[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Floyd forum - Ohmsen - Dec 6, 2021 - 1:52am
 
COVID-19 - kurtster - Dec 5, 2021 - 9:38pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Manbird - Dec 5, 2021 - 8:56pm
 
What Did You Have For Breakfast? - islander - Dec 5, 2021 - 7:22pm
 
Republican Party - BlueHeronDruid - Dec 5, 2021 - 6:33pm
 
Buddy's Haven - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 5, 2021 - 6:10pm
 
Joe Biden - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 5, 2021 - 6:07pm
 
short track after short jingle - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 5, 2021 - 6:04pm
 
Music documentaries - Manbird - Dec 5, 2021 - 5:07pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - islander - Dec 5, 2021 - 4:40pm
 
Trump - R_P - Dec 5, 2021 - 11:06am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - islander - Dec 5, 2021 - 9:21am
 
Fix my dogma - Coaxial - Dec 5, 2021 - 8:28am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Dec 5, 2021 - 8:20am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Dec 5, 2021 - 8:13am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Dec 4, 2021 - 5:07pm
 
Things You Thought Today - haresfur - Dec 4, 2021 - 1:15pm
 
TV shows you watch - Ohmsen - Dec 4, 2021 - 1:10pm
 
Fox Spews - R_P - Dec 4, 2021 - 1:03pm
 
World Music - Ohmsen - Dec 4, 2021 - 11:41am
 
Breaking News - westslope - Dec 4, 2021 - 11:24am
 
Mens Health - miamizsun - Dec 4, 2021 - 10:51am
 
RP Tapes! - miamizsun - Dec 4, 2021 - 10:36am
 
What did you have for dinner? - miamizsun - Dec 4, 2021 - 9:50am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Dec 4, 2021 - 8:26am
 
Nice set Bill.... - miamizsun - Dec 4, 2021 - 6:44am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Dec 4, 2021 - 6:11am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 3, 2021 - 8:11pm
 
The All-Things Beatles Forum - KurtfromLaQuinta - Dec 3, 2021 - 7:58pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - Manbird - Dec 3, 2021 - 3:59pm
 
Back to the 60's - R_P - Dec 3, 2021 - 2:33pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Dec 3, 2021 - 1:20pm
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - Manbird - Dec 3, 2021 - 12:30pm
 
Poetry Forum - Manbird - Dec 3, 2021 - 12:13pm
 
This Film is not yet Rated - Proclivities - Dec 3, 2021 - 12:02pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Dec 3, 2021 - 10:55am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - GeneP59 - Dec 3, 2021 - 9:32am
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Dec 3, 2021 - 9:11am
 
Play the Blues - rhahl - Dec 3, 2021 - 6:41am
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - Dec 3, 2021 - 5:53am
 
RightWingNutZ - Manbird - Dec 2, 2021 - 9:02pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Dec 2, 2021 - 3:06pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - black321 - Dec 2, 2021 - 2:45pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Dec 2, 2021 - 11:19am
 
New Music - black321 - Dec 2, 2021 - 10:48am
 
The RANT Forum - Red_Dragon - Dec 2, 2021 - 6:05am
 
Things that are just WRONG - Manbird - Dec 1, 2021 - 6:13pm
 
This Wonderfully Weird World - Red_Dragon - Dec 1, 2021 - 4:01pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - R_P - Dec 1, 2021 - 9:42am
 
Happy Thanksgiving! - GeneP59 - Dec 1, 2021 - 8:46am
 
Bear! - Ohmsen - Dec 1, 2021 - 6:50am
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Dec 1, 2021 - 6:27am
 
That's good advice - Proclivities - Dec 1, 2021 - 6:24am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 30, 2021 - 9:20pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - Coaxial - Nov 30, 2021 - 7:30pm
 
What Puts You In the Christmas Mood? - BlueHeronDruid - Nov 30, 2021 - 6:05pm
 
The Daily complaint forum, Please complain or be Happy - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 30, 2021 - 3:59pm
 
Acoustic Guitar - Ohmsen - Nov 30, 2021 - 9:45am
 
Jazz - Ohmsen - Nov 30, 2021 - 9:38am
 
Tech & Science - Red_Dragon - Nov 30, 2021 - 7:56am
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Nov 30, 2021 - 7:47am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 30, 2021 - 6:59am
 
Ways to convert list of liked songs into playlist for You... - Aoxomoxoa - Nov 30, 2021 - 3:13am
 
