[5010]

Originally posted by prettyredhead,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (prettyredhead,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by 5010,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (5010,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I disagree. Shame should not be placed on those who take over for others who did not act responsibly. It is an act of mercy towards the child. Do you see it as shameful because you are prejudiced based on age? [/b] Then, explain to me why those who seek to adopt, want a baby. Not an older child. [/b]

Some general reasons people give for not adopting an older kid (extracted from this source):
- "It takes a very dedicated and level headed person to take in an older child. Not everyone is cut out for this job."
- "For every two good adoption stories i hear one bad enough to make me think i may never do it (I am adopted)"
- dealing with "your not my mommy and i dont have to listen to you"
- "he or she may be un trusting and rebeliuos and too much to handle"
- "prepared to help a child deal with the serious emotional repercussions that these types of backgrounds create"

Some reasons people give for avoiding adopting a child older than an existing child (same source):
- "concerned about how they may act around/relate to/ treat someone smaller and more helpless than themselves ( because of what unhealthy things may have been ed to them)"
- "you run a greater risk of your child being abused by an older child- whose life history you will never fully know"

Whether those concerns are reasonable or not, they exist. People who either don't have those concerns or feel strong enough to address them DO adopt older kids. If you require the rest to adopt an older child, they'll just say "screw it, I'll have my own baby". Not only does it not solve the problem of older orphans, it gives the world a new source of younger orphans to pile on top of the heap.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Dont you understand that in order to rid women of abortion alternatives, we MUST find a solution to the kids already here. Why cant you agree that is a real problem.

Yes orphans are a real problem. Abortion kills a kid who is also already here too. That is a real problem too. That is why I support both pro-life and adoption.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Then why do they wait until a baby is available. It is greedy to only want one kind of child, and not another. Age should NOT matter.

Both babies and older orphans are burdens, as in being both liabilities and dependants. Due to concerns mentioned previously, some adoptive parents consider orphans too much of a burden. If someone chooses to give $10 instead of $100 do you consider them "greedy"? I consider them both generous.

Likewise, it is generous for someone to adopt, whether baby or older orphan.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Originally posted by 5010, She doesn't have to keep it. No, but she is the one who must carry it, get sick with it, take off work with it, and then hand it over to a stranger. You over estimate the ability to do that. Most women cannot do that, they might as well keep it then after all that.

Keeping: the price is 18 + 9/12 years of burden
Giving away: the price is 9 months of burden
Aborting: the price is 2-9 months of burden and a human life

If you value human life, then option 2 costs the least.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Originally posted by 5010, It is 2 bodies. Not quite yet. It has no rights that the mother doesnt have. It is part of her body. Nice try.

I am part of the room I am sitting in, yet I have a body. I am part of a club I belong to, yet I have a body. I am part of a nation, yet I have a body.

Click here to view an ultrasound of the body of a healthy living fetus at 21 weeks. That's 2nd trimester and you may notice that it looks just like a human newborn baby.

<!--QuoteBegin-prettyredhead,@

So do you believe abortion should be mandatory until all homeless kids are adopted?
<!--QuoteBegin-5010,

Not mandatory, silly, just keep it legal until we find more homes for all other born kids first. How can a fetus have more rights than a living, breathing, self sufficient child? A citizen?
[/quote]
[/quote]

No. Fetuses are living. Respecting them the right to retain that does not give them more rights than born kids, nor does it take away any of born kids' rights.

And removing a persons right to choose to adopt a baby without having first adopted an orphan will just make them want to make their own kids, and the babies they would have adopted then become MORE orphans. Those who have no concerns over adopting orphans already adopt orphans.