Triggering: Abortion is wrong.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

Yes, it does bring adoptees into question. But it does not bring adoptees on a pedestal and undermine whatever the non-adoptee's viewpoints are simply because they are not an adoptee.

The one thing you're choosing to ignore is that in your and other comments - you have stated what you believe to be experiences an adoptee has as reasoning. That's not reasoning a nonadoptee can use. Because they don't have any first hand knowledge to have that experience mean anything to them. Thus, those who do state - experiences - do sound like hypocrites.

If someone states orphanage overflow on the other hand, that's not experiences and they don't sound like hypocrites. It's only when some, who have no first hand knowledge, state experiences that they know nothing about that bothers me.

I'll say it this way - you know how girls were yelling at me for being a guy and thus not being able to grasp pregnancy because I never went through it and never will? Well, those same girls are nonadoptees trying to say they perfectly understand very well what being an adoptee is like without going through being an adoptee and they never will. I find that twist very ironic, they say I can't fully understand pregnancy and shouldn't have as much of a say because of this lack of experience, yet when I state the same thing back to them on how they can't fully understand an adoptee/orphan and shouldn't have as much of a say concerning adoption because of this lack of experience - they're shocked. It's a double edged sword, you can't have it both ways... if a girl has more say about pregnancy because of experience, then an adoptee/orphan certainly has more say about the adoption process because of experience. The same exact logic applies here that's been used here to undermine me and all guys by the girl posters raising themselves up on pedestals because they'll have a pregnancy experience... I've consented that in giving birth, they do have more say, but in regards to adoption - adoptees/orphans certainly have more say in the same sense.

As for overflow, I think there needs to be several ways to go about this. To try to devise methods of safer sex and educate what may result from sex. For all of these organizations promoting their beliefs, there should be a similar one for orphans - especially older orphans who are often overlooked; bring it farther in to the public eye. Provide more help and support in orphanages.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Josh

The one thing you're choosing to ignore is that in your and other comments - you have stated what you believe to be experiences an adoptee has as reasoning. That's not reasoning a nonadoptee can use. Because they don't have any first hand knowledge to have that experience mean anything to them. Thus, those who do state - experiences - do sound like hypocrites.

The only things I've used as experiences of what an adoptee may have is from the personal experiences YOU post in this thread. Show me where I posted something about what an adoptee experiences that was not based nor was part of what your previous posts said. As far as I know, I didn't but since you seem to think I did, show me. However, as far as I know, since the experiences I stated were from what you said, if you call them wrong, then you're calling what you said wrong.

Originally Posted by Josh

If someone states orphanage overflow on the other hand, that's not experiences and they don't sound like hypocrites. It's only when some, who have no first hand knowledge, state experiences that they know nothing about that bothers me.

And where have I done this that bothers you?

Originally Posted by Josh

I'll say it this way - you know how girls were yelling at me for being a guy and thus not being able to grasp pregnancy because I never went through it and never will? Well, those same girls are nonadoptees trying to say they perfectly understand very well what being an adoptee is like without going through being an adoptee and they never will. I find that twist very ironic, they say I can't fully understand pregnancy and shouldn't have as much of a say because of this lack of experience, yet when I state the same thing back to them on how they can't fully understand an adoptee/orphan and shouldn't have as much of a say concerning adoption because of this lack of experience - they're shocked. It's a double edged sword, you can't have it both ways... if a girl has more say about pregnancy because of experience, then an adoptee/orphan certainly has more say about the adoption process because of experience. The same exact logic applies here that's been used here to undermine me and all guys by the girl posters raising themselves up on pedestals because they'll have a pregnancy experience... I've consented that in giving birth, they do have more say, but in regards to adoption - adoptees/orphans certainly have more say in the same sense.

The same thing applies to them: they have equal say. Don't play the card of "wahh, they did that and were fine but I tried something similar but wasn't...". It doesn't put them in the right and it doesn't put you in the right. We all have the same weightings of what we say regardless if someone calls someone else out on it or not.

Originally Posted by Josh

As for overflow, I think there needs to be several ways to go about this. To try to devise methods of safer sex and educate what may result from sex. For all of these organizations promoting their beliefs, there should be a similar one for orphans - especially older orphans who are often overlooked; bring it farther in to the public eye. Provide more help and support in orphanages.

But if the orphanages are overflowing, what good is educating people on safe sex? That hasn't changed the overflowing orphanages. You did not answer my question. I asked how to support the orphanages. You gave a bit of answering for the older ones but you didn't describe how to help them. You also didn't give any answer for the younger orphanages. "Provide more help and support" is not answering my question, I asked HOW. So please answer it.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

And where have I done this that bothers you?

But if the orphanages are overflowing, what good is educating people on safe sex? That hasn't changed the overflowing orphanages. You did not answer my question. I asked how to support the orphanages. You gave a bit of answering for the older ones but you didn't describe how to help them. You also didn't give any answer for the younger orphanages. "Provide more help and support" is not answering my question, I asked HOW. So please answer it.