• • • Clownstock • • •  - Manbird - Nov 29, 2021 - 7:11pm
 
Things I want to learn from RadioParadise - Coaxial - Nov 29, 2021 - 6:07pm
 
Robots - Manbird - Nov 29, 2021 - 5:29pm
 
Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant Massacree - KurtfromLaQuinta - Nov 29, 2021 - 4:38pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 29, 2021 - 11:16am
 
Two questions. That's it. I promise. - Manbird - Nov 28, 2021 - 9:11pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Nov 28, 2021 - 5:41pm
 
Shuttle, ISS and other Real Space Ships - miamizsun - Nov 28, 2021 - 4:37pm
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - Nov 28, 2021 - 7:38am
 
Graphic designers, ho's! - Proclivities - Nov 28, 2021 - 4:48am
 
Funny Videos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Nov 27, 2021 - 9:27pm
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - KurtfromLaQuinta - Nov 27, 2021 - 7:54pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » The Abortion Wars Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Post to this Topic
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 12:21pm

 rosedraws wrote:
I'm very uncomfortable with the recent rage of "Coat Hanger" response to the Stupak amendment on the Health Care bill.

Can someone please explain — based on the amendment, not a blog — What exactly is wrong with the amendment.

Here is a good place to start: LA Times Stupak Amendment explained.  It has a link to the actual amendment — and when you see it, you'll understand why it's so confusing.

From my understanding, the bill prevents public funding for Abortion.  Given the tenor of public opinion in this country, I agree that public monies should NEVER pay for elective abortion. 

Abortions are safe and available — even to low income women.  This Amendment does NOTHING to restrict abortion, it simply takes public money out of it.

How is this "A Serious Assault on Abortion Rights"? 

I think we need to calm down an overreaction to this bill, and not lose focus on the really important issues of Health Care.

 
Abortions are not necessarily available to low income women, esp in rural areas. One of the reasons these women have later term abortions is because they are unable to get to a clinic until they are past the 3 month mark, due to their circumstances.

Women and their drs should be able to make this decision, not Bart Stupak. This is sexual discrimination, imo. The Republicans, for the most part, although this jerk is a Dem, use this as a hot button, to keep constituents paying attention. BTW, the Republican National Committee's health insurance policy pays for elective abortions!

I agree with you Rose, about the coat hanger thing, but I guess they are trying to get their very valid point across.


rosedraws

rosedraws Avatar

Location: close to the edge
Gender: Female


Posted: Nov 17, 2009 - 12:09pm

I'm very uncomfortable with the recent rage of "Coat Hanger" response to the Stupak amendment on the Health Care bill.

Can someone please explain — based on the amendment, not a blog — What exactly is wrong with the amendment.

Here is a good place to start: LA Times Stupak Amendment explained.  It has a link to the actual amendment — and when you see it, you'll understand why it's so confusing.

From my understanding, the bill prevents public funding for Abortion.  Given the tenor of public opinion in this country, I agree that public monies should NEVER pay for elective abortion. 

Abortions are safe and available — even to low income women.  This Amendment does NOTHING to restrict abortion, it simply takes public money out of it.

How is this "A Serious Assault on Abortion Rights"? 

I think we need to calm down an overreaction to this bill, and not lose focus on the really important issues of Health Care.
Southern_Boy

Southern_Boy Avatar

Location: On my way to the beach
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:08am

 Alafia wrote:
The planet is already overpopulated.  ALL of our efforts to conserve resources, reduce pollution and feed everyone will ultimately fail unless we get population growth under control.  Discuss the means for accomplishing this.

 
I don't think the planet is overpopulated. However, based on the way we live, it may not be sustainable. We do not need solutions to the oil "crisis", a definite decision on abortion, or to regulate growth. What is needed is a new way of thinking. We are all too entrenched in our comfort zones to push for change. Our (the world's) leaders are nothing more than power brokers who rule through fear mongering and intimidation. It has been that way since the beginning of time. Not likely to change anytime soon.

winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:07am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Gay marriage. Bam! Next question.

/winter
 


 
BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar

Location: planting flowers


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:06am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Gay marriage. Bam! Next question.

/winter
 




ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 9:05am

 Alafia wrote:
The planet is already overpopulated.  ALL of our efforts to conserve resources, reduce pollution and feed everyone will ultimately fail unless we get population growth under control.  Discuss the means for accomplishing this.

 
Gay marriage. Bam! Next question.

