An Alternative to Abortion. I have a question.

Been reading Charles Krauthammer's new book, and right out of the gate he says something so simple yet so profound, that it really is the key to understanding our world past, present and future. Basically, for a society to thrive, whereby it's people live healthy fruitful lives, and where true prosperity exists in all the arts and sciences, you must first get the politics right.

Think about that for a minute. How remarkably true this is, and it applies to all levels of gov't, and where there are rules and controls over our private lives at work and at home.

He then gives examples past and present where the politics was wrong. Germany 1933, Mao's Chinese REvolution, current Iran and North Korea. All examples of where personal freedom and in turn the personal expression of ones desire to learn and to achieve was stifled. Moreover, these are a few examples where millions of people have been exterminated with nothing to show for it. Compare this to a free capitalistic society where the only thing holding you back is yourself.

Maybe we can even argue that we are living in a country where we're getting the politics wrong, because the guy in charge, and his minions have it wrong. People from all political persuasions seem to be feeling this way, but I digress.

One thing I do know, it sure seems like they're getting the politics right in Texas, and have been for some time. I'm talking education wise, business wise, sports (haha), but now when it comes to the politics of life they're really on the money.

I'm rather new to the abortion debate and the war on abortion, but it's hard to ignore what is happening in Texas. Lie I said, they are getting the politics right.

So, it's got me thinking again about something that I've filed away as a stupid unworkable idea. I want to bring it up now as a question mostly, because there are many smart people on this forum especially when it comes to the debate on life, and I want their views.

It's becoming clear that conservatives should be happy with little victories and incremental successes like what happened again in Texas, instead of getting the politics wrong, by demanding that our candidates NOW be totally against abortion in ANY situation and thus branded as "kooks." The politics now for our side should be little victories, and sweet ones.

Don't get me wrong. Our politicians on the whole should be against abortion, and certainly for medical oversight, as in any other medical procedure, but all to often the left makes out a conservative candidate to look like a fool. In short, THEY, the left, have the politics wrong, but we've been dumb @sses in debating them on this issue and others.

Better to do what the left does, win little battles on the road towards what you want to accomplish. It's almost like the Prolife movement is similar to the Antislavery movement of long ago. Staunch guardians of slavery on the one hand and people, on the other, coming together to protect and defend a group of people who cannot protect themselves, but it didn't happen overnight.

You read about our revolution and the Declaration of Independence, and you know that those people who drafted these words, in their hearts agonized over the slavery issue. Then over time, good people in this country came together and did what was right.

But, here's my first question. I’m wondering if someone can explain this enigma to me.

I’ve known smart women...married women...with children who are adamantly for choice to the point that it is the ONLY issue in any election. I scratch my head and ask them, why is this like the ONLY issue?

Granted these people are over 50 years old, and I get the impression that on the outside they're happy, but on the inside they hate themselves, their life and esp their husbands. They almost all eventually get divorced.

The response to my question is invariably, "Only I should have control over my body," or "No man will decide what I can and cannot do to my body." You've seen these same women, in Texas no less, fighting like rabid dogs to maintain the status quo of abortion.

Ok, fair enough, but wouldn't you think that these people would be for some sensible control over this "health industry?" Wouldn't you think they would welcome someone, the gov't or churches or even the AMA (BTW, what a total joke they are)?

No these seemingly bright ladies want abortion, on demand, anytime and anyplace with no control whatsoever of the process at any point, unless in the end the woman gets the abortion. They have strong political and financial backing, and it's easy for them to persuade a scared little girl to abort their child and feel good about it. They also see no moral or ethical problem with you and me paying for the procedure.

These women, (the poster child being that Texas State elected official who filibustered), are clearly not going to go along with ANY control over clinical abortions. But, you would think, that the people running the abortion clinics would welcome regulation and safety. No folks, they would rather close down than follow basic healthy guidelines or even the Hippocratic Oath.

So we read today that these clinics in Texas are closing down. First nine, and now more to follow.

I don’t get it. They’ve decided to close down rather than to stay open and adhere to basic rules that make perfectly good sense.

So, this is my first question. Can someone explain this to me? What is the real truth here? Is it a follow the money thing? What is really going on here, basically, Folks, it's not about saving that lost, forelorn, scared-to-death little teenager who is at the end of her first trimester. So what is it?

Okay now on to point number two and what reflects the title of this post, and again it will be in the form of a question.

I have two friends, opposite of the women described above, who have scoured the lengths of the earth to find a baby. They use brokers here in the USA.

One, after considerable expense and at least three trips, found a baby in a remote village of Uzbekistan. The other, over time, found twin children in the Phillipines. They spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to adopt a child. One family had children already the other did not.

In both cases the children are now in college, happy and healthy. The families are together and loving. I'm not saying it was easy, I'm just saying they got the politics right, and the outcomes were good.

