That is not at all what I said. These homes can still be perfectly good even though the family did not adopt for entirely altruistic reasons. Obviously, if the family was being completely 100% unselfish, it wouldn't matter what type of child they got. Even many white families who adopt black kids these days are doing it partly out of smugness and virtue signaling, especially seems to be the trendiest new thing amongst celebrities.
You seem to be deflecting the argument. My argument in this thread wasn't that it is wrong for her to abort; it was that it is more wrong for her to abort, in the case where there is a loving family waiting for the baby. Do you care to address this? Or do you concede my point, but just argue that either way it is still overall not wrong for her to abort?
FoxHastings said: ↑ Women are under no obligation to provide others with kids. So you don't care what kind of people these children go to??!!!! HOW CALLOUS!!! And that is NOT an answer to my post, it's a deflection. There is NO law, commandment, writ, mandate, document, rule, reasoning, or logic that makes women obligated to provide other people with children And YOU have never proven there is....they don't exist. You saying they are under obligation to provide kids for other people does NOT make it true... It's a dead dead dead horse , why do you keep beating it...???
That is NOT an answer to my post, it's a deflection. There is NO law, commandment, writ, mandate, document, rule, reasoning, or logic that makes women obligated to provide other people with children And YOU have never proven there is....they don't exist. You saying they are under obligation to provide kids for other people does NOT make it true... It's a dead dead dead horse , why do you keep beating it...???
FoxHastings said: ↑ There are no "Pro-Abortion" people. It is reasonable and makes sense...Pro-Choicers are for women's freedom to CHOOSE....unlike power crazed Anti-Choicers they are NOT trying to persuade women one way or the other..... But that has been explained to you quite a few times so I surmise you just don't want logic and reason..
YOU do NOT know that. NO, I will not concede a falsehood or your wet dreams... It's still her decision, she is not an animal , she is human with rights.....even if you don't believe women are humans with rights they really are. NOW YOU concede the truth:There is NO law, commandment, writ, mandate, document, rule, reasoning, or logic that makes women obligated to provide other people with children And YOU have never proven there is....they don't exist. You saying they are under obligation to provide kids for other people does NOT make it true...
Fertility rates for women in the US are falling precipitously, and have been for some time. Not sure what the hell the color of women has to do with this topic at all.
FoxHastings said: ↑ ...There are no "Pro-Abortion" people. Where? Who? When? How many? It's funny when people just pull numbers out of their ass then "cite" them
no it's actually about eugenics to eliminate black people. It's dressed up in women's rights to sell it to the gullible.
How do you figure when people have to go to other countries to find babies to adopt it seems like there's greater demand than there is supply.
Parents adopt from over seas because they know there is less of a chance that the birth parents show up later on. it really is that simple.
I was responding to this comment. That's why I quoted it so you would know there's no confusion. If you mean to say I'm confused about what you meant by there are far far too many, that is your fault for not putting it in context. I assumed that you meant there are far far too many babies being born. Since that is the topic of the thread and you made no effort to put it into any context. Maybe quote reply to what you're responding to and then you'll make a little more sense.
Your assumption is where you got lost. I wasn't replying to you in the first place. Any confusion introduced is on you.