It might but so what? Women can still choose to abort....abortions will still happen.....I don't get why 10 abortions are somehow better than 11 abortions... You: ""others likely would prefer the chance as well"" What do you NOT get about the fact that there are NO "others" A ZEF cannot think... a ZEF cannot think....it has NO knowledge of the world or what's in it, it has NO knowledge...it cannot think...it can't say "gee, I wish I could be born and have fun and go roller blading"....it cannot do that....
If you dont get why less abortions is a good thing, then we dont have enough common philosophical ground to make further discussion worthwhile.
If you think less abortions are a good thing why can't you say why? You just like having more people on earth? There must be some reason?? How is your life affected if there's 10 abortions as opposed to 11 abortions? NO, Republicans are against raising taxes....A G A I N S T anything that aids children....YES, they are, they do not want to raise taxes.. . YOU "forgot" part of my post You: ""others likely would prefer the chance as well"" What do you NOT get about the fact that there are NO "others" A ZEF cannot think... a ZEF cannot think....it has NO knowledge of the world or what's in it, it has NO knowledge...it cannot think...it can't say "gee, I wish I could be born and have fun and go roller blading"....it cannot do that....
<Mod Edit- Rule 2> I think you are on to something. Adoption should not be something only wealthy people can dream of and I see no reason why the same women who want access to affordable health care, and affordable access to abortion, should not see value in adoption being a viable alternative at a lower cost. It may in fact accomplish the goals you set out. We already find ways to subsidize keeping the baby.
Well, ya, this IS the abortion forum....and if women's right to an abortion are attacked anywhere else I WILL defend them. Women already know adoption is an alternative. At a lower "cost" to whom? The woman having the baby STILL has to take all the risk, suffer all the pain and physical damage, associated with pregnancy.....NO one else contributes more than the woman. Shouldn't those people buying the baby have to pay (even if no amount of money could compensate for what a woman goes through to deliver a baby)?? Yes, ways that Repubs want to cut funding to like Welfare, WIC, SNAP...even healthy school lunches.....that's why only people with the means to support a kid should be able to adopt.
Adoption isn't an alternative to abortion, but an alternative to keeping and bringing up your own child or children. Subsidising the cost for would be adoptive parents wouldn't do a thing to reduce abortion rates. Why an earth would it?
100% false. It is the ONLY alternative to aborting an unwanted pregnancy. When presented with their options, many women choose to give birth and give the baby up for adoption. How about this attractive offer: We will raise your child as a ward of the state and there is a 50% chance he or she won't end up in prison!!!
Not so. The only alternative to abortion is remaining pregnant. It isn't possible to give up an embryo for adoption. No, they don't. A few women choose to give up their born child for adoption. They can't make that decision until after the child is born, which is why quite a few change their mind, no matter what they may have felt beforehand,
How can the choice be made whilst pregnant? It's impossible to give up an embryo for adoption. Very few mothers freely choose to give up their new born baby, which is why there's a long waiting list for would be adoptive parents
This is the abortion section of the forum, so that would be the choice we are discussing. There are numbers available, but completely irrelevant. Its her uterus and her choice. She can change her mind and raise the child if she chooses. Getting back on topic, subsidizing adoption allows people to raise these children in a loving home. It has to cost less than any other alternative.
Exactly, yes. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. Yes, it's a personal decision that can only be made after the child has been born. How would it do that? There's already far more couples wanting to adopt than there are babies available for adoption. There are plenty of older children looking for loving parents, but not enough people want them.
I think it should be mandatory for pro lifers, since what we have now is a "let the other guy do it" mentality.
I am confused by your insistence that a woman has to wait until her child is born before deciding to adopt it out or not.....surely many women make that decision well before it's born...
Thats a myth. The time and money involved in the adoption process prohibit many parents who would adopt from doing so. Its true there are many older children who are 'unwanted' and while I agree it would be great if we could come up with a solution or a social campaign to promote the adoption of older children, these older children were taken by CPS (or abandonned) and are not a factor in abortion or infant adoption. They are a seperate dynamic from the topic at hand.
I disagree that they're a "separate dynamic" from abortion. Is there a cut off age that Anti-Choicers no longer consider humans as "precious life" (that can't be murrrrrdered !) as they do the fetus? There shouldn't be but there does seem to be and that is the moment it's born.....when they cease to care....or they would take in these older "precious lifes"" who were once fetuses...
Are you saying that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy may not choose to give birth and put the child up for adoption? She can and that makes it an alternative. (For those with a basic understanding of logic) There are many couples that cannot have a child on their own and will adopt a baby. Too bad there are thousands of unwanted children that will never see the inside of a loving home. There are people who genuinely care about these little lives, even when they are past their cuteness date. I guess its just easier to enter text on forums claiming to care.
You might want to look into Michele Bachmann's 20 foster kids and how much money she got from the state for each.
They're seperate because prior to birth and directly after, their parents wanted to keep them, else they would have been aborted or put up for adoption as an infant. I agree that more people should be willing to adopt older children, but for the time being, they arent. People want to adopt infants... infants that instead are being aborted. If women want to abort because they want to avoid the repercussions of birth, fine- they still can. But if they're aborting purely out of financial responsibility, and perhaps they would prefer *not* to abort but see no alternative, subsidized adoption may make adoption a more lucritive option.
How many pregnant women, or women in general, do you think don't know such a thing as adoption exists? You: ""subsidized adoption may make adoption a more lucritive option""" "Lucrative" for who? And you make it sound like selling babies.....
More lucritive for the mother weighing her options, of course. Subsidizing adoption is not 'selling babies'...
Are you suggesting that Bachmann's 20 foster kids would have been better off if they were instead aborted? If not, then Im not sure what ur point is...
"Subsidize Adoption?" how about the parents that give up their child pay child support we do this if one parent wants nothing to do with the child, why is it different if neither parents want the child? course that might increase birth control use or raise the choice to abort unwanted children rather then bringing them into this world
they would not of been had they of been aborted, that is like saying if you could go back in time and arrest a rapist before he got 20 women pregnant, would you? as those children would never be born - after the fact the choice is harder because they were already born, or would you let the rapist rape those 20 women - what would you do if that was your choice? when they were just a few cells, could care less, but after born it's different
