When Does Life End?

PostmodernProphet said:
so back to the question of 'what majority'?.....the majority of the 47 million dead unborn children......the ones you want to kill because a tiny percentage might be born deformed, a tiny percentage are the result of rape, a tiny percentage won't be as happy as you pretend you know they could be.
Click to expand...

The article stated, "581,000 children in the US were in foster care, 127,000 of whom were adoptable" to which you responded, "who are the other 454,000?.....kids waiting in line to be "older, abused, disabled, or otherwise hard-to-place kids" like the ones at the adoption party you described....."

There are already 454,000 children who are "un-adoptable" and abortion has been legal for 35+ years. Is it that difficult to imagine what would have happened if we had brought that 47 million unwanted children into the world?

Conservatives like to talk about taking responsibility and how that concept is lacking in today's world. What do you think would happen if abortion suddenly became illegal? Do you think people would have an epiphany, refrain from sex, bear children they didn't want and become the perfect parent? Or is it quite possible it would become common place to bear a child and give it up?

47 million abortions mean there were 47 million people who were pregnant and didn't want to bring a child into the world. Of course, that 47 million is over 35+ years so we can't compare that number to the number of current "un-adoptable" children. If we put 18 as the age of an adult we can roughly cut that 47 million number in half so we would be talking 23.5 million.

We know, for a certainty, 23.5 million people over the last 18 years did not want a child. We also know, for a certainty, that out of the 581,000 unwanted children there are still 454,000 not adopted even though there's no lack of people crying about how there's a shortage of children to adopt.

Are you starting to connect the dots? All the BS about how the unwanted children would be adopted if abortion was outlawed is just that, BS. There would be millions of unadopted children. Millions getting prepared and dreaming of having a family, living a normal life. Millions feeling unwanted and worthless.

No one is doing a child a favor by bringing it into the world when it's not wanted. Add to that the attitude of "You're responsible for making your own way in life" and we see many people do not give a damn about babies nor helping them through childhood so it begs the question, "What is your motive?"



/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

PostmodernProphet said:
I fit in as the guy who actually knows something about adoption......are there unadopted kids in this country?.......yes......why?......not because anyone makes a woman bear an unwanted child but because no one makes a woman give up an unwanted child........these kids have been in abusive homes or foster care because the woman won't release them for adoption or the state won't terminate parental rights until the kid is eight, ten, twelve years old....

from your article....


who are the other 454,000?.....kids waiting in line to be "older, abused, disabled, or otherwise hard-to-place kids" like the ones at the adoption party you described.....

so back to the question of 'what majority'?.....the majority of the 47 million dead unborn children......the ones you want to kill because a tiny percentage might be born deformed, a tiny percentage are the result of rape, a tiny percentage won't be as happy as you pretend you know they could be......all those kids dead because of your irrelevant arguments...
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
The article stated, "581,000 children in the US were in foster care, 127,000 of whom were adoptable" to which you responded, "who are the other 454,000?.....kids waiting in line to be "older, abused, disabled, or otherwise hard-to-place kids" like the ones at the adoption party you described....."

There are already 454,000 children who are "un-adoptable" and abortion has been legal for 35+ years. Is it that difficult to imagine what would have happened if we had brought that 47 million unwanted children into the world?
Click to expand...

idiot....they are "unadoptable" because the courts have not terminated the parental rights of the folks you say don't want them......are you deliberately avoiding the truth or are you simply simple....
 
Hey Apple, have you ever been been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist ?

My curiosity gets the best of me sometimes...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
idiot....they are "unadoptable" because the courts have not terminated the parental rights of the folks you say don't want them......are you deliberately avoiding the truth or are you simply simple....
Click to expand...

And that benefits the child how?

Try and keep your eye on the ball. The point is the child's welfare. Blame the courts. Blame the biological parent. Blame anyone you want but it doesn't change the fact the child suffers.

Do you understand? You must have difficulty explaining yourself in the English language because you can't possibly be as dumb as your posts indicate.
 
bravo said:
Hey Apple, have you ever been been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist ?

My curiosity gets the best of me sometimes...
Click to expand...

If you were exploring something to see what we may have in common I'm sorry to say, "No, I haven't." But, hey, that doesn't mean we can't be friends.
 
apple0154 said:
And that benefits the child how?

