If you are against Abortion, why are there......

[prettyredhead]

How dare you belittle the Holocast by comparing it to legal abortion. One has nothing to do with the other.
Who brought Hitler into this. The law allows abortion, as I stated before, there are more homeless, unwanted kids than there are homes for them. FIRST< we must take care of those children already born, than those not yet conceived. There is no other answer that will be appropriate. Adults, as I have stated are selfish, and do not think, or cannot control themselves in the heat of passion. If they were able, do you not think there would be NO abortions? If the adults could control themselves. Children are innocent, until an Adult corrupts them. You give no reason as to why we can dictate womens bodies, while we have a million plus homeless, unwanted, unloved kids milling about this country. WHy add more unwanted kids? WHY? What service does this do to the kids already here? Just places them even further down the desirable adoptive list. That is what the Pro Lifers want, more babies to adopt. F*** the older kids, they are "damaged"
There is no God, so dont bring that fable into play here. Where was "he" when the Jews were slaughtered? Where was "He" when a child was burning alive in a house fire? Dont even go there......all abortion opponents use "God" as a reason to stop abortion.
If there were no abortion, and you forced all women to give birth from now on, would your Grandkids have a job? Would the world be better with 5 million more children, born yearly, until we burst at the seams from people, and there are no more jobs, cuz theyre all taken by people. WOuld you like to have a communist nation. Perhaps we should exterminate all the foster, and homeless kids and then start over with a "new crop"? Perhaps, we can force people to adopt those born first, and then we will outlaw abortion. Only then, can it be illegal.

[Mr.Vicchio]

How dare I what??

I am ot belitting the the holocaust. The holocaust was a horrible period in the world, where 6 million innocent people were killed for the politcal power gain of Hitler. The people who died were unwanted.

In America, a similar holocaust in silently going on, 1.2 million, on average abortions occur in this country. those for abortion keep dissenting opinions from interjecting themselves into the sitatuion. I am talking about such wonderful little things like Planned Parenthood doesn't even discuss with a woman comming in for an abortion the alternatives. I am talking of the constitant blocking of a 24 waiting period before a woman has an abortion. If those two measures were in place, the "pro-abortion crowd" knows that some women might not have an aboirtion, thus lowering thier polictal power.

The situations are eeirely similar.

Don't chastize me about the holocaust lady.

[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'> Adoptive mothers should not have a career, it should be a negative when adopting. [/b]

Are you saying it is better for a kid to be homeless than adopted into the care of a working mother?

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'> Too bad that they WANT a baby. I WANT a million dollars. Nature made it so that they could not, perhaps it HAD a better thing in mind, shame on them for not taking on a little challenge. [/b]

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?

Originally posted by prettyredhead, They want abortion illegal, so they can have the "pick of the litter" so to speak.

Or they want to end the killing to save those lives. Or maybe there are individuals with different reasons.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, It has nothing to do with their ethical point of view. It is PURE GREED.

Or it is a value over human life and compassion for our kind. Taking on a new dependant doesn't sound like a wise choice for the greedy.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, They WANT a baby, they DONT WANT to really parent.

Or they want to raise a baby to an adult as a parent. The choice to adopt is a choice to parent.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Three years old is not too much older than a baby. And to me, a 6 year old is still very much a baby.

And there are people who adopt older children too.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, It is better NOT to be born, if you are not wanted. Right?

Adoption puts them in a home where they are wanted.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Ever heard someone say that they wished they were never born?

I've only heard wanted kids say that. Often they were pampered to the point of being spoiled. I know adopted people who are happy to be here.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, Why make her have a baby she hates?

She doesn't have to keep it.

Originally posted by prettyredhead, It isnt your body. It never will be.

It is 2 bodies.

<!--QuoteBegin-prettyredhead,@

They were here first, they should be placed first above unborn fetuses. Because we foster unfit adults, we all clean house from it.
[/quote]

That should be recommended, not required. If you require it then how do they know someone adopted them because they wanted them and not because they had to in order to have a new kid? When someone adopts them despite the option of adopting a new kid, it shows they are wanted.