So I'm thinking, what is a real alternative to abortion for a young pregnant teenager? What would really make sense, and overnight change the playing field for everyone, pro choice and pro life? What would remove the various stigmata that involves the conscious thought and decisions made by the young and pregnant whether to abort or raise the baby?

HERE IS MY QUESTION. Why can't we open homes for pregnant teenagers...linked to orphanages and give them a real alternative to an abortion?

The 16 year old would be invited to stay at the home the last three months of her pregnancy, at least. She would agree to put the child up for adoption. Interested parents would apply for legal custody of the child, and a contract would be drawn up where by after birth the child goes to the new family.

The biological mother in turn receives a trust fund of $80,000. All medical care of course related to the pregnancy is paid for. One quarter of the money is released to her immediately, the rest over time. She is given medical insurance until she is 25. The family can also agree on allowing the mother to visit the baby periodically if she wants.

In short, whatever the couple agrees on is agreed. $80,000 could be $300,000. I don't care. The girl has a choice.

My friends spent tens of thousands of dollars through agencies. The money I'm sure went to various people and the mothers in Uzbekistan and the Phillipines got nothing.

So I ask, why not provide an option to a teenager pregnant? WE all know the consequences of trying to raise the child themselves. The child is more apt to commit crimes, not finish school, be unemployed, be on drugs, not to mention that the life of the young mother is a shambles. She is more apt not to finish school, get married, be employed and healthy. Her risk of breast and other cancers goes up significantly.

Their personal lives too are a mess. These young vulnerable girls go from one loser guy to the next, and they become more frequently abused themselves. The child is usually raised by others.

I would love to see incrementally, Texas becoming the first non-abortion state, and it comes via choice of the people there who are pregnant not by any law or edict.

SAfe abortions would still be performed, yes, you heard me, but eventually they would be very very very rare with most women opting to adopt out their child.

The keystone to this is simple. The woman having the baby, who puts it up for adoption is compensated. I mean if she pays to have the child put to death, then why can't she be paid to let the child live?

What's that you say? Then we'll have a "buy a baby crime ring?" Sell your baby to the highest bidder...etc. Eventually, you say, it will lead to "designer baby clinics", where a couple or a single woman would come and pick out donors to impregnate and have their baby.

Well, what is wrong with that? In fact, designer baby clinics are starting to spring up in Canada and else where I hear. Not saying that's good or bad, just saying it's happening and will continue to happen as the science of genetics becomes common place for everyone having a baby.

We've had social services in this country for many years now. This is an issue where the people running these agencies and services can sink their teeth in. Brokers in this country make millions linking couples here to mothers over seas. Our social workers here are low on the income scale. Pay them to do the same. Regulate it.

The adoption agencies would be above board and strictly licensed. I would think Churches would be at the forefront of forming these homes.

But back to our young little pregnant girl in Texas. I mean, the young girl who agrees to life, who carries the baby, and adopts it out, why shouldn't she be compensated?

What's more, I think she would be proud of what she did, and in the end actually show more of an achievement than if she had aborted the child, or raised the child alone for the next twenty years through all the pain and grief that transpire with this decision.

All of you reading me know exactly what I'm talking about here. These young women love the children they bore into this world and whom they care for, but they are miserable and trapped and their day to day lives are unbelievably difficult, even under the best circumstances when there is extended family involved.

So, to repeat my question. Why not do in America what Americans do overseas when adopting a baby? If this is already going on, then why not promote it here?

I'm not talking about the homes children, like BAbe Ruth, found themselves in. Raised as outcasts, (then again, what ever happened to The Babe?) I'm talking about homes that promote life....where the politics is right.

I would guess that part of the reason is that if babies were not aborted, but were put up for adoption instead, then people would start realizing that American adoption centers were filled with a whole lot of black babies. That would disturb the politically sensitive.

Also, there would be two possible follow-ons to that:

1) White couples would increasingly adopt black babies. This would also bother the sensitive, as the black babies would be raised in an "alien culture".
OR
2) Too few people would adopt black babies, "proving" what a hateful, racist country this is.

Abortion sweeps a number of problems under the rug so that do-gooders can ignore them and still tell themselves what swell people they are.

"Only I should have control over my body," or "No man will decide what I can and cannot do to my body."

Yet that same right is not extended to the developing human she carries within her. I am a states' rights proponent. I believe issues like this are state purview. I believe that the government shouldn't have any say about legality, or actually take my tax dollars and pay for or support it. There already are alternatives to abortion. Adoptions and also charitable new-mother group homes (we have one in our county) - our entitlement system actually REWARDs unwed mothers with increased TANF, SNAP, WICs, Section 8, EITC and so on.

