So you claim that adopted children will never be abused or have mental issues....that is a preposterous and ridiculous claim.
Whats preposterous and rediculous is you cramming words in my mouth. Plz stop. I didn't say 'never.' Preventatives dont have to be 100% effective. I seek to reduce neglect, abuse and mental illness. There is no way to eliminate them. Neither abortion, nor adoption nor anything else can do that.
Abortion certainly does stop children from being abused and neglected and developing mental issues.... ...and yes, you DID indicate that adoption stops all these problems..
Anyone can get an abortion, yet children are still abused, neglected and developing mental illness. Abortion has not stopped, nor demonstrably reduced it. And no, I didnt. Show where I indicated 'adoption will end all neglect, abuse, mental illness' with a quote (heres a hint- you cant).
Most of what you've posted. You want to adopt a baby, not a child. You've complained not enough babies are available so want to make abortion more difficult, while at the same time much easier for girls to give up their babies. The reason very few babies are available for adoption is because, these days, they stay with their mums. Where they belong. Of course, some women do freely choose to carry on with their pregnancy and give up their baby rather than abort, but very, very few. Infinitely. I cannot imagine anything more heart breaking than giving up your own child for adoption. I would much prefer my daughters terminated an unwanted pregnancy and got on with their lives.
Im not looking to adopt, and if I were, I would likely want to adopt from the toddler to tween range. You are obviously not reading what I've said very carefully, and inserting your own presumptions incorrectly. I said most people looking to adopt are looking for infants, and I said that I think that is unfortunate. I really dont know what to say to the notion that its better to abort than to give up for adoption... I think we might just be too different to understand eachother.
No, you didn't say the word "all" but you indicated it would and it doesn't ....even if you indicated it relieve some, abuse and mental illness do NOT depend on whether a person is adopted or has their natural parents. ...and NO one who has been aborted suffers abuse or has mental health problems.
I indicated no such thing. You presumed, and quite incorrectly. I also didnt say that abuse and mental illness depends on whether the parents are adoptive or natural. More presumptive projection. What I said was that kids raised by parents who dont want them are more likely to suffer abuse and mental illness than kids raised by parents who do want them, which isnt even close to the same thing.
govt. should indeed offer to subsidize adoption costs, to reduce abortions. that would be the truly "Pro-Life" thing to do. or offer women free childcare and free healthcare for their kid, if they choose not to abort
Yes, now that you made that clear. Abortion is better than being born to those who don't want or can't afford a kid....
Irrelevant. If you make people deal with the consequences of their activity, then they stop performing that activity. Pregnancy is no different than any other activity in that regard. If a woman knows she will pay a huge price for getting pregnant, then she will be much more diligent in avoiding pregnancy.
A human should not be treated as a 'consequence.' If you want to punish people for having irresponsible sex, find another tool. Dont make the children suffer the sins of their parents by making them the object of their parents punishment. No child deserves to be resented like that, especially for something outside of their control.
No she won't and more importantly , doesn't have to....women don't need to jump through hoops for you or anyone else... Getting pregnant isn't a crime even if you think so...... Despite what you say, women are not things to be trained to suit you..... Women decide for themselves what the price of a pregnancy is.....and I believe it's this independence and power to choose that frighten those who want women controlled like cattle.
Except you have a political party called Republicans who do not want to even FEED children nor help their parents provide the basics for them...I hardly think these "Pro-Life" Republicans will fund free childcare or free health care....
Children will always be vulnerable to abuse. Unless we kill them all, i guess... I think it would be better if we take steps to protect them while keeping them alive, rather than trying to 'protect' them with abortion.
In real life, people are consequences. Your actions - and I'm not talking about pregnancy - often impact other people, affect the way they respond to you, generate responsibilities and obligations which you must meet. Everything from driving a car to hiring a person to getting married - not to mention peoples jobs such as those of a cop or doctor - results in "people as consequences". Human social contact is all about people impacting other people. If you create a life, then you should be responsible for that life. That approach pretty much solves many social problems of the modern western world. But the modern Western does not like that idea, or any idea of personal responsibility. They want the cake without having to make it or buy it.
...and I and common sense and logic disagree.....if there is no child there is no abuse...and I never said kill them all....
No. A child is not at fault for being born. It has no responsibility in its own creation, and treating it like it does by sticking it with parents that dont want it is not just socially irresponsivle as it creates mentally/emotionally unstable adults that burden all of society, but its also needlessly cruel and just plain wrong.
A woman takes personal responsibility when she aborts a fetus she doesn't want or can't afford....... why would you want people you consider irresponsible to have kids????
You ignore one simple fact of human behavior - rewarding a behavior encourages it, punishing a behavior discourages it. If a woman who did not want to have children got pregnant and had to have and raise the child, then far fewer women would get pregnant "accidentally". There would not be 900,000 abortions a year in the USA because there would be far, far fewer unwanted pregnancies. And do you really want the "burden on society" to be your standard? Think about all the activities that create a burden on society through increased crime, property damage and injury and lives lost, lost productivity, all because someone was irresponsible (alcoholism for example). Shall we go to lengths to allow and support that irresponsible behavior?
