Abortion: Putting A Face On The Issue

If you are referring to the "myths" link, there was the statement agreeing with you. But no backing of the "fact".

Where are those babies who can be adopted? Or are you talking about getting on a list for future babies still unborn? Because all currently living babies who are up for adoption are either taken or are in the process of being adopted. There are thousands more parents seeking babies than there are babies to fill the need, in the USA.

What about people who are temporarily in a coma. They can't choose, they aren't thinking. They aren't aware. What about alzheimer's patients?

Who decides what is morally acceptable?

Is it your morals we should follow?

Since Kevn doesn't even look at the posted links...

http://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptiveparents/adoption-myths.shtml



Edit: OMG he finally read the link!

In the case of coma there should be a waiting period after which if there's no sign of recovery the family should have the right to terminate. Alzheimer's patients, yes, I'd support that. I think in cases where there's no hope of recovery and the person cannot in any way be anything but a burden to others that euthenasia should be an option, unless a charity wants to assume financial and medical responsibility. I would never want to be that kind of burden on anyone, and most especially not by force.

It's clear to me that if you won't accept the word of The Adoption Network's Law Center FAQ, then you will accept nothing.

I'm done with you.

Love, where are the facts that back up these statements..........?




I read it, but statements of fact must be grounded in proof. Do you accept these statements because they agree with your beliefs, or do you have data to show they are true?
They must have footnotes to back up the claim of fact.

Okay, bye.

Uh... they're an adoption agency. Hello?

Then the answer to the question.. Who's morals should we follow? would be your morals. Correct?

How does that give them the power to make unfounded claims of fact without any backing of evidence or proof?

When he has power of attorney, yes. When you have power of attorney, then they follow your morals. Choose wisely who you put in your will, Dearie.

People should have the option to follow their own, within reason. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it.

It doesn't.

However, since they are an adoption agency, they are able to DIRECTLY OBSERVE if they have enough babies to meet the demands. Are you really so dense?

Wait, we are talking about public policy and unwanted people in a coma or other condition that makes them unable to understand reality. Who will decide for them? If they will be a burden, are you supporting killing them?

In a debate forum it's not polite to make snide comments about your opponant.

Now, it's the agencies business to sign people up. They know people want babies. They have lists of kids to look at, but not a list of babies.

They want people to sign up, and wait a long as it takes to adopt the child they want.

It's amazing you will accept their word on what is clearly wrong, even when no one in this thread has been able to locate a baby list for adoption. It seems very naive.

Try getting a list of babies from them, who can be adopted now. Then get back with me.

Gosh, Kevn, why don't you just use the "contact us" button on their website, they'd be better at answering your questions that any of us on a forum who are obviously not working there. Also, I'd like to point out that while you may be using debate team tactics, not all of us are or were on any debate teams - this is a FORUM, not the debating society. If there's one thing I do know about debates (and more than a few threads on these forums) - the person with the last word is almost always the moderator.

I didn't make the claim, so it's not on me to prove the point. If one wishes to make the point, and have it accepted, it would be their responsibility to provide the information, with evidence/proof, to support their statements.

If the best we have is the word of a company trying to get people signed up, then it won't do as evidence or proof of anything.

As to the point of debate rules, the TOS creates a set of rules for debate on their forums. The rules of debate may not be followed here by all, but that is no reason not to inform participants of what is considered to be acceptable debate techniques.

This USA today article is from 2002
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/wick175.htm

While this ABC news article is from 2006
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=547647&page=1

Sorry that my only ability to collect information is thru google. If you don't trust the fact checking departments at USA today and ABC on these then I'm not sure if I can help you.

Sorry about that, Hotpants. I merely found it difficult to believe that you were unable to make the required cognative leap.

Zuzu asked you if you were really so dense - she didn't call you dense. There is a huge difference between asking questions and making snide comments about your opponents.

You just keep asking for links to this and links to that, when provided with links, you still stick your nose up in the air and give further criteria. The point that you seem to be missing that has been said over and over is that the kids up for adoption were once fetuses who were not aborted. Who, besides you, cares about the nationality of the infants available for adoption if they are really serious about adopting?

As for any other issues regarding morals, you asked whose morals are we supposed to follow. We all have our own sense of morality. You cannot legislate morals. You cannot force someone to conform to your morals. You have a right to protest something you don't agree with, but you sure as hell don't have a right to physically assault someone because you don't agree with what they may or may not be doing there.

Nice ABC news article with no statistics or links to lists of black newborn babies who are not getting adopted. But I'll keep reading your posts until the point is made that there are black babies who can't be adopted unless sent to Canada or some other country.

Also, please remember, even though a young child looks like a newborn, it's not if it's not newly born. We are talking about newborn babies because we are discussing alternatives to abortion.

BTW, ABC news or any other left leaning news agency isn't acceptable as a source, unless they point to statistics or studies done by unbiased professionals. They are biased.

Yes. They're already gone.

But I'm sure Fox or the Drudge Report would be fine? *chortle*

Nah, I like Newsmax better

Asking if your opponent is dense is a snide remark, in case you didn't know.



I asked for links to a list of babies that can be adopted in the USA now. No one has provide it yet. My criteria hasn't changed a bit.



Okay, I won't insist you accept my moral judgement that beating wives is morally wrong.