/winter

Alafia

Alafia Avatar

Location: the dojo
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 8:59am

The planet is already overpopulated.  ALL of our efforts to conserve resources, reduce pollution and feed everyone will ultimately fail unless we get population growth under control.  Discuss the means for accomplishing this.


SantaFeGrace

SantaFeGrace Avatar

Location: Santa Fe, NM
Gender: Female


Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 8:55am

 JrzyTmata wrote:
YO!! move the debate to where it belongs.

 

{#Clap}   Thank you for finding this thread!
JrzyTmata

JrzyTmata Avatar



Posted: Jun 12, 2009 - 8:51am

YO!! move the debate to where it belongs.
musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:37pm

 hippiechick wrote:

The Republican Party; the policy makers
 

Do you know for sure that policy makers within The Republican Party don't really care about abortion?
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:36pm

 musik_knut wrote:


Ummm, yea, we do. Not being a Republican, you're free to be wrong on what Republicans think and care about.

 
The Republican Party; the policy makers

musik_knut

musik_knut Avatar

Location: Third Stone From The Sun
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:31pm

 hippiechick wrote:

As I have said before, the Republilcan Party likes to keep this an issue because it brings voters out. They really don't care that much about the issue itself.
 

Ummm, yea, we do. Not being a Republican, you're free to be wrong on what Republicans think and care about.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:24pm

 rgj13 wrote:
From today's NY Times:

October 13, 2008

Abortion Rights on the Ballot, Again

Once again this year, opponents of women’s reproductive rights have managed to get initiatives aimed at ending or limiting abortion rights on ballots — in South Dakota, Colorado and California. These measures, which violate women’s privacy and threaten their health, have implications far beyond those states. If voters approve them, they will become a weapon in the right-wing campaign to overturn Roe v Wade.

The South Dakota initiative is a near twin of the sweeping abortion ban handily rejected by South Dakota voters just two years ago. To make the ban seem less harsh, its backers have included language purporting to make exceptions for incest, rape or the life and health of the mother. But no one should be fooled. The exceptions were drafted to make it nearly impossible to get an abortion, even during the first trimester of pregnancy.

The measure is clearly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court rulings, and that’s just the point. The underlying agenda is to provide a vehicle for challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

The Colorado ballot proposal attacks Roe v. Wade by a different route. Known as Amendment 48, this preposterous measure would redefine the term “person” in the state’s Constitution to include fertilized human eggs — in effect bestowing on fertilized eggs, prior to implantation in the womb and pregnancy, the same legal rights and protections that apply to people once they are born.

The amendment, which has split anti-abortion groups, carries broad implications, ranging from harmful to downright ridiculous. Potentially, it could ban widely used forms of contraception, curtail medical research involving embryos, criminalize necessary medical care and shutter fertility clinics. A damaged fertilized egg might be eligible for monetary damages.

Noting the “legal nightmare” the amendment would create, and its potential to endanger the health of women, Gov. Bill Ritter, a self-described “pro-life” Democrat, has joined the opposition to Amendment 48.

In California, meanwhile, abortion opponents have put the issue of parental notification on the ballot for the third time in four years. The proponents of Proposition 4 say mandating notification is necessary to safeguard underage girls. But most 15-year-olds who find themselves pregnant instinctively turn to a parent for support and guidance. Far from protecting vulnerable teens, Proposition 4 would make it difficult for young women caught in abusive situations to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents, even in cases where the father or stepfather is responsible for the pregnancy.

If approved, Proposition 4 would inevitably drive some to attempt a self-induced abortion or to seek the procedure later in pregnancy. California voters were right to reject this damaging approach on the first two attempts. They should do so again. 

 
As I have said before, the Republilcan Party likes to keep this an issue because it brings voters out. They really don't care that much about the issue itself.

rgj13

rgj13 Avatar

Location: The City
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 2:20pm

From today's NY Times:

October 13, 2008

Abortion Rights on the Ballot, Again

Once again this year, opponents of women’s reproductive rights have managed to get initiatives aimed at ending or limiting abortion rights on ballots — in South Dakota, Colorado and California. These measures, which violate women’s privacy and threaten their health, have implications far beyond those states. If voters approve them, they will become a weapon in the right-wing campaign to overturn Roe v Wade.

The South Dakota initiative is a near twin of the sweeping abortion ban handily rejected by South Dakota voters just two years ago. To make the ban seem less harsh, its backers have included language purporting to make exceptions for incest, rape or the life and health of the mother. But no one should be fooled. The exceptions were drafted to make it nearly impossible to get an abortion, even during the first trimester of pregnancy.

