Choose life

[Formaldehyde]

The way this plays out on the ground in domestic adoptions within the US, with relatively few exceptions, is you either get a newborn infant, or one that is under a month or 3, because the birth mother either formed an adoption plan while pregnant or changed her mind about further parenting(since after 9 months you can't claim she's opted out of parenting, she's already invested a lot into that life whatever comes after). Outside of of the infant stage, what children are available in the system? Even if I were so inclined I can't drop my imminently-to-be 2 year-old off at the fire station anymore. That's abandonment at this age. Even if I could, I and most parents wouldn't dream of actually doing it. So children past infancy are almost always wards of the state by force. They're seized through suspension or termination of parental rights. Maybe they'll eventually be placed back with their biological parents, maybe they never will be, maybe they'll bounce back and forth over the course of several years(which is really fun for foster parents). But they are still likely to be older at that point.

Even if it takes a few years before a ward of the state can become eligible for adoption, that still leaves numerous young children which have not reached the age when adoption becomes far more difficult. Many adopters seem to want children who have no recollection of their past at all.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm not referring to those who are older and have close to zero chance of being adopted. Many are so selective that they demand an infant or even a newborn.

Which seems entirely reasonable given they are not out to buy a new dress, but adopt a child. If one isn't "selective" with that, he is either a moron or a crook.

Only people who seem keen to adopt children past a few months old are some celebrities or other pseudo-philanthropists, and one has to assume that in most cases the adopted older child is not given a decent family either.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What is the reason for the abortion then if not convenience? I am not talking about life threatening medical treatment required type situations.

The obvious reason is that she wants to terminate the pregnancy. If one does not wish to become pregnant there are many things that can be done before going for an abortion. One can choose not to have sex, one can choose to use birth control, one can choose to have her male partner wear a condom, one can choose to have unprotected sex at a point in their fertility cycle unlikely to produce a pregnancy.

When one fails to make any of the above choices to avoid becoming pregnant, what other reason besides convenience is there for obtaining an abortion?

Really. You have no idea what you're talking about. I advice to educate yourself about the emotions that are involved when a woman decided to have an abortion. I am sure there's no one close to you who has had that experience, otherwise you'd not have spouted the offensive nonsense that is on display here. Don't talk about stuff you know next to nothing about (this means the motivations of women who have abortions) to suit some uninformed opinion.

The options you give don't have a 100% success-rate. People also make mistakes. And when 2 people make that mistake, only one is left with the consequences.

I agreed with Antilogic. I shouldn't have diverted from that.

 

[timtofly]

You see, giving the government this power is not about protecting you from yourself, but for protecting the innocent people in need for an organ from an avoidable death.

I said that I would not give the government power, and I agree that it is not about protecting me from myself. I would not even give the government the authority to take something from other people, even if it meant saving a life. It is not the government's choice. It is the choice of each and every human to give up something or not.

Secondly. There is a slight difference in giving the government the power to do something and submitting to a government that is beyond my control. I already stated that I would never give the government such power. I would submit to the government if they came and took something from me. If I do not stand against the government, I am giving it power. But my life's purpose does not include standing up against the powers that be. Nor is it creating a better form of government. All I am inclined to do is submit to the government I happen to exist in.

I think you contradict yourself very much here. You said that one has, and should have, the right to refuse to give a person a necessary organ donation, even if that person dies. This does obviously mean that a person has, and should have, control over his or her body, regardless of the consequences for someone else.

I hold that I am responsible for my own actions. I am not dictating how others develop their own philosophy on life. How does enforcing my views on others have anything to do with how I live my own life? I said they had the right to choose. I never claimed which choice is right or wrong. I would prefer that one chooses life. Just because I would choose the life of someone else over my own, does not mean I am forcing others to do the same via a law.

Essentialism is a point of view that is very much in contradiction with modern scientific results. One does not either exist as a person or not. One comes to be a person by a gradual process.

And being arbitrary leads to oppression. I would tend to err on the side of doubt.

 

[El_Machinae]

What is the reason for the abortion then if not convenience?

Okay, let's just grant that 'convenience' is one of the putative motives. I'll even grant that it's true for some women. It's not the only potential motivation.
1) Concern for the well-being of the infant, where you want the quality-of-life of the baby (and future adult) to be good if you're going to create it.
2) Concern for the well-being of your other loved ones. Maybe your current kids/spouse cannot handle having another kid, and you're already stretched too thin. And, there's their emotions to consider as well, so you're taking their feelings into consideration.

