Why is this not in the news?

[Spartanmack]

It's irritating that if you are pro-choice, you get painted as wanting people to have abortions, or planning to perform abortions yourself. Like I'm some sort of bloodthirsty baby killer... right. That's been an effective, but despicable slur used by Holier-than-Thou "Pro Life" hypocrites for a long time. All I'm saying is that a woman, or a couple, should be free to make that decision for themselves, and the state should not prevent that. The State & the Church through it's political manipulations, should not prevent her from having that choice.

Except for the fact that I've never done this, it's no different than you and sbee accusing pro lifers of ceasing to care once the child is born. That's simply not true and you do it all the time - like w/ the welfare debate, if you want welfare and entitlement reform or are just against expanding them, then you hate poor people and most likely (or in michchump's estimation, most definitely) racist. you can't even agree with the idea that it's a shame that in this country over 1mm babies are killed each year when clearly there is unmet demand for adopting babies no matter what Thumb incorrectly says or believes.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not deviating from shit, because I didn't bring up that part he did. I refuted his hyperbole saying the reason there were no babies to adopt in this country was because of abortions. He claimed people went to other countries because of a lack of babies here:

So I'm not the one deviating from anything, I'm simply refuting his claims of why people go to other countries to adopt. He started that tangent, not me.

OK, let's settle this once and for all. Here is the very first quote where I mentioned adoption:

Are you really so ignorant that you think we can't do better and thus we should summarily execute innocent unborn human beings based on the possibility that they might be abused or because they could grow up with less than what someone else has? These atrocities are arguments for things like adoption and social reform, not murder.

Clearly, I'm offering adoption as an alternative to abortion. And here's the full quote that you've now partially quoted twice in order to make up your argument that I blame the difficulties of adopting babies on abortion:

Pretty funny coming from a guy who wants the entire world to abide by his "consensus as science" beliefs re: anthropogenic climate change. Yes, being that I'm not a science denier and I don't pick and choose when science matters so that I can select a convenient, arbitrary definitions of life to justify killing human beings, I do have a logical definition of where human life begins. I know that life begins at conception, the point at which a new organism with it's own DNA now exists that didn't exist before. The baby has a heartbeat, circulatory system and organs in 3 weeks - before most women even know they're pregnant. According to all the laws of nature, the offspring of two members of a species is always the same type of creature as the parents - the offspring of humans is without exception, human. The idea that you use "viability outside the womb" or whatever to say the baby is some other-than-human organism is clearly anti-science. The idea that you use poverty to justify abortion is downright appalling particularly in this day and age when you have couples searching the world over because there aren't enough babies to adopt here in this country.

It's pretty clear to just about anyone that I'm saying aborting kids because they're going to have a rough life is a bullshit excuse because there are tons of people willing to adopt babies and give them a good life right here. If you think that says anything like 'adopting babies is difficult because they're being killed' then you're either not paying attention, not very smart or you have problems with reading comprehension. Adding as evidence the fact that people go to other countries for babies instead of adopting toddlers and foster kids here is merely to show there is demand for babies. You yourself even said this:

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. I never argued it was not difficult to adopt in the US, in fact, my whole post was about how it is.

What I refuted was your saying there are not many kids available for adoption in the US, and you vaguely hinted abortion was the reason behind this which is in fact bullshit...

I didn't vaguely hint at anything, you read that into it and then picked a fight about something I didn't say or imply. The tangent is ALL yours.

 

[Thumb]

So you aren't saying if there were no abortions the US would have more babies available to adopt? Basically saying we would have the same number of babies for adoption either way?

That's what I was getting at. Your argument seemed to be leaning out that way, did you say it in black and white? No, but then I never said you did. But the insinuation is there, at least it seems to be from my perspective.

For the record I actually agree with you on the adoption difficulty thing. My friends went through hell, countless interviews and background checks, renovations to totally 100% baby proof their home, like latches on all the cabinets, locks on toilet seat lids, the little pvc caps you put in unused outlets, rubber bumpers on ever furniture corner ending in a sharp angle, and several other hoops to jump through just so they could bring home a child they planned to love and cherish as if it was their own. Money was never an issue, because they are VERY well off. Yet two knuckleheads can get together and screw and 9 months later just bring a baby home to their 2 bedroom trailer shared with 4 large dogs and a cousin and his GF, problems with the plumbing, and housekeeping conditions that would make most people sick, no questions asked. The bureaucracy is what hinders the adoptions in this country, I would assume many otherwise normally fit couples get rejected all the time for some little thing or another.

So champ was actually right, I do really think the government overdoes it when it comes to adoptions a bit.

They were going to go through China to avoid some of the emotional hassle involved (and because they want a girl and in China girls are given away like stale bread) but now that's become more difficult, I'm not sure of that's the US's doing or China's. They are now seeking to become a licensed foster care home, because that's another way to help expedite the process.

 

[byco42]

Back to the OP, who cited a blog as a resource ... here's a counter-position to that and other accounts of this story--including the reasons to report it from a certain, presumptive and hostile--and misleading--perspective. Link

 

[Gulo Blue]

Back to the OP, who cited a blog as a resource ... here's a counter-position to that and other accounts of this story--including the reasons to report it from a certain, presumptive and hostile--and misleading--perspective. Link

Wow.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393?