1. I have lost seeing usernames on here through the number of replies I have made, looking back your posts seem to go in and out of my replies to others who HAVE done this and thus naturally I may have transferred that on to you in the process. Therefore, everything I state should be seen as more generalized across every poster because it's kinda hard to keep track of who says what exactly. And let me get this right, you say that guys should have equal say in all aspects of pregnancy as girls? Just want to make sure.

2. As I see it one of the main issues we have to deal with now before we're able to further progress are older orphans. Many are adopting infants, as a secondary means of easing their own infertility; this is one of the primary reasons. However, older orphans get lost in the process because of this. We've already got orphans being taken in a lot in their infant lives, but towards the back end is where the most difficulty is going on. If the people are informed and reminded of this, we could perhaps see a rise in families adopting older children into their lives. This would in short help ease the overflow and it's the first step that must be taken. I'm kinda unclear on what you're asking - how to support the orphanages themselves as structures or the orphans that reside there while waiting for foster care? Then in provide more help and support, I mean put the money in to help orphanages expand with better care, food, living quarters, education, etc.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by Josh

2. As I see it one of the main issues we have to deal with now before we're able to further progress are older orphans. Many are adopting infants, as a secondary means of easing their own infertility; this is one of the primary reasons. However, older orphans get lost in the process because of this. We've already got orphans being taken in a lot in their infant lives, but towards the back end is where the most difficulty is going on. If the people are informed and reminded of this, we could perhaps see a rise in families adopting older children into their lives. This would in short help ease the overflow and it's the first step that must be taken. I'm kinda unclear on what you're asking - how to support the orphanages themselves as structures or the orphans that reside there while waiting for foster care? Then in provide more help and support, I mean put the money in to help orphanages expand with better care, food, living quarters, education, etc.

Informing people isn't going to do anything. You know what people are going to say when they hear about older orphanage children? They'll say "oh, that's too bad...." This will be as effective as telling people to "understand the consequences of sex."

These older children need HOMES. Sure better care and education should be considered, but they still need a place to live eventually. The primary focus should be HOW these children can find homes. Improving orphanage conditions, while a good gesture, still won't solve this issue.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by Lugez

Informing people isn't going to do anything. You know what people are going to say when they hear about older orphanage children? They'll say "oh, that's too bad...." This will be as effective as telling people to "understand the consequences of sex."

These older children need HOMES. Sure better care and education should be considered, but they still need a place to live eventually. The primary focus should be HOW these children can find homes. Improving orphanage conditions, while a good gesture, still won't solve this issue.

However, you may be able to educate some people and sway them into considering it and some may even do it. Maybe not everyone, but swaying a few? I'd say that'd be worth it. Btw, as an adoptee and as someone who's life is seriously hitting the fast track I do intend to provide a home for as many older children as possible.

Forcing someone into a home wouldn't work out, because there'd be an unneeded tension between the child and adult. However, if you're able to get enough people to listen and enough people to care - you can make a difference over time. Maybe not everyone, but it would most definitely improve. Yes, these children need a home - but in order to provide the home, the adults need to care. I don't know if you were the one who mentioned this before or if it was someone else - but, the government just placing children in homes wouldn't work for the child or adult... I know if that had happened to me, I wouldn't be where I am today, psychologically I needed to feel wanted to go on. So step one is inspiring people to care.

Can that be achieved? I seriously believe it can be with the proper coverage and spokespeople. Gather adoptees and adoptive parents, celebrities are often thought of in this sense in spreading the word and there are many personally connected, to reach out to people. Maybe it might make a small impact at first, but in time it could grow.

[PhoenixAlive]

I think that the situation surrounding overflow of the foster care system has been blown way out of proportion.


There are currently approximately 74,494,632 people alive in the United Stated who are under 18 years old (Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html). Of these an estimated 500,000 are in the foster care system.

• On September 30, 2006, there were an estimated 510,000 children in foster care.
• Almost a quarter (24 percent) were in relative homes, and nearly half (46 percent) were in nonrelative foster family homes.
• Almost half (49 percent) had a case goal of reunification with their families.
• The percentage of children who left the system to be reunited with their families or placed with relatives remained about the same from 2000 to 2006 (70 percent and 69 percent, respectively).
• Almost half of the children (49 percent) who left foster care in FY 2006 were in care for less than 1 year.

Entries. During FY 2006, 303,000 children entered foster care.
Exits. During FY 2006, 289,000 children exited foster care.

Of the estimated 289,000 children who exited foster care during FY 2006:

• 15 percent had been in care less than 1 month
• 34 percent had been in care for 1 to 11 months
• 23 percent had been in care for 12 to 23 months
• 12 percent had been in care for 24 to 35 months
• 9 percent had been in care for 36 to 59 months
• 7 percent had been in care for 5 or more years

Please keep in mind that this is throughout the entire United States.


Here is my source. There are more comprehensive charts on the page.