Try and keep your eye on the ball. The point is the child's welfare. Blame the courts. Blame the biological parent. Blame anyone you want but it doesn't change the fact the child suffers.

Do you understand? You must have difficulty explaining yourself in the English language because you can't possibly be as dumb as your posts indicate.
Click to expand...

do you understand the inherent contradiction between saying that a woman should be able to kill her child because she doesn't want it.....and the fact that these kids aren't eligible for adoption because their mothers won't release parental rights?......meanwhile, recognize that only a fool would raise the arguments you raise....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you understand the inherent contradiction between saying that a woman should be able to kill her child because she doesn't want it.....and the fact that these kids aren't eligible for adoption because their mothers won't release parental rights?......meanwhile, recognize that only a fool would raise the arguments you raise....
Click to expand...

The inherent contradiction is when people say a zygote/embryo/fetus should be considered a human being but can be killed if the woman carrying that zygote/embryo/fetus has a defective body.
 
apple0154 said:
The inherent contradiction is when people say a zygote/embryo/fetus should be considered a human being but can be killed if the woman carrying that zygote/embryo/fetus has a defective body.
Click to expand...

What contradiction? Generally, that question would focus around whether the defect makes the baby a threat to the life of the mother, like developing in the fallopian tube (where it will die, regardless, in that case).
 
T&A said:
What contradiction? Generally, that question would focus around whether the defect makes the baby a threat to the life of the mother, like developing in the fallopian tube (where it will die, regardless, in that case).
Click to expand...

A tubal pregnancy is the exception. I was referring to uncontrolled high blood pressure or diabetes.

For example, hypertension may damage one kidney. Should a woman be allowed to kill an innocent human being, assuming an embryo/zygote/fetus is a human being, in exchange for maintaining both kidneys?

Uncontrolled diabetes may impair her vision, from requiring glasses to blindness. Should a person with a defective body be allowed to kill an innocent human being as a precaution?

If we are going to classify zygotes/embryos/fetuses as human beings then we have to determine what value we place on human beings? We currently have strict rules when it's OK and not OK to kill another human being so surely we are obliged to make it clear when it comes to pregnancies. If uncontrolled diabetes due to a defective woman's body may result in amputation of extremities is saving a leg justification to kill an innocent human being? A foot? Three toes? One toe?

I've tried to narrow this down for some time now with a number of anti-abortionists but no one has offered any specifics which I find most peculiar. Considering the zeal with which they champion their belief that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being surely they must have specific circumstances under which one can be killed.
 
apple0154 said:
The inherent contradiction is when people say a zygote/embryo/fetus should be considered a human being but can be killed if the woman carrying that zygote/embryo/fetus has a defective body.
Click to expand...

classic....I provide evidence you are full of shit and your response it to change the subject again.......hey, Apple?.....admit your adoption argument was full of shit before you move on.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
classic....I provide evidence you are full of shit and your response it to change the subject again.......hey, Apple?.....admit your adoption argument was full of shit before you move on.....
Click to expand...


Evidence? There are over 400,000 unadopted children while abortion is legal which means people have the option not to bring unwanted children into the world. To suggest/imply/state that restricting abortion wouldn't matter because all the unwanted children would be adopted is....well, just plain stupid.

Again, do some research. You have no idea what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't give a damn about children.
 
apple0154 said:
Evidence? There are over 400,000 unadopted children while abortion is legal which means people have the option not to bring unwanted children into the world. To suggest/imply/state that restricting abortion wouldn't matter because all the unwanted children would be adopted is....well, just plain stupid.

Again, do some research. You have no idea what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't give a damn about children.
Click to expand...

How many have you adopted??
 
apple0154 said:
I had my own children. I put in the necessary "effort". :D
Click to expand...

I never realized it was an "effort".
What a selfish bastard you are.

Your agruments, from here on out, are nothing but bullshit.

I pay for my own Insurance, I've made the necessary "effort".
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
Evidence? There are over 400,000 unadopted children while abortion is legal which means people have the option not to bring unwanted children into the world. To suggest/imply/state that restricting abortion wouldn't matter because all the unwanted children would be adopted is....well, just plain stupid.

Again, do some research. You have no idea what you're talking about and you sure as hell don't give a damn about children.
Click to expand...

I have just proven, using the article you provided, that you know nothing about what you are talking about.....deal with it......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top