Welcome to Gaia! ::

Let's say for a moment that I agree with you. A child being put into adoption is getting rid of it, in some sense. Does that mean, that because the child will want to search for their birth parents at some point, they should be killed? they should be denied a chance to live? Again, this is an issue of QUALITY OF LIFE. Because many children in Africa are being born with the HIV virus already in their system, does that mean that it deserves to be killed? I don't think so. Not even a little bit.

And most children in adoption do make a family connection-- With other unadopted children, or with the family they are adopted by.

To be 'pro-choice' in this issue is to be 'pro-abortion'. You are for abortion in any particular case--not like you're going to force abortion on every woman (cough*China*cough), but you are for abortion.


The spread of these diseases isn't entirely through the children. It's when people have multiple sexual partners, get it from one partner, spread it to the next, who spreads it to all of their's, who then spread it to all of their's. It's not abortion that will stop the spread of STDs, but a stop in rampid sexual behavior.


And how do you see abortion? I see it as systematic execution.

Here we go again with the parasite argument...What about born children who are born deaf, retarded, etc. Is it a responsible choice to destroy those? Because they certainly are parasites to their parents. I know one such girl who drove her entire family of five into poverty.


I'm sorry if you perceived that as racist. As a pro-lifer, I see China's current governmental situation as wrong, because instead of aborting all their descendents they could simply fix the system...*rambles on and on about China*... sweatdrop

The whole "at least it has a chance to live" thing doesn't really jive with me. There are many children who are denied the chance at life, trillions of them--and this is not accomplished through abortion.

It is accomplished through women choosing not to get pregnant. A woman could have sex and get pregnant and let it develop into a child--but if she decides to never get pregnant, this hypothetical child never has the chance at life. Trillions of people are never given the chance to experience life, because most women choose to not stay pregnant year-round.

Do you get at what I'm saying?

I can almost understand the levels of potential--but it still stands. An egg or a sperm has the potential to become a child. So does a fetus. But none are children yet. This is the main argument I have with your logic.

And that is where you are wrong. Pro-abortion means that you think every pregnancy should end in abortion. Pro choice means that you think that whatever the woman decides should be avaliable--in other words, giving her a choice. And the Chinese don't force abortions. I seriously doubt that they round up every woman who is pregnant and haul her off for systematic abortion.



Strange, as I'm involved in rampant sexual behavior with multiple partners and I've yet to catch anything more obnoxious than the sniffles from making out in the rain. STDS don't spontaneously spring up from having sex with more than one person--they spread when one person who has an STD does not inform a partner that he or she is infected. Honesty will help curb the spread of STDs, not monogamy.



I see it as a medical procedure that only has the moral ties a person puts on them, much like a great many things. In my spirituality, a concieved fetus is not important until the mother wants to keep it, and souls cycle anyways so even if a wanted soul was lost, they would return in a different form at a different time.

So all intercourse, if not performed specifically to conceive, should be abolished?

Good luck preventing monogamous, protected sex in married couples.

What about married couples who are childfree BY CHOICE? Should they stop having sex? Or should they choose to be sterilized? Newsflash #2: Sometimes there isn't a choice: most doctors will not sterilize twenty-three year olds, married or not.
heart Ntropi heart

I would rather not have a mentally impaired child than have one, though as heartless as it sounds, I am not in the state of mind, nor will I probably be in the state of financial wellness, if I were to birth a deaf, blind, or mentally retarded child. However, these are sentient, feeling, thinking children, no matter their impairment, that are alive. Killing a CHILD would be murder, killing a fetus is not the same.

I do not agree with ever forcing abortions on people, which I've heard China does.(Or at least they tax the living hell out of women with over one child) I do not know for sure, so I won't judge, but I will say this: I don't quite understand why they limit one child per, try to reduce population, but not allow people to live out of the country. :l



As many parasites that people kill are actually more developed than a fetus. :l

But that almost made it sound like you were saying pro-lifers never do wrong things to an impaired child. Assuming that they'll all be loving parents, eh.


Anyway, about adoption...

I personally find putting a child in the system is much more irresponsible than aborting a pregnancy. I believe the system itself is morally corrupted, and the children there may very well not get adopted if they're not white, healthy, baby girls.