Foster Care Statistics

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Josh

You also have to understand, such comments (directed in general)

> Abortion is kinder on children than adoption
> Adoption would cause too much trauma for the child, it's better to abort (although edited, somebody more or less said I was better off dead yesterday without realizing it)

Etc. That have been going around this thread, by nonadoptees mind you - I do have a right to speak out against that kind of thinking as do all adoptees.

As in the case of what may be best for the mother, THAT'S open to debate - but what's "kinder" and "best" for the child being abortion over adoption? Which has been stated or I've misread some - then, yeah, I'd say adoptees & orphans definitely would have more of a say because we've lived through an experience others are trying to judge without experience.

That's like me telling a kid who's father ran away that he should be be dead right now because that would be too hard for him. That's as logical as anything else I've heard sounds. Or better example yet saying it's the better choice for any minority group - whether it be be race, sexual preference or culture.

Once again, what's best for the mother is open to debate, but when people start sayings as "abortion is kinder for the child than adoption" - that brings us into the equation. (note that this post is generalized)

This is exactly where we keep butting heads, where you keep butting heads with all the pro-choicers. You see I still don't believe that you have a stronger connection to the abortion debate because you're an adoptee and I know why now. When I look at the abortion debate all I see is the mother, the woman's rights, because she is the real live person in this situation, the embryo/fetus is not a person has not contributed anything to this world yet so I see it's rights as significantly less than the mother's.

When we were debating this topic in my philosophy class earlier in the year one of the readings gave this argument (I'm paraphrasing) "Many pro-choicers say that since that fetus is not a person it's okay to terminate it. However person or not the fetus is a living thing and it's not always okay to kill living things, such as some animals." However I say that would you really sacrifice the life of a person for an animal, they are not equal.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

However I say that would you really sacrifice the life of a person for an animal, they are not equal.

You can believe what you want to believe, but I kinda have to point out that the logic of the line above is ultimately flawed. It should be more "would you really sacrifice nine months of 'pain' for a person for an animal." Because it's not a life for a life if there is no threat of death from pregnancy. It's kinda, would you kill an animal in order to have a pain killer? In which case, even in the worst amounts of pain I wouldn't kill an animal, if it was LIFE for a LIFE - yeah, survival is in our instincts.. but just to ease my pain? No, I'll go through it.

Also the remark was to comments of whether adoptees should have more say over adoption and it's impact than nonadoptees. You, if I remember correctly, had said women should have more of a say over pregnancy than guys because of experiences guys will never have. Same thing here, same logic applies.

[Keep Calm and Eat Cake]

Can i just ask - are you a vegetarian? (Not as off topic as may seem)

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by newvisionofreality

Can i just ask - are you a vegetarian? (Not as off topic as may seem)

Let me come back to you with these questions, how many animals in the animal kingdom are vegetarians? How many animals kill their young prior to birth?

[Keep Calm and Eat Cake]

Originally Posted by Josh

Let me come back to you with these questions, how many animals in the animal kingdom are vegetarians? How many animals kill their young prior to birth?

Sorry, are you actually asking me that or are you mocking me?

Because if you DO eat meat, then how is that any worse than abortion?
I mean, yes obviously alot more goes into it, but like someone previously posted -- an animal has more of a right to live than an undeveloped embryo that cannot feel pain (at the early stages) and yet animals are killed everyday to satisfy the humans eating habits.
Would you not give up meat to save an animals life? To save all those animals pain?
People don't. People eat animals and kill animals all the time - so how is that any less of a disgrace than killing something (an embryo) that can't even FEEL the pain?

Of course it's a different matter when the fetus develops more which i am against abortion after a certain amount of development.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by newvisionofreality

People eat animals and kill animals all the time

Are you saying animals don't eat people? I can produce pictures (you can find - anything - on the net these days) of animals chowing down on some fresh human meat if you'd like...

Eating is a function of survival. If we don't eat, we can't survive.

However, would you seriously kill an animal to produce a pain killer to ease your pain? Personally, I wouldn't, because I wouldn't need to do so in order to survive.

I don't see pain to comfort mentality, I see survival mentality and life for a life as do any and all creatures. But, killing an animal to ease one's pain when that's anything but necessary? No, I'd strongly disagree with that.

As stated before, pregnancy can't be seen as "life for life" mentality unless it actually is "life for life." One can have their opinions regarding it, but the only way that statement can make sense is if the woman could die - thus a LIFE for a life... unless something has the potentiality of dying you can't use the life for life mentality - that'd be pain for life.

Please tell me how this could statement could ever have anything to do with pregnancy unless the woman could possibly die...

Would you really sacrifice the life of a person for an animal, they are not equal.

One can have any opinion on abortion, but that phrase that I commented on and why I believe you asked about not eating meat can't be applied. Sacrificing the life of a person? That implies the possible death of a person - death from childbirth. That is only a select number of abortions, but can't be applied to the rest in a general sense because in that is specifically implied a possible death of the person. Thus, it is a flawed logic that I don't see how it can ever be implied unless one's talking particularly about death during childbirth. Life for a life.

