the truth of what abortion is. Abortion is the cutting up of a fetus as it struggles to escape the "doctor"s blade and the subsequent suction of said fetus from the uterus into a garbage container of the pieces of human child that fetus is/was.

The talk continues with terms like "compassionate" and "individual choice" and "too much going on right now" and "what about ME?", but no one really ever says, "yes, I know that I'm am destroying a living thing, a thing destined to be my child, even as it struggles to avoid the pain and horror of being hacked to pieces but I'm okay with that. Because MY pain, MY circumstances, MY other children, MY decision for someone else, MY, MY, MY".

This, among other things, is one reason why, even though it seems harsh, I agree with you, P, about abortion being selfish.

Kippa said...

What it really comes down to is not whether one believes that a fetus is a living thing (only an idiot would deny that and I'm not an idiot), but

1) Whether you believe a fetus is a "person" with full rights of "personhood". And if so, from what stage.

2) Whether you believe that the right to life of a potential child outweighs a woman's right to decide whether to carry her pregnancy to term.

3) Whether you believe that a woman who has compelling reasons for not wanting to be pregnant should be forced to comply with the wishes of those who think the above, regardless of her wishes or circumstances or how her quality of life and that of those around her will be affected.

Not to be dismissive, because this IS an important ethical question, but I do believe that those who haven't personally experienced a "crisis" pregnancy are more likely to have a less nuanced perspective on these matters and be more inclined to see things in black and white.

petunia said...

So if someone cannot deny it's a "living thing" but the question is when the child has the rights to "personhood"....when does that happen? What is the week, the day, the time that child is a "person"?
People who are for the "right" for women to choose feel THEY have the knowledge enough to know when the "living thing" inside them is a "person". I think that is funny because many think their child is a person at conception, the potential for a human life---the child has it's own heart beat and blood type so I think it is different and individual at that time.
Some think that the child is not a child until it is born....so when was the magical moment? The first breath of air? If a baby is born early are they not a person yet?
What about the brain/memory forming at 8 weeks gestation? This is a different memory and brain than that of the mother, a human brain...this makes me think a baby is already a person.

Tishslp said...

To address Kippa's points

1) yes
2) yes
3) I think this question is a little loaded. I would hope that women or men, for that matter, would choose to honor the life, the HUMAN life that is growing inside of a woman and to make some deep sacrifices for nine months, and beyond, to avoid killing another human being. I don't believe that any one person's life is more valuable than another's and there's just no arguement that holds water for me when you're comparing inconvenience, even deep and painful inconvenience, against the termination of life.

I know you didn't mean to be dismissive, Kippa, and I appreciate that but your statement regarding those who haven't experienced a crisis pregnancy can easily be interpreted that way. Especially when you're dialoguing with women who have encountered infertility at one point or another in their lives. Regardless, however, I don't think you need to experience a crisis pregnancy to have an opinion on abortion. To me, that's like saying you have to have been run over by a truck in order to be a good driver.

Petunia has presented some very compelling evidence to show the humanity of a fetus even only 8 weeks old. I find that most of the arguements against considering the humanity of the fetus tend ignore the evidence and fall back on "if it doesn't look like a little 6 month old baby than it can't possibly be a human life yet". That seems unbelievably simplistic, and dangerous, to me. I think we're well past the point where we deny full humanity based on what something looks like.

A fetus has DNA....it is human. And a human is a human and has the right to life.