Pro-life - Where is your support for this woman?

While that is true currently, if it were possible, and it's not possible, but if it were possible to really truly end abortion, there would not be enough adoptive couples to take care of all the children.

 

Based on your.....um......what? Your preconceived notion that killing children in utero should be allowed?

 

Even if there weren't, it would still be preferable to killing them.

Also...I suspect women would be a lot more careful about getting pregnant if they really believed abortion wasn't an option. So the number of unwanted children would probably not increase as much as you might think.

 

I never belived nor said that woman's only goal in life is to reproduce. However when she take such an important decision she must think about all the risks and responsabilities it brings.

You can't simply have a child and the kill him because you don't fell like having one or you changed your mind.

It's a one way road.

 

Let's pretend just for a moment that this overly-optimistic pro-life site is correct in their figures. They estimate that the adoption waiting list could be satisfied in two to four years if only half of the unwanted pregnancies would be given up for adoption. Even allowing for some new couples to join the list, what are you going to do with all the children born after four years? These figures also don't allow for new developments in fertility that would allow many of those couples willing to adopt to instead have their own children. Forcing more women to give birth doesn't mean more children given up for adoption, the vast majority of young women keep their babies and that will simply result in a huge growth in the welfare rolls.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/adopt/wanted.htm

Each year in the United States, about 51,000 American children are placed for adoption. In addition, about 6,500 foreign children are adopted by Americans, for a total of a little under 58,000 children adopted per year.
There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples.1

Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies give their children up for adoption. Suppose somehow, incredibly, we were able to increase this from 4% to 50% tomorrow. Even at that rate (and assuming that all these children could make their way through the social services burocracy overnight), it would still take two to four years just to satisfy the present waiting lists. That's not accounting for any new couples who would decide to adopt in that three years. And if that many children became available for adoption, surely there are many people who have dropped off the waiting lists in discouragement who would get back on, or people who never got on a waiting list because it seemed too hopeless.

 

Still pushing that "zef" bull(*)(*)(*)(*), eh grannie? Oh well, I guess if it makes you feel better about the killing of babies in the womb.....

 

My stance on abortion is not based on "feelings", it is based on logic and reality.

 

No, it's based on what you perceive to be logic and reality. Actual science and reality is something entirely different.

Perhaps a little emotion would go a long ways in your case.

There's still no such thing as a "zef".

 

Uh that would be obviously incorrect!

 

So this justifies killing children in utero in your mind?

 

Maybe they should support their own children.

Just a thought.

I mean, it is a free country.

You have the freedom to be a total loser if you want to.

That doesn't mean I have to pay for your kids.

Liberals believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but not the survival of the fittest. WTF?

 

I said nothing about science, science is only one field of study which impacts abortion. Perhaps your emotional reaction is leading you astray, why else would you get so upset at an acronym?

 

The only thing needed to justify abortion is that the woman wants it.

 

So then you support late term abortion? You are ok aborting a "fetus" at 8.5 months? That should be legal in your opinion?

 

Well, I actually have a reverence for human life. So any attempt to dehumanize human life tends to upset me. I'm just funny that way.

 

I am not even beginning ti try and protect her - met too many like her and a bloody lot of them were white and middle class. There was one famous US evangelist who was charged with stealing from the church and his wife famously said "God didn't mean us to be poor!!"

No attitudes of entitlement are not limited to fecund african american women - they exist everywhere

 

I support late term abortion whenever it is needed to save the woman's health or if the fetus has severe anomalies, and that is the ONLY time women ask for abortion in late-term. Canada has NO LAW whatsoever regarding abortion, and they have no more late-term abortions than we do.

 

However on earth would an ACRONYM dehumanize human life? Actually, how would anything dehumanize "human life"? See, your emotional attachment is interfering with common sense.

 

No, but is obvious your lack of emotion is interfering with yours.

 

What freaking "baby" before 24 weeks there IS no "baby" and if a woman's life is a risk we have to do everything we can to save her

 

Aren't zygotes, embryos and fetuses human? How does using accurate terminology "dehumanize" them?

 

You are free to take that risk when it is your body and your life.

 

I never said anything about her being african or black. I always speak in general. What's you point?

 

Abortion if the baby has sever anomalies? So you want a perfect race? That remembers me of someone . Just a joke don't take it too serios.

 

There is a cell that grows and evoluates. It's as simple as that.