[Keep Calm and Eat Cake]

Originally Posted by Josh

Are you saying animals don't eat people? I can produce pictures (you can find - anything - on the net these days) of animals chowing down on some fresh human meat if you'd like...

Eating is a function of survival. If we don't eat, we can't survive.

However, would you seriously kill an animal to produce a pain killer to ease your pain? Personally, I wouldn't, because I wouldn't need to do so in order to survive.

I don't see pain to comfort mentality, I see survival mentality and life for a life as do any and all creatures. But, killing an animal to ease one's pain when that's anything but necessary? No, I'd strongly disagree with that.

As stated before, pregnancy can't be seen as "life for life" mentality unless it actually is "life for life." One can have their opinions regarding it, but the only way that statement can make sense is if the woman could die - thus a LIFE for a life... unless something has the potentiality of dying you can't use the life for life mentality - that'd be pain for life.

Please tell me how this could statement could ever have anything to do with pregnancy unless the woman could possibly die...

I think you've misinterpreted what ive said - or avoided it. Im not talking about the mother atall atm so 'life for life' doesn't come into it.

Abortion is killing something which can't feel pain and has no recognition of it's potential life (When it gets to the stage where it can feel pain i am totally against it btw.)
When you eat meat it is killing something that can feel pain.
So, how is killing an animal more justified than killing an embryo?

There are plenty of substitutes for meat.
And having said all this im not a vegetarian but then, im also not totally against abortion either.
But, you being able to eat meat and cause that death of something living but then fighting against the termination of something undeveloped is quite contradictory if you ask me.
(No disrespect to your views intended, but im just showing you the comparisons)

One can have any opinion on abortion, but that phrase that I commented on and why I believe you asked about not eating meat can't be applied. Sacrificing the life of a person? That implies the possible death of a person - death from childbirth. That is only a select number of abortions, but can't be applied to the rest in a general sense because in that is specifically implied a possible death of the person. Thus, it is a flawed logic that I don't see how it can ever be implied unless one's talking particularly about death during childbirth. Life for a life.

Im abit confused - I never talked about Life for a life. Or are you replying to someone else?

[ThePunkAlien]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you commenting on Bigmole's and my post where animals are mentioned? If so, read it again...

Originally Posted by newvisionofreality

but like someone previously posted -- an animal has more of a right to live than an undeveloped embryo that cannot feel pain (at the early stages) and yet animals are killed everyday to satisfy the humans eating habits.

Actually YOU were the first to have stated that, or I may have missed that and it wasn't in my or bigmoles posts which did mention animals. That was nowhere in that post.

Would you really sacrifice the life of a person for an animal, they are not equal.

What I simply stated was that "life for life" mentality doesn't work in that statement because we're not talking about "life for life" unless there is the possibility of death - which was not mentioned - and thus that statement would not be logical or have the ability to be applied. But, as I have stated others can have their opinions, just that that statement is logically flawed in terms of abortion since it's more "pain for life" unless there's risk of death during childbirth. Unless, of course - to you - "sacrificing a life" of a person doesn't imply death in any way shape or form?

[Keep Calm and Eat Cake]

Originally Posted by Josh

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you commenting on Bigmole's and my post where animals are mentioned? If so, read it again...



Actually YOU were the first to have stated that, or I may have missed that and it wasn't in my or bigmoles posts which did mention animals. That was nowhere in that post.



What I simply stated was that "life for life" mentality doesn't work in that statement because we're not talking about "life for life" unless there is the possibility of death - which was not mentioned - and thus that statement would not be logical or have the ability to be applied. But, as I have stated others can have their opinions, just that that statement is logically flawed in terms of abortion since it's more "pain for life" unless there's risk of death during childbirth.

I wasn't commenting on another post - i mentioned about where animals were involved but ive now read that and realise it has no relation to my post.

My post has nothing to do with the life of the mother - i was focusing purely on the life of the potential human being and how someone who eats animals and therefore inflicts death on animals everyday how that can be justified anymore than inflicting death on sometng that cant feel.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by newvisionofreality

My post has nothing to do with the life of the mother - i was focusing purely on the life of the potential human being and how someone who eats animals and therefore inflicts death on animals everyday how that can be justified anymore than inflicting death on sometng that cant feel.

Killing can't be justified, but that's why we're animals unfortunately - it's in our nature.



No, that's not human and it's from an animal rescue site.

[Keep Calm and Eat Cake]

Originally Posted by Josh

Killing can't be justified, but that's why we're animals unfortunately - it's in our nature.

If it's in our nature then surely killing an undeveloped fetus is alright?
I think you get my point now anyway, so i'll drop it

When i first saw that picture i thought 'awh how cute..' then i saw the flesh... whoopsie :|

Originally Posted by Josh

Killing can't be justified, but that's why we're animals unfortunately - it's in our nature.



No, that's not human and it's from an animal rescue site.

Ok, that one you replaced it with looks far less cuddley :| haha.

