No, we should go lengths to protecting children from the vicious cycle that being raised by reckless, incompetent, neglectful parents that dont even want them creates. Raising a responsible, emotionally healthy child requires a level of patience only found in Love. Forcing parents to raise a child that they dont love is likely to produce a child that does not have the emotional control to wait until its ready to have children of its own, and the cycle spirals out to an entire society afflicted with emotional dissorders that prevent the inhibition and patience necessary for responsible behavior... much like we see growing today. In most cases, I fully support enforcing the consequences of ones irresponsible actions, but not in this case. Its not fair to the children and its not beneficial to society. Consequences can only effect future actions when the individual can rationally deduct that their actions have consequences, and people with emotional dissorders are perpetually in an emotional state that undermines their rationale. In short- they never develope the ability to learn anything from the consequences of their actions because they were robbed of that developemental 'step' as children by their own emotionally damaged parents.
I suppose an explanation of a basic dynamic of developemental psychology might be useful here. There are some basic concepts that must be learned within certain stages of human brain developement, or that human can *never* learn the concept. Communication, empathy and emotional control are three of these concepts. If a human brain developes beyond the critical stage where the synapses associated with these concepts are connected, then that concept is forever lost to that individual and they are irreversibly emotionally/mentally ill.
You ignore the biggest simplest fact concerning human behavior....that humans have been having sex, wisely and unwisely, since humans began and I have the whole history of the world to back me up. YOU cannot change human behavior, it's human nature.....if you don't like it complain to the manufacturer.... And, NO, you have no proof that forcing women to raise children they don't want changes human behavior....and you certainly have no proof that it benefits children. Oh HERE'S a lesson in "logic" : YOU"" There would not be 900,000 abortions a year in the USA because there would be far, far fewer unwanted pregnancies."" How does forcing women to gestate an unwanted pregnancy going to cut down on unwanted pregnancies..???????????? WTF do you mean by putting accidently in parentheses here: YOU """then far fewer women would get pregnant "accidentally". """ Are you saying women have unwanted pregnancies on purpose??? Another lesson in "logic".... BTW, thank you for admitting that the goal of "Pro-Life" is to punish women for having sex.....it has always been obvious but hardly any of you will admit it.... (having kids is a punishment per "Pro-Lifers")
Apologies. I attributed another poster's complaint to you, which, in fairness to me, is partly due to your inability to use the quote function properly. Unfortunate for them, but not for the mother of the baby or the baby itself, because it just means the days of forced adoptions are well and truly over. Looks like it, if you genuinely believe you'd see your daughter give her own child away and grieve for the rest of her life, rather than terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Most of the people I have discussed this with in person would give up for adoption over aborting. That would be my preference as well, if I was going to have a baby that I couldn't take care of. I dont understand why that would cause greif... at least it has a chance at life, and may become a person that wants to be a part of mine later (I would, of course, leave that up to them and/or their adoptive parents). It would greive me far more to imagine what (who) could've been, but knowing that it will never be because I ended it. Thats my (and a few others I know) take on it.
Sure you would....are you capable of becoming pregnant? It's so easy to say that when one will never face an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy is not just about presenting a kid to the world, there's quite a bit more to it than that.
The issue being discussed was, specifically, the greif associated with adoption vs abortion, not every dynamic of pregnancy in general. I dont think its reasonable to expect that every comment take every facet of an issue into consideration- we should be able to address one aspect of an issue without being chastised for failing to mention the rest of them. Not only would that be incredibly redundant redundant over the course of a long debate, but it would be like typing a novel every time, and my comments already tend to be longer than most folks want to read.
I doubt it, otherwise the abortion rate would be negligible and there would be thousands of new born babies available for adoption. Talk to more people. Easy enough for you to say now. You don't understand why giving up your own flesh and blood would cause you grief? Do you actually have any children?
That's a pretty good squirm and wriggle.......BUT NO, we were talking about your reasons for subsidizing adoption and you went off on "grief"......... It doesn't matter, YOU will NEVER face having an unwanted pregnancy so it's easy for you to make a choice... . Pregnancy is not just about presenting a kid to the world, there's quite a bit more to it than that....don't you AGREE??? And you don't need to "write a novel " ....