The measure is clearly unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court rulings, and that’s just the point. The underlying agenda is to provide a vehicle for challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

The Colorado ballot proposal attacks Roe v. Wade by a different route. Known as Amendment 48, this preposterous measure would redefine the term “person” in the state’s Constitution to include fertilized human eggs — in effect bestowing on fertilized eggs, prior to implantation in the womb and pregnancy, the same legal rights and protections that apply to people once they are born.

The amendment, which has split anti-abortion groups, carries broad implications, ranging from harmful to downright ridiculous. Potentially, it could ban widely used forms of contraception, curtail medical research involving embryos, criminalize necessary medical care and shutter fertility clinics. A damaged fertilized egg might be eligible for monetary damages.

Noting the “legal nightmare” the amendment would create, and its potential to endanger the health of women, Gov. Bill Ritter, a self-described “pro-life” Democrat, has joined the opposition to Amendment 48.

In California, meanwhile, abortion opponents have put the issue of parental notification on the ballot for the third time in four years. The proponents of Proposition 4 say mandating notification is necessary to safeguard underage girls. But most 15-year-olds who find themselves pregnant instinctively turn to a parent for support and guidance. Far from protecting vulnerable teens, Proposition 4 would make it difficult for young women caught in abusive situations to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents, even in cases where the father or stepfather is responsible for the pregnancy.

If approved, Proposition 4 would inevitably drive some to attempt a self-induced abortion or to seek the procedure later in pregnancy. California voters were right to reject this damaging approach on the first two attempts. They should do so again. 
Xeric

Xeric Avatar

Location: Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 12:04pm

 hippiechick wrote:

I think the birth mothers should be encouraged to be part of the family. I think that everyone needs to take responsibility for that child, because s/he will need it.
And the father. This child should know the best and worst of all of its relatives, because even if the mother is bat shit crazy, the child will know who his batshit crazy mom is.

but i live in a world full of dreams and possibilities; it's much more pleasant than the suffering of this one.  

 
I agree.  In the cases of which I speak (Montana has "open adoption" laws) those kids do indeed know (well, "know," given their ages) their birth mothers.  Much better than the alternative suffered by a cousin and her child years ago in Wyoming—which was complete secrecy until the kid turned 18, etc.  (Those two eventually forged a fine relationship, but geez.)

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 11:59am

 Xeric wrote:

A) I don't believe that this is the norm, even on an absolute scale.

B) You want claim that those kids suffer worse emotional damage from being adopted as newborns than they would from being raised by teenaged dingbats who can't begin to handle their own lives?  You do?  Wanna buy a bridge?

Ideally, yeah, babies would only be born to intact families who are ready to raise them.  Ideally.  But dream on.
 
I think the birth mothers should be encouraged to be part of the family. I think that everyone needs to take responsibility for that child, because s/he will need it. And the father. This child should know the best and worst of all of its relatives, because even if the mother is bat shit crazy, the child will know who his batshit crazy mom is.

but i live in a world full of dreams and possibilities; it's much more pleasant than the suffering of this one.  
Xeric

Xeric Avatar

Location: Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 11:56am

 hippiechick wrote:

imo, the thing that a child wants more than anything is to be loved unconditionally by their mother.  i know about 15 adoptees and in every case, they have suffered severe emotional damage because of it. Several of them are severely emotionally disturbed, including the one who is squatting in my crib right now.

I think we are able to love our children, and our children love us back, because we are able to relate to each other in a way that only blood relatives can. But it seems very hard to make that connection when you are put together by fate, as it were. The children feel huge rejection, and the parents get frustrated and give up.

Also, I assume it's the same way, we put huge shame on girls (not boys) who get pregnant, and we force them to give up their babies. 

These are just observations on my own part. maybe there are 20 good adoptions for every one bad one, i don't know. in any case, just like other things in life, we are faced with huge challenges and we do not yet have clear answers.

 
A) I don't believe that this is the norm, even on an absolute scale.

B) You want to claim that those kids suffer relatively worse emotional damage from being adopted as newborns than they would from being raised by teenaged dingbats who can't begin to handle their own lives?  You do?  Wanna buy a bridge?

Ideally, yeah, babies would only be born to intact families who are ready to raise them.  Ideally.  But dream on.

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 11:50am

 Xeric wrote:

Nicely said, Maryte.  I'd only add this, in reference to the bolded portion: it implies that there is a problem with a shortage of adoptive parents.  Around here, at least, quite the opposite is true—there are for more couples looking for babies (especially newborns—perhaps older kids are a different story) than there are babies available for adoption.  This is, as somebody said, probably largely because there is such a stigma about "giving away your baby." 