[PhoenixAlive]

I don't believe in killing animals, or any other living thing unless it is necessary to my survival. And abortion does not fall into that category.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by newvisionofreality

If it's in our nature then surely killing an undeveloped fetus is alright?

If some form of "survival" is measured in. People eat to survive, if we don't eat - we don't survive. Unless you're talking plainly about "comfort eaters" who eat just for the hell of it - that's not that highly looked upon either in our society. Here we're starting to verge into darwinism and survival of the fittest of the whole animal kingdom spectrum.

And as I stated before, if an abortion is needed in order to - survive - due to some of the extreme kinds of scenarios, that's understandable. Animals may abandon their children sooner, but I know of very few that actually kill their children.

[Keep Calm and Eat Cake]

Originally Posted by Josh

If some form of "survival" is measured in. People eat to survive, if we don't eat - we don't survive. Unless you're talking plainly about "comfort eaters" who eat just for the hell of it - that's not that highly looked upon either in our society. Here we're starting to verge into darwinism and survival of the fittest of the whole animal kingdom spectrum.

There are alternatives to meat though which may not ahve same nutrients but it is enough to live a long healthy life.
Anyway, i fear this is swaying off topic slightly :b

[Aufschlitzer]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

I think that the situation surrounding overflow of the foster care system has been blown way out of proportion.


There are currently approximately 74,494,632 people alive in the United Stated who are under 18 years old (Source: USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau). Of these an estimated 500,000 are in the foster care system.

• On September 30, 2006, there were an estimated 510,000 children in foster care.
• Almost a quarter (24 percent) were in relative homes, and nearly half (46 percent) were in nonrelative foster family homes.
• Almost half (49 percent) had a case goal of reunification with their families.
• The percentage of children who left the system to be reunited with their families or placed with relatives remained about the same from 2000 to 2006 (70 percent and 69 percent, respectively).
• Almost half of the children (49 percent) who left foster care in FY 2006 were in care for less than 1 year.

Entries. During FY 2006, 303,000 children entered foster care.
Exits. During FY 2006, 289,000 children exited foster care.

Of the estimated 289,000 children who exited foster care during FY 2006:

• 15 percent had been in care less than 1 month
• 34 percent had been in care for 1 to 11 months
• 23 percent had been in care for 12 to 23 months
• 12 percent had been in care for 24 to 35 months
• 9 percent had been in care for 36 to 59 months
• 7 percent had been in care for 5 or more years

Please keep in mind that this is throughout the entire United States.


Here is my source. There are more comprehensive charts on the page.

Foster Care Statistics

If abortion were largely done away with, would the overflow problem become more significant?

[Gidig]

Hey guys, I deleted that picture because I had quite a few complaints about it. And I didn't feel the pictures were entirely necessary to the discussion.

On the discussion note, I'm not quite sure how eating animals and abortion is fitting together

[Grizabella]

This thread is very much confusing me...I'm having so much trouble connecting the arguments with abortion...

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Josh

1. I have lost seeing usernames on here through the number of replies I have made, looking back your posts seem to go in and out of my replies to others who HAVE done this and thus naturally I may have transferred that on to you in the process. Therefore, everything I state should be seen as more generalized across every poster because it's kinda hard to keep track of who says what exactly.

When I debate, I analyze the posts and tend to base whatever arguments for that post using my own stance, evidence and lots of what that poster says. So, if that poster gives some experience as a non-adoptee, I probably used that in my responses.

Originally Posted by Josh

And let me get this right, you say that guys should have equal say in all aspects of pregnancy as girls? Just want to make sure.

That's correct. If one gender is to have more weighting to each say just because of their gender, then it begs the question, why doesn't the weighted gender simply have a debate amongst themselves? If the other gender's posts will be down-played and ignored due to their gender, then might as well talk to the wall. Thus, for both genders to co-exist in the debate, they have the same weighting in their says no matter what their viewpoints are.

2. As I see it one of the main issues we have to deal with now before we're able to further progress are older orphans. Many are adopting infants, as a secondary means of easing their own infertility; this is one of the primary reasons. However, older orphans get lost in the process because of this. We've already got orphans being taken in a lot in their infant lives, but towards the back end is where the most difficulty is going on. If the people are informed and reminded of this, we could perhaps see a rise in families adopting older children into their lives. This would in short help ease the overflow and it's the first step that must be taken. I'm kinda unclear on what you're asking - how to support the orphanages themselves as structures or the orphans that reside there while waiting for foster care? Then in provide more help and support, I mean put the money in to help orphanages expand with better care, food, living quarters, education, etc.[/quote]

I suppose it's my fault for not clarifying, however, what I meant was helping both the orphanages in general to function and the orphans and adoptees within them.

With adopting children, the current economy is rather shitty, and more people are having a harder time making ends meet, so I would guess that they wouldn't be adopting, at least not right away. For the ones that are financially stable, either both or one of the parents work, or if they're lucky, they inherited a fortune or do work from home, etc... . In that case, perhaps informing them would be a good idea, but it'd be even better if they were rewarded (aside from morally/ethically) for adopting. Give them some amount of money for adopting or reduce their taxes, or some incentive, aside from a moral or ethical one.

