Abortion: Putting A Face On The Issue

I guess you'd really not like it if I said the points you fail to get are just as sharp as the point on your head.

You've received links to babies that can be adopted in the USA now. They just happen to have siblings. You didn't specifically say anything about not wanting any other children along for the ride until after you saw that link. So it did change. (you also at first said where are the babies that are up for adoption, then you changed that to babies in the US)

Your moral judgment about something that is against penal codes has nothing to do with abortion or adoption.

meanwhile he has posted ZERO links that prove the following:

1) that a human embryo is a human being.

2) that there is a "baby shortage"

3) Where is the list of perspective parents seeking to adopt but are unable to locate a baby?

he also won't answer the following questions:

1) Should Gay couples be allowed to adopt?

2) When he says baby shortage, does he mean of healthy white American babies?

Don't waste your time with Kevn. He isn't here for a debate. He's here to state his beliefs only. Discussion with him is pointless.

I don't mind. It says more about you than it says about me.



I asked for a list of newborn babies that can be adopted without waiting for the other families waiting to adopt newborns. Your one link was of a family of children that happened to have a baby included. I never asked for a link to an adoptable family of children.



Great, then when abortion is "against penal codes" it will no longer be a moral issue.

Yes I know, but I have a full 50 lb. bag of troll food. Whatever shall I do with it?

This would be a snide remark:


Why are you such a dense idiot? Do you enjoy your stupidity?



oh wait......that might be more rude than snide.


Ooops my bad


And for the Mods/ResMods/GOD...this was an example. I did not mean this directed at anyone in particular. I just wanted to clarify. If it was directed AT someone specific, their name would be in the sentence somewhere.

Something has been gnawing at me about this whole insistence:



Babies are adopted every single day, but not because a couple wakes up in the morning, turn to each other, and say, "Hey, let's head on over to Baby-Mart and pick us up a new-born today." I'm not going to claim to know a bit about the adoption process, but I'm quite certain it involves a lot of paperwork, a myriad of interviews, some background checks and some patience -- all of which could easily add up to 2 years (the number you've been using as some sort of evidence that there is a "shortage" of babies).

I believe this whole issue and discussion of adoption is, to use your words, a red herring.

If a woman doesn't opt to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption (for WHATEVER reason, including thinking there is a "glut" of babies and nobody will adopt... (?) )...

It's her choice, and that's where I, for one, am happy to leave it.

Well, there are lists of older kids. But not newborns, that's the whole point. The newborns come from the hospital to their adoptive parents. The birth mother usually doesn't even see the baby.

edit: The whole point concerns unwanted babies. If the parents wanted them at first then later changed their minds, it wouldn't apply.

Also, adoption is an alternative to abortion, therefore isn't a red herring.

I will accept a list of black expectant mothers seeking to give up their children, instead of a list of babies.

The birth mother does see the baby. It's not like they pop the baby out and whisk it off to a new house. The birth mother is given a chance to see her baby.

What in the hell kind of happy adoption land do you live in?

Believe what you will.

Proof?

Unless it about Gay people adopting children. In which case it IS a red herring. Have I got that right?

Ferris: [after the end credits] ... You're still here? It's over!

Now THAT was worth the entire thread!!!! hahahahahaha.

Thanx, Taco!

It's not pertinent to the discussion. Whether the birth mother sees the newborn before handing her over makes no difference, it was just a statement. Even if she does it doesn't affect the discussion.

Following this sub-issue would derail the actual point that newborns are never unwanted.

The effort in futility is now well-rewarded

Translation: This fact came from down south like all the others.

Oh but it is pertinent to the discussion as you asserted this as a fact, where's your proof to back it up?

If it is not pertinent, then why did you even bring it into the thread?

my husband's birth mother held him, took a picture of him, and spent time with him before he came home.
My friend who gave her baby up for adoption last year was able to breast feed the child and hold the baby. And spend time with the child. She even has a picture of the baby with her. The adoptive parents asked for a copy so when the time came to talk to the child, the child could see a picture of himself with his birth mother.

They encourage women to at least see the child and say their goodbyes so there hopefully isn't regret later. It's a way to get closure for some women. Granted not all of them want to see the baby, and some don't. But a majority of them do.

Wonderful!

It wasn't stated as fact, it is what I have seen and read. Though, the mother chooses either way. She often chooses not to see the child because of attachment issues. It can be painful.

Unless I say "this is a fact", it's my opinion.

How the hell would you know?

changing the rules again to suit you?

The rules haven't changed. Unless you changed them.

Did you know that 34.5% of birth mothers regret giving up the child within 6 hours of doing so? I don't have anything to back up those numbers, but they're right.

Oh, and if you deny that, I'll ask for 3 levels of proof* supporting your claim.


* but only from sources on my approved list.

I'm sorry, but you told me you are done with me. We agreed. kthxbye.