I live in Georgia. I’m seeing here white single women with their black children, and mixed families. I agree with what you say, but one generation out from now, and adopted children, whether latino or black or whatever raised in loving homes would be far better off being raised by single parents in broken homes.

btw, how many times would a girl be able to stay at one of these homes and collect her trust fund of $80,000?
I’m afraid you might have a long line of applicants in some areas.

Then you have to agree that TExas gets the politics right. How we allowed the federal government to control the abortion industry is beyond me, until you realize that first John Kennedy got the federal gov’t to allow federal unions, then Teddy Kennedy and others passed abortion rights and then immigration rights, and they did this why we slept, and this Obamacare is another part of it,

Clearly, conservatives have no original thought here. Instead of saying “No” to Obamacare, they have no alternative theme in their argument. No wonder the media and people find them equally stupid as the democrats.

I liked Newt’s when he said we should be the party that finds “cures to diseases”, and be the party of alleviating Alzheimer’s and diabetes instead of just of the party who just pays to treat disease. And for that matter, be the party of health, not be the party of death.

I think you’d be shocked to hear of the number of woman who have had multiple abortions.

You’re right though, nothing is clear, but what is worse in your mind?

1. Single mother with ten kids, all on welfare and the failures and problems that will go on for generations and generations.
2. Woman who has adopted out her ten kids who has a lot of mony to show for it. Who uses much of that money for these children and doing good work for others.

Birth mothers overseas are not paid for their children, as it it against domestic and international laws and regulations. That would get the adoption service providers shut down in a minute. Their medical treatment is paid for by the adopting parents, but those payments are made to the medical provider and not to the birth mother.

Selling people is against the law everywhere but in a few muslim countries.

I disagree with Krauthammer. You NEVER get the politics right. Look at our own history. Articles of Confederation? Lifespan of under 20 years, and probably better than what we have now. Massive attempted secession leading to all out war less than one lifetime after that. Progressivism rips out the guts of states’ rights a couple of generations later, with the New Deal finishing the job less than a gneration after that. Now the individual freedoms themselves are being further destroyed.

When have we gotten the politics right? And why are the worst systems (Sparta, Orwell’s and Huxley’s visions) the most stable)?

Oh, excuse me, the brokers in this country are not paid?

I’m asking why can’t you do this? How is this different from someone acting as a surrogate and being paid handsomely.

I wish to adopt my child out. In turn, I’m paid perhaps not directly, but a trust fund for school, training and my medical care. A place to live rent free for five years. I don’t know, but anything is better than abortion.

I don’t get it. If I’m too young to have a baby. I’m against abortion, but I’m six weeks pregnant and I hate the guy who got me pregnant etc. What’s my alternative? Abortion.

This is all well and good if the money is raised through charity. Problems would still occur. My sister and her husband adopted a black baby last year (we’re lilly white). before that they had arranged to adopt another black baby. The birth mother changed her mind the day the baby was born.

They didn’t have to wait that long (maybe 3 months) until another black baby was available. The point is that unfortunately many couples do not want to adopt black babies. Call it what you want, but its a fact. My sister and brother-in-law said to their agencies any race was fine. But the babies that are available “quickly” are almost all black.

If they chose to wait for a white baby they’d be SOL. They didn’t have the money for the foreign adoption route.So now we have a beatitiful 18-month old black baby girl in the extended family of 40+ white Irish Catholics.Hopefully some day that kid will be thankful for winning the lottery.

And as for #1, how about preventing women on public assistance from having any more than 2 babies - like maybe after the 2nd, they have an IUD implanted? And can have it removed after a specified length of time off public asistance?

I don’t get it. They’ve decided to close down rather than to stay open and adhere to basic rules that make perfectly good sense.

Abortion is an industry. When the neighborhood isn't friendly AND it starts costing them too much money to operate (like having a clean, decent clinic & the doctor has to have hospital privileges), they close down. It's not about the mother or they would not object to those 'basic rules' that make is safe(er), certainly not about the babies they murder as easily as taking out the trash .... it is all about the $$money$$.

You actually agree with him. He says there have been many instances in this country where we got the politics wrong, some you mention. We have the politics wrong on abortion, but also on things like energy, healthcare, taxes.

I was thinking the other day. What would happen if the gov’t put a moratorium on income taxes for one year and collected only sales taxes.

What do you think would happen?

Sorry friends. I can’t make that bargain.
God gives life, people shouldn’t exterminate it.
I’m not for the death penalty and I’m not for abortion.

Lock-up all the murderers in one room with machetes. Come back in a week with a mop and bucket, Rinse-repeat.

Which children should we murder? How would you determine that?
The “smart” people to which you refer, that think murdering children is their choice to make, are Liberals. We don’t allow mentally defective people to kill anyone else, why let Liberals murder babies?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.