Originally Posted by Aufschlitzer

If abortion were largely done away with, would the overflow problem become more significant?

I believe it would. If the woman or couple were/still are unwilling to have the child for whatever reasons, and abortion is disallowed, and assuming they don't go for a home-made abortion, then adoption becomes the main other choice. Suppose that the amount of current abortions per month or year choose to go for adoption, then that relatively high number adds onto the numbers in the orphanages. Perhaps there may be a few more or less given for adoption, however, I think the numbers would be ~ the same.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Aufschlitzer

If abortion were largely done away with, would the overflow problem become more significant?

Unfortunately, that's really hard to prove or disprove, as we have not been in that situation, so there are no statistics to work off of. But I can attempt to extrapolate from the data that we already have.

In 2005 1,210,000 abortions were performed in the US. And since then, they've gone down, so these numbers are going to be generous. So lets assume that all of these babies who were aborted are now alive and in the foster care system. (It is important to remember that this would definitely NOT be the case! In many cases, although of course not all, the mother would end up keeping the baby. If she could not, family members would take these babies and raise them as their own. I've seen cases where this happened in the orphanage where I was before I got adopted.)

1/4 (25%) of these abortions were performed due to serious medical risk to the mother. According to all of the posters on this thread, this is an acceptable reason to have an abortion, so if abortion were to be restricted, these abortions would still take place.

That would bring the number of hypothetically non-aborted babies down to 907,500.

In which case, using my previous foster care statistics, IF all of these were in the foster care system there would now be approximately 1,407,500 in the foster care system.

And remember that 49% of all of the rest of the children in the foster care system are there for LESS THAN 1 YEAR. Its not a case of children being stuck in the foster care system.

Only 7% of children stay in for 5 or more years. Including ALL of the babies who are now being aborted, that would be approximately 98,525 children across the whole US. (This includes all of the children who are now in the foster care system for 5 or more years as well)

I'd like to say again that not ALL of the children who would not be aborted due to restrictions on abortion would end up in the foster care system, and they DEFINITELY WOULD NOT ALL STAY in the the foster care system for 5 or more years, so the numbers which I have generated are much higher than they actually should be. However, even if my hypothetical scenario were to happen, it does not seem to me that the overflow problem would increase that significantly.

Here is my source for the number of abortions in 2005 in the US. This page also has a lot more unbiased information and statistics on abortion that you might find interesting. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

[Keep Calm and Eat Cake]

Originally Posted by Gidig

On the discussion note, I'm not quite sure how eating animals and abortion is fitting together

Im not even going to attempt to explain my reasonings behind this argument again. Im not great at explanations as it is.

[Adean]

Yeah, maybe you are happy in your case. So what? One kid on a message board is happy they are alive. We have had another girl a year ago that said she wished her parents had aborted her or never put her up for adoption (she also was against pot too). Not every adopted kid will have a happy ending and not every kid will have a horror story.

There are kids in the system, in ours and other countries.

What about the women who want to have an abortion because they already have kids and can't afford another one? Should they be allowed to have an abortion?

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by Adean

What about the women who want to have an abortion because they already have kids and can't afford another one? Should they be allowed to have an abortion?

If that's the case, why wouldn't the mother put the child up for adoption? Everyone can choose, but why choose abortion rather than adoption? That I'll never understand.

Here's the other thing I don't understand, it seems like some people actually believe abortion to be a better alternative which I think is beyond absurd. How can death ever be considered better than life, maybe if one is going through a depression of some sort - they'd be like everyone else in that field (as said, should minority groups and kids from unstable homes be killed? it's basically the exact same thinking here). Also if you look at statistics, which I have, there are a lot more well adjusted adoptees than there are those with problems because of it - which can actually be linked back to not having a stable home life, in which case they'd be like everyone else in that situation who was never put up for adoption. So if potential problems brings about that viewpoint, well then that would equate nonadoptees too.

I'd also say that adoptees have a better chance than nonadoptees for a better life, whereas most adoptive parents adopt because they want a family - adoptees are chosen - nonadoptive parents are stuck with what they got and they may have never intended to become a parent, which would lead to difficulties and stress down the road. I've seen that case scenario play out with nonadoptees more times than I can count.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Josh

Here's the other thing I don't understand, it seems like some people actually believe abortion to be a better alternative which I think is beyond absurd. How can death ever be considered better than life, maybe if one is going through a depression of some sort - they'd be like everyone else in that field (as said, should minority groups and kids from unstable homes be killed? it's basically the exact same thinking here). Also if you look at statistics, which I have, there are a lot more well adjusted adoptees than there are those with problems because of it - which can actually be linked back to not having a stable home life, in which case they'd be like everyone else in that situation who was never put up for adoption. So if potential problems brings about that viewpoint, well then that would equate nonadoptees too.

