Abortion v Adoption

jamaesi · Apr 19, 2005

Well then since there are alot a children that need to be adopted, child abuse exists, people can't deal with taking responsibility for themselves (and their offspring), and people suffer.... Let's just kill them all, kill all of the unborn babies, kill all of the suffering kids in foster care, kill any child not adopted by oh let's just say 3, kill any child taken by CPS because their parents beat them, kill all the kids ever molested....and while we are at it let's just kill the homeless, kill abused wives, kill alcoholics, kill people with illnesses, hell we will just kill em all and then we won't have it on our conscience that we let someone live that might experience suffering.

Then why don't you kill me? I've been abused and my health is wanting, to say the least.
This is an a very weak logical fallacy.

Guess how many people there are waiting on waiting lists to adopt even deformed children? Let's just say, A LOT. Some people truly can not bear children. My friend was born without ovaries. Another girl I know has only one kidney and couldn't take the stress of pregnancy on her body.

I would like a little proof for this claim. And, just because some people can't have children it doesn't mean other should be forced to carry fetuses for them.

Dinogrrl · Apr 19, 2005

Some people claim that there are looooong lists for adoptions.

Yet...why do so many kids still live out their lives without a home to call their own?

I wish people would stop just throwing that around and give us some links to hard facts on that. Let's make it fun and say, just in America. So we can narrow this down a bit.

And, just because some people can't have children it doesn't mean other should be forced to carry fetuses for them.
Amen.

Saint Xtreme · Apr 19, 2005

Dinogrrl said:
And, just because some people can't have children it doesn't mean other should be forced to carry fetuses for them.
Amen.

Thank you. Someone finally said what I had been unable to quite put the way I wanted to.

Pah · Apr 19, 2005

Can we NOT turn this into a rehash on the merits of abortion? The topic is abortion vs adoption

Snowbear · Apr 20, 2005

skills101 said:
I think both are equally stupid choices. I think abortion is murder, yet I don't think adoption services are meant for people who just enjoy banging each other, then throwing their kid to live w/ strangers...

But come on folks, how hard is it to read instructions, swallow a pill, and slip on a condom?

How about we make both choices cost one million dollars? Any parents who can't pay up will be subject to sterilization, then 5 years in a state prison.

Then, THEN, people will begin to second-guess whether they should not use birth control...

OK - How about rape. The woman does not find out until a few weeks later the attack resulted in a pregnancy. This realization further escalates the trauma she has already been forced to endure.

Should she have been on birth control just in case some sadist decided to rape her?? Should she have insisted her attacker used a condom? Uh... yeah - like she had a choice :sarcastic

So now there are folks on one side of the debate telling her killing the kid conceived in terror and hate is murder. The other side is telling her adoption is "throwing" her kid in the hands of strangers who may or may not actually raise it in love, not to mention she must endure the pregnancy knowing the hateful manner in which the child was conceived. Then she is told that either choice will cost her far more money than she can hope to make in a lifetime........ so she has a kid she has hated for the entire gestation how it is conceived.

If somehow she manages to "get over" her attack in less than 9 months (without having used fetally harmful drugs/alcohol to do so), it may or may not be raised to your standards.....

Pah · Apr 20, 2005

pah said:
Can we NOT turn this into a rehash on the merits of abortion? The topic is abortion vs adoption

Perhaps this was too gentle to be considered a mod post. This should make that clear.

Lycan · Apr 20, 2005

Then why don't you kill me? I've been abused and my health is wanting, to say the least.
This is an a very weak logical fallacy.

I myself was sexually abuse as a child. I was being sarcastic....

Lycan · Apr 20, 2005

And, just because some people can't have children it doesn't mean other should be forced to carry fetuses for them.

And just because someone's birth control didn't work or they just couldn't keep their legs together doesn't mean they should be able conveniently kill their baby.

The Voice of Reason · Apr 20, 2005

At the risk of running afoul of Pah's pleas, I think that we HAVE to make the following distinction, to clear some of the terms:

People that are "Pro-Life" see the fetus as a baby, while many on the "Pro-choice" side see the fetus as not being a "fully fledged person", complete with all the rights therein. A very large part of the breakdown in the Adoption vs. Abortion debate rests in this distinction.
In my view, children are adopted - fetuses are aborted. The converse is not true - children are not aborted, and fetuses are not adopted. Those that use the terms "fetus" and "child" interchangably then use the term "murder" when referring to a fetus, in an Appeal to Emotion.