Having a baby is biology, plain and far too simple.  Being a parent, now that's something to aspire to—and to realize you're not ready to do if you're not.  My hat is off to the young women I know who've made that decision—and the children they bore, now being raised by wonderful, excellent parents, would certainly thank them, too.
 
imo, the thing that a child wants more than anything is to be loved unconditionally by their mother.  i know about 15 adoptees and in every case, they have suffered severe emotional damage because of it. Several of them are severely emotionally disturbed, including the one who is squatting in my crib right now.

I think we are able to love our children, and our children love us back, because we are able to relate to each other in a way that only blood relatives can. But it seems very hard to make that connection when you are put together by fate, as it were. The children feel huge rejection, and the parents get frustrated and give up.

Also, I assume it's the same way, we put huge shame on girls (not boys) who get pregnant, and we force them to give up their babies. 

These are just observations on my own part. maybe there are 20 good adoptions for every one bad one, i don't know. in any case, just like other things in life, we are faced with huge challenges and we do not yet have clear answers.
katzendogs

katzendogs Avatar

Location: Pasadena ,Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 11:44am

In the 70's it wasn't easy to have an abortion in Ohio. I paid for a friend to have one (not mine) done in New York.
My first wife had one or two,  voluntarily and one because of medical. Something about and IUD getting loose and puncturing her bladder. Then in 76' we had a son.

Second wife had way many more than one should have had. (none) mine. Then in 86 and 1990 we had kids. I wouldn't recommend an abortion. Nor will I ever "pay" for one. I do believe  women should have the right to choose and it should be the business of no one other than the people involved.

Also. I do not believe  the government should pay for, dictate or otherwise politically have a say in the matter. It has no use being a sticking point in elections.
Xeric

Xeric Avatar

Location: Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 11, 2008 - 11:39am

 maryte wrote:
I must state that I agree with cc_rider one-hundred percent (no surprise there).  On a personal note, my (now deceased) sister had a baby at 16 and put it up for adoption - at my parents' insistence.  She wanted to keep it, but my mother, who had raised six children (of which I, at age 6, was the youngest), knew that my sister would not have been responsible enough to take responsibility for the infant and that this baby girl would, for all intents and purposes, have been *her* seventh child.  My sister-in-law was adopted (as was her brother).  Her adoptive father was such an ass, he emotionally abused his wife for the remainder of his life because they could have no natural children of their own - and when his mother died (he had already passed away), my sister-in-law and her brother were very specifically listed in the will to NOT inherit anything and that side of the family proceeded to ignore them.  At this point, neither of them knew they were adopted, so they were very distressed about why everyone hated them (and they were both over 18 by that time).  Their adoptive father also burned their adoption papers, lest anyone realize he was not capable of fathering children.  I used to work with a woman who, with her husband, adopted two children, after years and years of trying to have their own.  Their first was a special needs child (not physically so much, but his mother was a drug addict, so he has always had very extreme learning issues) and their second is an incredibly bright young lady - honor society, state-championship calibre soccer goalie, etc.  Both children have known they were adopted since they were old enough to understand the concept (likely they would have figured it out - the older son is not even five feet tall, the younger daughter is at least five-foot-eight).  They have been and continue to be incredible parents.

My point?  First, not all adoption circumstances are ideal, either for the child or for the parents - but I have the utmost respect for those who make the best of it.  But the thing that chaps my ass more than anything is when I have asked adamant anti-choicers how many children *they* have adopted, I have NEVER gotten a positive response.  I'm sure there are some anti-choicers who have adopted children, but far too many people who believe their opinion should be law have never opened their hearts and homes to the children they insist should be born (and don't get me started on "abstinence only" education).
Sorry. Bit of a ramble, that.

 
Nicely said, Maryte.  I'd only add this, in reference to the bolded portion: it implies that there is a problem with a shortage of adoptive parents.  Around here, at least, quite the opposite is true—there are for more couples looking for babies (especially newborns—perhaps older kids are a different story) than there are babies available for adoption.  This is, as somebody said, probably largely because there is such a stigma about "giving away your baby." 

Having a baby is biology, plain and far too simple.  Being a parent, now that's something to aspire to—and to realize you're not ready to do if you're not.  My hat is off to the young women I know who've made that decision—and the children they bore, now being raised by wonderful, excellent parents, would certainly thank them, too.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 13, 14, 15  Next