I will explain it. For us pro-choicers the child is NOT the first priority the mother is. It's the mother's life we are thinking about not a embryo/fetus who hasn't had one yet. That's why.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I will explain it. For us pro-choicers the child is NOT the first priority the mother is. It's the mother's life we are thinking about not a embryo/fetus who hasn't had one yet. That's why.

Others have been bringing the CHILD - not the mother - into their arguments, with such words as "kinder for the child" - like, you, for example who have stated it and I can bring back old posts if you want...

So, as I said and you avoided, how can anyone ever think abortion is truly better for the child than adoption? I find that very disturbing. One such post by someone who seemingly had this view had to be edited, by a moderator, because it more or less stated that they believed adoptees/orphans were better off dead. Now, please, just - try - to explain the logic in that.

I also find it funny that when these people are called out on it, they try to circumnavigate around it and act as though they never stated it.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Josh

Others have been bringing the CHILD - not the mother - into their arguments, with such words as "kinder for the child" - like, you, for example who have stated it and I can bring back old posts if you want...

So, as I said and you avoided, how can anyone ever think abortion is truly better for the child than adoption? I find that very disturbing. One such post by someone who seemingly had this view had to be edited, by a moderator, because it more or less stated that they believed adoptees/orphans were better off dead. Now, please, just - try - to explain the logic in that.

I also find it funny that when these people are called out on it, they try to circumnavigate around it and act as though they never stated it.

I don't remember ever saying anything about anything being kinder for the child, I know I said that the women do consider what they think is best for the child and herself but I'm pretty sure I've never said kinder for the child. Anywho I didn't avoid I just stated that at least in my case I don't think that abortion is better than the child for than adoption cause I don't think much about the child. That's the woman who's pregnant's job not mine I just believe she should have every option available to her no matter what.

[ThePunkAlien]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I don't think that abortion is better than the child for than adoption cause I don't think much about the child.

Kinda extremely confused... what?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Josh

Kinda extremely confused... what?

What I'm saying is that for me your question is a doesn't mean anything. I think it's up to the pregnant woman and what she thinks of her situation to answer that question. However for me to form my opinion on this topic I don't consider that question, all I consider is the rights of the mother.

[ThePunkAlien]

1. I asked what because your comment read more like it came from a Dr. Seuss book, I couldn't read it.

2. Others have brought up or illustrated that they have thought abortion to be better than adoption. Looking back, the one thing I see myself getting mixed up over is who stated what because some people reply to posts directed at certain members as though I responded to them. Someone had said kinder, I confronted them on it and you replied to that confrontation and I in the process acidentally displaced that onto you...

Originally Posted by xxEllexx

i think it's much kinder to abort a child in this situaton than to put it up for adoption. this would cause unecessary trauma for the woman the child, which could be avoided by abortion.

Thus, comments like that have been stated, just mix-up as in who. Also note that no situation was given, thus it was - more or less- being unable to take care of the child and it being an unexpected pregnancy (which no one expects to get pregnant then give it up for adoption).

SO... as I stated before... directed generally...

Here's the other thing I don't understand, it seems like some people actually believe abortion to be a better alternative which I think is beyond absurd. How can death ever be considered better than life, maybe if one is going through a depression of some sort - they'd be like everyone else in that field (as said, should minority groups and kids from unstable homes be killed? it's basically the exact same thinking here). Also if you look at statistics, which I have, there are a lot more well adjusted adoptees than there are those with problems because of it - which can actually be linked back to not having a stable home life, in which case they'd be like everyone else in that situation who was never put up for adoption. So if potential problems brings about that viewpoint, well then that would equate nonadoptees too.

Anyone can have any opinion about abortion as they so choose, but can anyone with this abortion > adoption viewpoint (which I find really disturbing) explain why they see things this way.

If "possibility of unstability" comes up, well then you can throw a lot more nonadoptees into that because their parents never chose to become parents for the most part - they got stuck with you (generalized) which would bring a lot more dilemmas and problems into one's life. I know, I've seen this happen more times than I can count. So if "unstability" is brought up, from what I've seen nonadoptees go through much more of a trauma because many of their parents didn't originally choose to be parents and are tried to forcibly be molded into them by the parents trying to relive their "glory days." You ask me, due to that - I'm a lot happier to be adopted, even though I'm curious about my origins, because at least I got to follow my own destiny instead of all this fear of becoming your own parents. I know that sounded harsh, but no more harsher than what some nonadoptees have stated about adoptees.

So while nonadoptees may want to act as though they don't go through difficulties of being a natural child, I've seen contrary to the case numerous times. So those nonadoptees who look at us and shake their heads and say "oh, you're not everyone, there aren't a lot of happy endings" or "oh the traumas," guess what? When I look at you I see the exact same thing and think - thank heaven I'm not in those shoes.