And I'm sure there are others, just like there are many women. I'm just a guy spit-balling, but the idea that 'convenience' is the goto reason is just ... wrong.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's all about transforming a complex issue into a simple one. To do this you need to take away any sort of empathy towards the woman.

I have a pretty clear opinion about abortion. But that doesn't mean it sits easy with me.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Do the people who complain about personhood being gained at some point in pregnancy also have a problem with legal ages?

 

[classical_hero]

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Elizabeth Cody Stanton.

The early feminists saw the degrading nature of abortion to them and the child. The same arguments to legalise abortion have been used to legalise some of the worst atrocities, the simple fact that some humans aren't people and as a result we can violate their rights.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

I'll take the pro-life movement seriously when they start actually being pro-life for people outside of the womb. I.e supporting war, the death penalty, cutting back food stamps and free health care isn't really pro-life.

 

[Tahuti]

I'll take the pro-life movement seriously when they start actually being pro-life for people outside of the womb. I.e supporting war, the death penalty, cutting back food stamps and free health care isn't really pro-life.

Actually, you're confusing the pro-life movement with American conservatives; While there is some overlap, there are also pro-lifers that come from the consistent life ethics movement (i.e. also oppose death penalty, support vegetarianism, etc.). Conversely, there are also American conservatives who are pro-choice.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Actually, you're confusing the pro-life movement with American conservatives; While there is some overlap, there are also pro-lifers that come from the consistent life ethics movement (i.e. also oppose death penalty, support vegetarianism, etc.). Conversely, there are also American conservatives who are pro-choice.

I do understand that, though the majority of pro-lifers are conservative Christians, so that's what I was aiming for. And I have heard of pro-choice conservatives too.

 

[JollyRoger]

Life begins at conception. Bootstraps begin at birth.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Which seems entirely reasonable given they are not out to buy a new dress, but adopt a child. If one isn't "selective" with that, he is either a moron or a crook.

Only people who seem keen to adopt children past a few months old are some celebrities or other pseudo-philanthropists, and one has to assume that in most cases the adopted older child is not given a decent family either.

Many foster children who are far more than "a few months old" do indeed get adopted by those who are not "some celebrities or other pseudo-philanthropists".

And I was clearly referring to those who wish to adopt who are overly selective, as you apparently would be yourself. As far as I'm concerned, there is no valid reason to insist that the child only be a few months old at most. Of course YMMV.

 

[Kyriakos]

I see you know as much about adoption as you do about many other topics. Many wards of the state who are far more than "a few months old" do indeed get adopted by those who are not "some celebrities or other pseudo-philanthropists".

An 'infant' is up to 12 months old, bro, the term even signifies the lack of ability up to that time for the boy/girl to speak. A basic understanding of the language you supposedly use as your native one would enable you to learn that 'a few months' can refer to anything not requiring a larger volume of time to be accounted for, as in a year.

And why do you keep using the exact phrase or a slight variation of "[username/you] do not seem to know very much about [topic] at all" in over half of your posts? It sounds a bit strange.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So now "a few months old" means "up to 12 months" instead?

 

[Dralix]

Which seems entirely reasonable given they are not out to buy a new dress, but adopt a child. If one isn't "selective" with that, he is either a moron or a crook.

I'd say the exact opposite. If the reason for adopting is to improve the life of the child, then why does the child have to meet any criteria? As you said, they aren't shopping for a dress, they're giving a home to someone who needs one.

 

[Kyriakos]

So now "a few months old" means up to a year instead? And you are discussing my ability to grasp English?

Not sure if you edited yet again, but yeah, "a few" can indeed mean anything up to a larger volume. You confuse it with "few". While "few" means little, "a few" can mean a larger number, up to a next magnitude.
So again, you might see the palm rising towards the rounded moon, which looks like a face.

 

[JollyRoger]

When I have the word dozen at my disposal, why use the word few?

 

[Kyriakos]

When I have the word dozen at my disposal, why use the word few?

For a few reasons.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not sure if you edited yet again, but yeah, "a few" can indeed mean anything up to a larger volume. You confuse it with "few". While "few" means little, "a few" can mean a larger number, up to a next magnitude.
So again, you might see the palm rising towards the rounded moon, which looks like a face.

What a wacky rationalization. A few months clearly doesn't mean up to a year.

But even after a year, claiming that only "some celebrities or other pseudo-philanthropists" would adopt them past that age is just so much utter nonsense that is clearly not corroborated by the facts.

The average age of the children adopted was 7 years.

On average, they waited 18 months following termination of parental rights to be adopted.

Their age at the time of adoption was:

Less than 1 year 2%
1-5 years 44%
6-10 years 37%
11-15 years 15%
16-18 years 2%