And there are still over 100,000 unwanted children floating around the foster care system in need of homes. Why can't they adopt one of them and give them a loving home?
Not at all, Im quite serious. Why shouldn't a woman be able to sell her baby if she wants to? The same with organs. Why shouldn't people be able to sell their organs if they desire to do so? Capitalism is the buzzword.
Capitalism at its very worst you mean. A woman should not be able to sell her baby for the same reason that she should not be able to sell her organs: It would reduce the human being to the level of a commodity. We did away with slavery well over 100 years ago. It would be a huge step backward if we were to resume it.
And here it is folks - out in the open The REAL agenda behind "pro-life" - baby farming Funny how America which allows this has such a vehement and active "pro-life" organisation and other countries which do NOT allow profits to be made on adoption have a far lesser push in this direction Not saying anyone on this board is being paid to tout for paid surrogacy (which this basically comes down to) but it always pays to follow the money trail
It isn't baby farming it's simply a form of capitalism that is unsavoury to conservatives. I suspect if made legal women on welfare would be able to sell babies at a good profit, get off welfare, and help a childless couple out. It really is a win-win situation. p.s You would love my solution for hunger and over population in Somalia.
There is at least one major issue which you have overlooked here Bonding Why are not more babies given up for adoption? The rate of this has fallen dramatically over the last 20 years since they stopped the practice of everyone pressuring the unwed mother to "give it up" and taking the baby away from the birth mother as soon as the cord was clamped. BTW I would love to see your solution for Somalia IF and only IF it is remotely feasible and does not come under the "fairy Godmother wish list"
My guess is that it involves cannibalism. Our Canadien friend appears to have a penchant for the comedie macabre.
Buy a clue - Yukon is a proABORTION advocate - not pro-life at all. Did you read any of his distasteful posts?
Not all kids in the foster care system are teenagers. Many of them are young children. I find it very sad that you aren't promoting the adoption of these children in need, including the teenagers 'with problems'. All you want is to have women push out more babies and continue to deny homes to the children who are already here. http://photolisting.adoption.com/foster-adoption/children/sarah-24748 http://photolisting.adoption.com/foster-adoption/children/jakhayia-20779 http://photolisting.adoption.com/foster-adoption/children/alexandria-18125 http://photolisting.adoption.com/foster-adoption/children/kevin-24574 Do these CHILDREN not deserve loving homes? You know what else is sad? After browsing through these listings I am seeing that these children in the adoption/foster system are predominantly black or of other ethnicities than white. So I think it's safe to assume that the people who are adopting mainly want white babies. If you're a woman of any other ethnicity than white the chances of your unwanted child being adopted are probably very slim and they will be stuck in the system most likely until they turn 18.
Of course these children deserve loving homes. I do promote adoption of all children in need of a home...but I was addressing the sad reality. If people think it is okay to KILL their own children if they are inconvienent...is is surprising that others only want to adopt perfect babies? There are many sad realities.
If pro lifers would be happy to adopt all the babies they want women to give birth to, I'd be happy with that. But we know that lifers care about fetuses only, and forget about the baby once it is born.
I may have quoted Yukon as a launch into the topic I was going to post but that does not mean I was implying he was any part of pro-life But it is worth considering - that there is a very lucrative commercial interest in keeping those babies growing towards a nice little profitable adoption
How do you know that? I would think a mother would have more peace knowing that she did what was in the best interest of her child, rather then killing her child because s/he was 'inconvenient'. Not to mention that adoption does NOT increase the risk of breast cancer, as abortion does...
NOT TRUE! And I have provided you the links numerous times in the past, of the numerous pro-life aboption agencies and safe houses for pregnant women & women with small children. Why do you repeat these baseless lies over and over? Do you have memory issues?
Many pregnant women know that the entity in their wombs is not actually a "child", so they just feel relief after abortion. Abortion doesn't increase risk of anything, rearing a child might increase the chance of breast or other cancers. Please notice the references: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/emoteffectsabort_01-07_(spot_revised_05-25-07).pdf Emotional Reactions to Adoption · The psychological responses to abortion are far less serious than those experienced by women bringing their unwanted pregnancy to term and relinquishing the child for adoption (Sachdev, 1993). · While first-trimester abortion does not affect most women adversely, and nearly all women assimilate the abortion experience by six months to one year after the procedure (Sachdev, 1993), one study indicates that 95 percent of birth mothers report grief and loss after they have signed their consent to adoption, and two-thirds continued to experience these feelings five to 15 years after relinquishment (Sachdev, 1989). · Women who relinquish their child for adoption are at risk for long-term grief that can have physical, psychological, and relational repercussions. While this response is comparable to that of losing a child through death, the grieving response post-adoption is often more symptomatic and can be chronic in nature (Askren & Bloom, 1999). · Of pregnant women who considered other options before choosing abortion, none considered having a baby and giving it up for adoption. Nearly all of the women believed that relinquishing a baby would cause even greater emotional trauma than abortion. They believed they would develop a deep emotional attachment
Yeah, quote PP the largest abortion mill in the US...they push abortion for their own profits. And BTW - what else would the mother have in her womb and aborting but her child? Another proabortionist's lie to deny the biological facts. An abortion kills your child, usually by dismemberment.
It's parasitic fetal tissue not a child. As for physical damage that is possible but a few stitches and some antibiotics fixes the woman quickly and she can get on with her life.
REAL studies show that women suffer more from adoptions than abortions. A woman is not a mother until she has a born child. So a pregnant woman is not yet a mother. No such thing as a "proabortionist", do you think you can convince anyone by using misleading language? An abortion kills an embryo, or more rarely a fetus, usually before there is anything much to see much less dismember. See this 12 week fetus? http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/FET_DEV.PIC/12weeks.htm