The basic point I'm trying to make, although as harsh as some on here, is that everyone has difficulties. The adoptees have just as much of a chance for the positives and negatives as the natural child. Hell, I've even heard nonadoptees say they wish they were adopted, what does that say about the "natural child"? While there may be other difficulties, that goes on both sides of the equation, evening things out. Not one of the experience is better or more traumatic than the other - they just are, and they're the same statistics.

Once again, this is not to say we, the adoptees are better than the naturals. This post goes to show that we can flip the same roll of dice back on you. There is nothing additional here, everything evens out - some adoptees wish to be natural, while some naturals wish to be adoptees and so on. Their the same coin, but different sides - both sides, however are equal in positives and negatives even if they don't "look" the same. We're two sides of the human race, we may have different sides, but overall we're equal and two sides of the same exact coin. Nothing more, nothing less - everything evens out.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Josh

Anyone can have any opinion about abortion as they so choose, but can anyone with this abortion > adoption viewpoint (which I find really disturbing) explain why they see things this way.

Josh, from what I've been reading, it seems to me that many of the people with this view firstly: don't take the the child into account at all. As they don't believe the child is alive, they only think about the negative impact that carrying and having the baby may have on the mother.

And secondly, they think that since the aborted baby will never experience life, it won't have to experience the ups and downs, including whatever possible feelings of abandonment, identity confusion, and resentment which are common for us adopted kids. They seem to think its just the easier, simpler route.

I may be misinterpreting (and people who think this please let me know if I got it wrong) but that's the message I'm getting.

[Adean]

Originally Posted by Josh

If that's the case, why wouldn't the mother put the child up for adoption? Everyone can choose, but why choose abortion rather than adoption? That I'll never understand.

Here's the other thing I don't understand, it seems like some people actually believe abortion to be a better alternative which I think is beyond absurd. How can death ever be considered better than life, maybe if one is going through a depression of some sort - they'd be like everyone else in that field (as said, should minority groups and kids from unstable homes be killed? it's basically the exact same thinking here). Also if you look at statistics, which I have, there are a lot more well adjusted adoptees than there are those with problems because of it - which can actually be linked back to not having a stable home life, in which case they'd be like everyone else in that situation who was never put up for adoption. So if potential problems brings about that viewpoint, well then that would equate nonadoptees too.

I'd also say that adoptees have a better chance than nonadoptees for a better life, whereas most adoptive parents adopt because they want a family - adoptees are chosen - nonadoptive parents are stuck with what they got and they may have never intended to become a parent, which would lead to difficulties and stress down the road. I've seen that case scenario play out with nonadoptees more times than I can count.

Because I don't believe in forcing a mother to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't want to regardless of her reasons. A fetus isn't a person whereas the mother is.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Adean

Because I don't believe in forcing a mother to continue a pregnancy if she doesn't want to regardless of her reasons. A fetus isn't a person whereas the mother is.

So you don't see the potential for human life as important? Because if that fetus were not aborted it would undoubtedly become a person (even if you don't believe that it is a person in the womb, you can't deny that). That's where I find your argument so difficult to understand.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

So you don't see the potential for human life as important? Because if that fetus were not aborted it would undoubtedly become a person (even if you don't believe that it is a person in the womb, you can't deny that). That's where I find your argument so difficult to understand.

The belief is that the potential for life is not more important than a life that has already been realized. It's not that the potential person isn't important it's just not at the same level as the mother. To me it makes perfect sense for a realized life to have more rights than a potential one.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

The belief is that the potential for life is not more important than a life that has already been realized. It's not that the potential person isn't important it's just not at the same level as the mother. To me it makes perfect sense for a realized life to have more rights than a potential one.

The difference though is that we're not asking the mother to give up her life for "the potential life" of the baby. So its not a matter of equality. I agree that when it comes down to literal NEEDS, a mother's needs should come before her unborn child's. (When I say needs, I mean medical or psychological needs. If the carrying the baby could cause the mother significant harm, as in more so than just an unpleasant pregnancy or dealing with a bit of hard times) But the potential for life should have more value than what you seem to be giving it: none.

[Lost_Confused]

Josh, I'm going to have to agree with everything you've said.

I think that abortions should only be done in extreme situations. If I was born with birth defects, I'd eventually wish I wasn't even alive. But I think that, despite how many excuses people give, there really IS no excuse for choosing abortions over adoptions.

I agree as well.
Abortion is MURDER.
It may not be outisde your belly, kicking, blinking and making noises at you, but it's still a human, and it is murder.
I saw the way people are treating that guy who did late-term abortions, and I feel sick. He's not a saint, he's a murderer! I'm not suprised someone shot him. I mean, it might not've been the right way to go about it, but I don't blame them.
If you don't care enough to get an abortion, you shouldn't have any trouble giving your baby up for adoption to someone who can't have a baby of their own.
Abortion may be ok if the baby had severe defects, or painful defects, but very, VERY rarely is that an issue.

And that's the way I feel about it, and no matter what people say that's what I believe in.

A fetus isn't a person whereas the mother is.

It's a growing baby. So it is actually a person, it just isn't outside your womb yet.