<!--QuoteBegin-prettyredhead,

Thus leaving their kids to foster hell. And then what? Should have had an abortion then.
[/quote]

So do you believe abortion should be mandatory until all homeless kids are adopted?

[prettyredhead]

Are you saying it is better for a kid to be homeless than adopted into the care of a working mother?
**No, it is better for couples wanting to adopt to make sure that one parent stays home with the kids. And too many "Mom's" want to work, rather than HAVE to work. The school needs you, the kids need you home. Not working, when at all possible.



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?
****Then, explain to me why those who seek to adopt, want a baby. Not an older child. I say, you get NO choice in ages. Babies are rare, and if you get one, great ! If not, you parent a child who needs you, regardless of the age. I am not predjuduced against age. I am pred. against those who seek ONE TYPE of age. 0-12 months only. [quote=prettyredhead,]

Or they want to end the killing to save those lives. Or maybe there are individuals with different reasons.
***Again, they can save kids from having no parents at all. If they were really concerned about kids, not just fetuses. They can save ALOT of older kids. Lets not forget them. 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.

Or it is a value over human life and compassion for our kind. Taking on a new dependant doesn't sound like a wise choice for the greedy.
**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.


Or they want to raise a baby to an adult as a parent. The choice to adopt is a choice to parent.
*** I KNOW that most want the whole ordeal of raising from infantcy.BUT it is not always possible. People are waiting until they are 40+ because they wait in vain for a baby. I understand that they want a baby, I am mother to 3. But , it is not always POSSIBLE if you want to avoid being wheeled into the kids HS graduation.

[And there are people who adopt older children too.
***But, not enough people. There needs to be more. You should not get a choice in age. Match them to 3 kids, you may decline any or all, but then, back to the bottom of the list you go. Sometimes they are infants, sometimes not.



I've only heard wanted kids say that. Often they were pampered to the point of being spoiled. I know adopted people who are happy to be here.
***NOt all adoptees say that, but many parentless kids do. They want a family so bad, they would cut off their own arms if it made them find a home faster.


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. Dont you get it?


It is 2 bodies.
**Not quite yet. It has no rights that the mother doesnt have. It is part of her body. Nice try.

That should be recommended, not required. If you require it then how do they know someone adopted them because they wanted them and not because they had to in order to have a new kid? When someone adopts them despite the option of adopting a new kid, it shows they are wanted.
*** But, then again people are allowed to place a value on age. They do not HAVE to adopt an older child. They can refuse, and they do, but to be fair to all kids, then they should be placed at a lower priority, and when a baby becomes available, then they will get a call. I would have liked to think that they would take whatever kids they could. But I over estimate compassion in people. My bad.

[So do you believe abortion should be mandatory until all homeless kids are adopted?
***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?

[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.

[prettyredhead]

Just one ? If they could have their own baby, why are they looking for a baby? Most couples who adopt only do so because one is infertile. Mostly, NOT ALL>
ANd you cannot justify why older kids cannot be adopted. Just WHY people do not want to. I guess you were honest about it. At least. But, it makes me very ill to think that people THINK this way. It is sick. I hope they never get a baby if that is the case. A parent will work thru any problems with love, paitence and understanding. MOST dont even try. Too bad, if the kid has problems. That doesnt make them trash. It makes them a little more of a challenge. So what? People are cowards. Deplorable. I wonder, if their baby that they adopted grows up to be a serial killer, will they still blame the birth parents, or should they blame themselves?

[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'> Just one ? If they could have their own baby, why are they looking for a baby? Most couples who adopt only do so because one is infertile. [/b]

Good point. According to this site
"In one study, more than 80% of those adopting independently or through a private agency responded that the inability to have a biological child was the reason they chose to adopt. By contrast, only half of those adopting from foster care cited infertility as the reason for their decision. It is estimated that 11% to 24% of couples who experience difficulty conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term pursue adoption."

So based on that, what I said is only true about the fertile 20%.