Thanks,
TVOR

michel · Apr 20, 2005

TVOR, my friend,

I can see why you think what you believe in; it took me awhile to find an unbiassed attitude - one not emmanating from a Religious source. You might like to look at this link though :-
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/nmvc/research/project/docs/87-fetus.pdf

The Voice of Reason · Apr 20, 2005

Michel -

I read every word of the article that you linked to, and it would appear to reiterate exactly the point I made - that there is no universally accepted moment at which the fetus becomes a "person" - even the authors of the article (all employed by the King's College of London) acknowledge this in their treatise.
It was an excellent article, written by intelligent and informed people.

Thanks,

TVOR

jt1970 · Apr 22, 2005

I hesitated on the poll, I didn't know what to pick. It so sad if a child is not wanted, but if he's not wanted in this life, maybe its better he was never born to experience the pain!

Khale · Apr 22, 2005

I believe that the child should be put up for adoption. At least this gives the kid the chance that it deserves. The worst that could happen? The child has a horrible life and dies anyway. The end result is the same; so might as well give the child the chance to make the best of it.

Mathematician · Apr 22, 2005

I would prefer my spouse/significent other to put the baby up for an adoption, but I'm pro-choice, and while I would feel bad when the abortion came around I would gradually grow to accept it.

So..
Adoption first.

Pah · Apr 22, 2005

Khale said:
I believe that the child should be put up for adoption. At least this gives the kid the chance that it deserves. The worst that could happen? The child has a horrible life and dies anyway. The end result is the same; so might as well give the child the chance to make the best of it.

If legal abortion is not the choice, there would be a tremendous number kids subjected to your "the worst that can happen". It would swamp adoption agencies, it would cost in the billions in taxes, and it would cost children.

michel · Apr 22, 2005

pah said:
If legal abortion is not the choice, there would be a tremendous number kids subjected to your "the worst that can happen". It would swamp adoption agencies, it would cost in the billions in taxes, and it would cost children.

So you think abortion has a 'validity' in society ?

Khale · Apr 22, 2005

pah said:
If legal abortion is not the choice, there would be a tremendous number kids subjected to your "the worst that can happen". It would swamp adoption agencies, it would cost in the billions in taxes, and it would cost children.

It very well could cause many kids to suffer. It could also lead to much needed reform in our adoption and childcare system.

Why would billions in taxes be such a problem? It could put a strain on the economy for sure, but so did this war. Wouldn't the money be well spent?

Costing children. I understand that this is a bad thing, but your other option is abortion. Does it make so much of a difference that you are killing them a few years earlier?

Fluffy · Apr 22, 2005

If legal abortion is not the choice, there would be a tremendous number kids subjected to your "the worst that can happen". It would swamp adoption agencies, it would cost in the billions in taxes, and it would cost children.

I agree pah but I think that the scenario you suggest would only happen if there was an immediate shift from abortion to no abortion. A gradual shift over time would allow slack to be built into the system, allowing it to grow with the increasing demand.

Lycan · Apr 22, 2005

If legal abortion is not the choice, there would be a tremendous number kids subjected to your "the worst that can happen". It would swamp adoption agencies, it would cost in the billions in taxes, and it would cost children.

Not if people would actually be responsible and stop "accidentally" getting pregnant.

Khale · Apr 22, 2005

Lycan said:
Not if people would actually be responsible and stop "accidentally" getting pregnant.

It's true that this would help immensely but let's be honest. This is never going to happen. Sex makes people stupid.

Abortion v Adoption

Which is the better solution to unwanted pregnancies?

Abort the foetus before it is born

Offer the child up for adoption after birth

To Save A Lamb

peeb!

Member

Uber all member

Nita Okhata

Uber all member

Preternatural

Preternatural

Doctor of Thinkology

Administrator Emeritus

Doctor of Thinkology

Member

Active Member

Reason, and reason again

Uber all member

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

A fool

Preternatural

Active Member