Or we know very different types of people, which is sociologically common. I should rephrase... I dont understand why giving up my own flesh and blood would cause more greif than killing them. Of course both situations are difficult, I didnt mean to say that I thought giving up for adoption would be emotionally easy. Just easier than abortion.
Thats BS. My post that you quoted was in specific response to another poster and we were talking about greif. You're either being intentionally disingenuous now, or rediculously obtuse. May I suggest you go back several comments and re-read, I think you might've misread or misremembered something..
What's BS ? This ? : It doesn't matter, YOU will NEVER face having an unwanted pregnancy so it's easy for you to make a choice... And when you say "Most of the people I have discussed this with in person would give up for adoption over aborting."" Of course people YOU talk to , who presumably know you, wouldn't admit to preferring an abortion... It begs the questions: were they all men ? did they know your feelings so just agreed ? were they people who have no knowledge of what going through a pregnancy entails? That's very common even among women. So your very very informal unscientific "survey" carries no water. Diamond lil slam dunked you with : """I doubt it, otherwise the abortion rate would be negligible and there would be thousands of new born babies available for adoption. Talk to more people""" ...and you couldn't answer. And it's "grief" not "greif"
Some are women with kids, and all are strong enough people to honestly tell me what they think. Dlil replied to a comment with an innaccurate view of my position, which was my fault because I worded my comment wrong. I rephrased myself. Ill 'answer' if/when Dlil wants to address my correction. My 'survey' was anecdotal, proof of nothing, nor meant to prove anything. It was a defense against the implied accusation that I was projecting my own opinion on others, so I explained that I am not the only one with this similar opinion. Nothing more.
Oh yes, every time you're challenged you are "misunderstood"... Diamond lil did not have an inaccurate view. ""I doubt it, otherwise the abortion rate would be negligible and there would be thousands of new born babies available for adoption."" Can you address that? You are correct on one thing, your survey means nothing.
I said "...an innaccurate view of my position" that there is no greif associated with giving a child up for adoption, because of my poorly worded comment that I have rephrased. You're focussing on a misunderstanding that has already been addressed. What point is there to addressing a misunderstood opinion, being that neither I, nor Dlil, nor anyone else commenting is of that opinion?
So are you still of the opinion that there is more GRIEF with abortion than adoption.....why?...and can you see other's view that's the opposite?
I am, and yes, I recognize that not everyone feels the same. I dont understand how or why... but I dont have to.
All this misconception comes from the basic pro life premise that there is no difference between an embryo and a born child except a matter of time. The pregnancy, labour, delivery and actual fact of holding your own child in your arms at the end of it is diminished to the point it is hardly considered. It's brushed away as being a simple inconvenience. That is total nonsense. You might as well try to tell the parents of dead child their grief is no worse than mine when my embryo got flushed down the toilet, along with a load of others - as 1 in 6 pregnancies are spontaneously aborted within the first 12 weeks. As I am perfectly normal and not morbid in any way, I got over the early miscarriage very quickly. Most women do. Yes, it was disappointing, but never mind. Something obviously wasn't right, so it was all for the best. Try telling that to the parents of a dead 8 year old.
Isnt there something to be said for the choice though? Miscarriages are unavoidable for the most part. Abortion is deliberate. You can't regret a miscarriage because its out of your control. You can regret an abortion. You can't tell me theres no difference between the greif of the parents of an 8 year old that dies from an incurrible disease or an unpredictable random accident vs something like slight negligence (looking away at precisely the wrong second, for example) where they can find a way to blame themselves for it. Im not saying all women regret abortions (some do though) or that its a reason to restrict them or anything, im just illustrating that choosing to end a pregnancy isnt the same as a pregnancy ending on its own due to the willful nature of abortion. The choice is a factor. I dont understand why you think the hardships of pregnancy and labor are being diminished. No one of consequence or number is saying that... Are you saying that the value (for lack of a better word) of an embryo is less than a born baby because less work and suffering has been invested in it?
there are plenty of multi million dollar churches and charities that can readily afford to do so - therefore, government intervention is not necessary
Of course. You can regret a miscarriage more, exactly because it's out of your control. I don't see what you're getting at there? It seems a bit vague. Of course it's a factor. Choosing to do something is a lot better than having no choice. It's said all the time. Pregnancy and childbirth are a mere inconvenience. The death of an embryo equals the death of a child. I'm saying it has less value than the life of a born person, whether that's a baby or not. To normal people, anyway.