However do the rest of the math: the problem remains that if you deny adoption of the infants when orphans exist, then 100% of those infants become orphans. The fertile 20% of would-have-been-adopters go ahead and have kids of their own, and members of the other 80% join the 76-89% majority of infertile couples who don't raise kids. Why wouldn't they go ahead and adopt orphans? If they had such concerns about it that made them go through the extra expense and years of delay to adopt a kid, I doubt they are going to suddenly lose those concerns just because they have no choice.

So you still end up with more orphans.

<!--QuoteBegin-prettyredhead,

I wonder, if their baby that they adopted grows up to be a serial killer, will they still blame the birth parents, or should they blame themselves?
[/quote]

I doubt most adopted kids grow up to be abortionists...

[PlumBun]

Quote by: prettyredhead [And there are people who adopt older children too. ***But, not enough people. There needs to be more. You should not get a choice in age. Match them to 3 kids, you may decline any or all, but then, back to the bottom of the list you go. Sometimes they are infants, sometimes not.

This disturbs me greatly. Deciding to parent a child should not be like reaching in the grab bag at a birthday party. Having a choice of three random children will create many LESS adoptions and/or more unhappy adoptive homes. Example: A young white suburban couple goes to the adoption agency. Agent introduces the couple to three adoptable children: Abe, a 4 yr old white boy with cerebal palsy and mild retardation, Lou, a 10 year old black boy who spent his young life dragging his mother out of crack dens, and 16 year old Ann who has been sexually abused for years in the system. Are these people really going to adopt one of these children? I doubt it. And if they did, are they really equipped to parent them correctly?
Your idea is idealistic at best. And frankly I see it as rather cruel to try to shame people into adopting the type of children that they are not interested in.

[Mr.Vicchio]

This whole thread is disturbing. The basic premis has been more abortions to keep unwanted people from comming into this world. And there are too many unwanted as is... the logic of the OP seems one step from removing the undesirables becuase no one "wants them"


Scary.

[UmSamir]

First of all I have to say that street children in Brazil are where they are for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the Catholic church's stand on birth control. Abject poverty is another reason. Their parents simply cannot or will not care for them.

There are a lot of homeless kids in America, but do you consider a kid in foster care or an orpahnage homeless??

The kids in various shelters may be there because their families lost their homes, and have nothing to do with whether the mom wanted an abortion or not.

As for the age of kids being adopted, there are rules concerning adoption that make it difficult for very decent people to adopt a child of any age.

[UmSamir]

>>>> Adults, as I have stated are selfish, and do not think, or cannot control themselves in the heat of passion.<<<<

What are you, 12? Adults can't control themselves in the heat of passion? That's foolish! It depends on the adult.

Have you considered the fact that the malls are full of unloved children 'milling about', because their parents are too busy to bother with them?

[UmSamir]

Quote by: VXerick I have so far identified two women as posters to this forum (other than myself) .... Mia and prettyredhead. If these two are indicative of our current crop of females, I fear the future of the human race is doomed.

Fear not! There are still rational thinkers among the fairer sex. Abortion polarizes people and tends to call all the bugs from the nearby woodwork.

[fixitplez]

Quote by: prettyredhead I have pasted a letter I wrote to a local newspaper. They didnt print it, of course, and denied my freedom of speech, but here it is.....

Only a government can censor, so the local paper didn't deny your freedom of speech. Set up a rival paper, get your own advertisers, copy boys, ect... and speak all you want.
Molly

[fixitplez]

Quote by: VXerick I have so far identified two women as posters to this forum (other than myself) .... Mia and prettyredhead. If these two are indicative of our current crop of females, I fear the future of the human race is doomed.

Thank God they're in the minority. LOL.
(Female and loving it) Molly

[Matt W]

I just saw in the paper this morning that a feminist party in Sweden is picking up perhaps 7% of the vote - fairly hefty, don'tchathink?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: prettyredhead WHy are there so many homeless kids already in the US>? Abortion eliminated unwanted kids, to avoid foster care. When you dont want the kid, and no ones adopting them, then what should we do>?? Should we have Brazil's embarassment of street children.....is that what the US wants? Street children. I have pasted a letter I wrote to a local newspaper. They didnt print it, of course, and denied my freedom of speech, but here it is.....

