TexasCHLforum.com

+1

"Why is it wrong to kill a baby after it's born but perfectly acceptable to kill it before it's born? What is the moral difference between the two?"

Because in some rare circumstances, the life of the mother is at immediate risk. Once the child is born and the mother has survived, the risk no longer exists to the mother. I strongly object to those who would use abortion as a form of birth control. This violates moral and religious principles. No excuses for those who practice this. The Republican party platform includes a plank that forbids abortion under any circumstances. No gray areas. This too is wrong. It may not offend you, but it certainly affects enough people that they didn't vote for the party standard bearer.

Abortion should be rare. Critical health of the mother is a fundamental reason. This is not political--it has for me a religious basis. Secondly, abortion should be an option for pregnancy resulting from rape and incest. Still, rare. Thirdly, better services and simplified laws directed toward adoptions. I have two adopted children, and believe me it isn't cheap, and there are far too many hoops. Simplified adoption rules would relieve the pressure for unwilling mothers to surrender their children rather than raise them in a hostile environment, hence fewer casual abortions. The Republican party made this issue a make or break plank this year and very likely cost a lot of Romney votes.

My random thoughts on these various topics:
-The fundamental error in social engineering relates to theoretical statistics, normal distribution, and the standard deviation. Two standard deviations below the mean in any population will yield a residual population of 2.3% of the whole. It will always be there, and if those in this end of the bell curve are able to bootstrap themselves out, their spot on the graph will be occupied by someone else who has slid into that position. There will always be a population at the bottom of the heap. What the society/government has provided during the past half century are opportunities for those at the bottom who wish mobility to achieve it, and it has permitted those without such ambition to exist, often happily, in that slot. The first fallacy is that society can get everyone out of the pit, educate them, employ them, allow them to be successful. The fog is in the definitions and my idea of success versus your definition of success, and for some, success is having someone else pay them to do nothing, contribute nothing, and likely, value nothing. The second fallacy is that middle class families have children who remain in the middle class or strive for upper class. It is a tragic truth that a percentage of middle class families, and upper for that matter, create children who simply don't fit those molds and slowly sink to the bottom, replenishing the ranks of those who escaped the dregs. There will always be bottom dwellers.

-Why is it that so many folks seem to think that abortion is a black and white issue? First, there are far too many of these procedures. Some use it in lieu of protection or abstinence. The health of the mother is a vital issue and seems to be often overlooked. Yes, there are medical reasons for abortion. Legitimate reasons. Reasons that should be a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her g-d. There are Biblical references and Talmudic laws that cover this. What I fail to understand is that the same people who speak of freedom from government seem to be the first to support government legislation that would prohibit abortion of any kind, for any purpose.