The Archbishop is calling for an investigation independent of the Catholic Church and I still think a great deal of misery will be uncovered and will be representative of widespread misery in far greater numbers, but I also expect this won't be a story of heartless nuns as much a story of nuns trying to meet more needs than they had in resources.

 

[Michchamp]

Wow.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393?

The Archbishop is calling for an investigation independent of the Catholic Church and I still think a great deal of misery will be uncovered and will be representative of widespread misery in far greater numbers, but I also expect this won't be a story of heartless nuns as much a story of nuns trying to meet more needs than they had in resources.

Well, the source of a lot of initial outrage may be overstated... but it doesn't really change how screwed up the wisdom of policies that forced poor, unwed mothers & orphans into the church's care to begin with... and question why the hell the church was allowed to force them to work as virtual slave labor in these places.

"times were tough, deal with it..." seems to be one defense of the situation. when it came to child abuse, it was "only the work of a couple bad apples."

These things may be true, but don't be upset when I refuse to respect the church as a representative of some divine power & loftier standards. You'd think they'd be better (not worse) than something out of a Charles Dickens novel if so...

 

[tinselwolverine]

Wow.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...trouble-with-the-septic-tank-story-1.1823393?

The Archbishop is calling for an investigation independent of the Catholic Church and I still think a great deal of misery will be uncovered and will be representative of widespread misery in far greater numbers, but I also expect this won't be a story of heartless nuns as much a story of nuns trying to meet more needs than they had in resources.

The videographer's name is Bryan O'Brien.

How is that not news?

 

[byco42]

Well, the source of a lot of initial outrage may be overstated... but it doesn't really change how screwed up the wisdom of policies that forced poor, unwed mothers & orphans into the church's care to begin with... and question why the hell the church was allowed to force them to work as virtual slave labor in these places.

Didn't stop you and others from swallowing the story whole and now you want to spit some of it out. Not going to work. The original account has blatant false and unsubstantiated statements in it.

Homes like Tuam were "state-funded and church-run." The "wisdom of policies" was universal in Ireland and in the Western World in regards to the stigma of unwed mothers. Ironically single moms are championed today and millions are not phased that they can abort their unborn at will -- it's considered a "right" now. And the barbarism we are exhibiting so capriciously today is as egregious and will be as harshly judged in a couple of generations, and so forth.

"times were tough, deal with it..." seems to be one defense of the situation. when it came to child abuse, it was "only the work of a couple bad apples."

I don't know. I think this passage from the rebuttal is rather empathetic:

There is no doubt that life was grim in that home in Tuam, as it was across the west of Ireland in the early to mid-twentieth century. Poverty was rife and disease was rampant in rural parts of Ireland back then, and such problems were even more pronounced in no doubt badly run homes for single mums and illegitimate children. As the Irish Times says, infant mortality was depressingly high in early twentieth-century Ireland, ?particularly in institutions, where infection spread rapidly?. It might be worth doing a serious analysis of conditions in these institutions, and of how the poverty combined with the severe moral strictures to create an unhealthy and repressive environment.

These things may be true, but don't be upset when I refuse to respect the church as a representative of some divine power & loftier standards. You'd think they'd be better (not worse) than something out of a Charles Dickens novel if so...

The Church IS THE representative of divine mercy. The people who comprise it, however, are as broken as anyone else. Some how you can't or won't acknowledge that. You apparently have little knowledge of the Church, in spite of your Catholic education. But I cannot comment on how "Catholic" it really was. It surely failed to reinforce the importance of observing the Fourth Commandment.

 

[Michchamp]

... It surely failed to reinforce the importance of observing the Fourth Commandment.

no, it did. Once you hit 18 though (or stop taking money from them), I think you're better off subjecting your parents to the same scrutiny you hold everyone to.

 

[byco42]

no, it did. Once you hit 18 though (or stop taking money from them), I think you're better off subjecting your parents to the same scrutiny you hold everyone to.

No. You are gravely mistaken. It appears that you are not one to make allowances, but starting with your parents would be good practice.

 

[Michchamp]

No. You are gravely mistaken. It appears that you are not one to make allowances, but starting with your parents would be good practice.

other than the comment I made on an anonymous message board (which wasn't really that bad... I'm not allowed to mock the old man's hypocritical politics???) I'm a pretty good son. Neither of my parents can complain, considering they aren't perfect either.

 

[byco42]

other than the comment I made on an anonymous message board (which wasn't really that bad... I'm not allowed to mock the old man's hypocritical politics???) I'm a pretty good son. Neither of my parents can complain, considering they aren't perfect either.

You have a track record of pointing out your dad's flawed views. I wonder why you do it at all. Why you think we need to be aware of them.

 

[Michchamp]

You have a track record of pointing out your dad's flawed views. I wonder why you do it at all. Why you think we need to be aware of them.

I guess he's not very good at give and take in arguments, so I don't even bother discussing politics or religion with him directly any more. He'll just hang up on me, or go for extreme hyperbole & make up lies, like "The invasion of Iraq PALES in comparison to the murders on Bill Clinton's record." LOL, huh?

You can't really have an intelligent discussion when someone goes there, so I guess I use this forum to vent a little. But if you think I crossed a line, I'll stop.