This line of thought suggests that it is best (or at least acceptable) to kill anyone who is not wanted, and by inference, no longer wanted. Are you suggesting that the best way to deal with the homeless in this country (mostly unwanted people) is to round them up and kill them? How about all the old folks in nursing homes, many of them are unwanted, is the best solution to round them up and kill them as well? Is a life only valuable if it is wanted?

How many homeless people, or unwanted elderly have you taken in?

See. Your argument is at best a strawman argument, at worst, blatant hypocricy.

The abortion argument is simply a human rights argument. My guess is that you would rush to the defense of all homeless people if someone seriously suggested that they be killed because it is no longer convenient to have them messing up the streets, and harrasing passersby.

If you can clearly demonstrate that an unborn is not a human, then I, and practically every pro lifer that I can think of will abandon the discussion and let you have your choice in peace. But until you can do that, we believe that you are advocating the killing of innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Pale RIder This line of thought suggests that it is best (or at least acceptable) to kill anyone who is not wanted, and by inference, no longer wanted.

It is not about whether the fetus is "human" or not. And no, you can't kill an already BORN person because it is NO LONGER wanted.
Obviously , it was wanted AT SOME POINT, by SOMEONE, in the past.

Unwanted fetuses are not WANTED in the first place, BEFORE they come out of the womb and before they are biologically self-supporting. Why? Because parents would not be able to cope with that responsibility and that "responsibility" is currently living off of the mother's body.

It is DIFFERENT and you know it. But if you are having fun distorting, extrapolating ad inferring in this ridiculous way, just for the sake of a dry "logical" debate - then enjoy hearing yourself talk.

[Gilligan]

Between 1973 and 1999 (I couldn't find numbers up to date) 39,290,477 legal abortions have been performed in the United States. Something has to be done. We can't afford that many people who would have more than likely been reliant on the system for first 18 years of their lives, because they were born addicted, or with alcohol fetal syndrome.

The majority of woman who get abortions get them either because the pregnancy is a product of infidelity, the mother is still a student in high school, or the mother did drugs during the first weeks of pregnancy. If those babies were born, we'd have an even higher percentage of high school dropout rate. Children with emotional development problems that might require special ed classes, and when little junior came out looking like the Chinese college professor instead of having red hair and pale skin, (like what happened to my pro-life stepmother) a higher divorce rate.

If we can't afford the those dependent on the system now, how would we be able to afford the numbers that we'd have if abortion weren't legal? Abortion is wrong. So is doing drugs. Drinking. Infidelity. And premarital sex. So, come up with ways to stop the causes of abortion first, and then illegalize it. Women don't go out and get abortions because they choose to, they get them because they HAVE to.

[Logjam]

Quote by: prettyredhead WHy are there so many homeless kids already in the US>?

You've got a problem. There aren't "so many homeless kids" in the US.

Secondly your facts are amiss. When we didn't allow abortions we did not have a huge influx of unwanted kids.

Abortion wasn't made legal until I was well out of college. So for my adolescent years there was no abortion. Nor did we have the pill. Casual sex was not very popular. The down side was too severe.

If a women became pregnant, she usually married the father. If not, at about month four she'd check into a unwed mother's home, where she'd give birth. The baby was almost always put up for adoption. There was no AFDC. So couples who wanted to adopt a white baby could fine one rather easily.

The Left today thinks that the world would so how self distruct if abortion was illegal. When we didn't have abortion things were just fine. I'll argue they were better.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Matt W I just saw in the paper this morning that a feminist party in Sweden is picking up perhaps 7% of the vote - fairly hefty, don'tchathink?

Wow! That's GREAT. Do you think it'll motivate our feminists to move? I'll wait with eager anticipation. :)