should IUD's be considered instruments of murder?

except that adoption often leads to abandonment problems. your argument ad absurdum is not appreciated or helpful. ad hominem. rack em up. exuberance is not insanity. no. he needs to grow up. there's a difference. abortion hardly qualifies as execution, especially when done sufficiently early, you know, like most abortions. clearly. indeed. we're not talking about things getting in the way of fun. we're talking about taking responsible action. the sanctity of life, if there is such a thing, demands that we do not bear children lightly under the idea that "oh, someone else can take care of it." that is not responsible behavior. responsible people get pregnant all the time.
an unplanned pregnancy does not depend on irresponsibility. says you. you mean, your morals. considering the fact that the most vocal and largest group of anti-abortionists also demand abstinence-only sex-ed programs, i think that's pretty clear that they don't. if the government has to teach our children about abstinence and police my life to make sure i'm not killing any Precious Little Babies(tm), i suppose them.if churches wanted to take a tax and provide assistence not dependant on church membership, that'd be fine with me, i'm sure. you've been shown time and again that is not the case. stop saying it. every anti-abortionist i ask about why they haven't adopted a child yet complains about how hard it is to adopt. i have seen the awful mismanagement of cases in this state and i'm sure it's not unique. how's that? but we're not talking about banning abortion in cambodia, we're talking about banning abortion here. why don't they have any adopted american children? also, two on your street is hardly swelling. so you should have a choice about adopting, but i shouldn't have a choice about aborting? clearly. but maybe they've figured something out. it's not all fun and games. these are real decisions being made by real people who understand the consequences. so only infertile people should adopt children? how in the world will there be enough homes for all the non-aborted children if only infertile people adopt? how is "PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION!!!" a responsible action if everyone in opposition to abortion isn't willing to take in a child? strawman yourself. i don't want to kill anyone. i want people to not discuss my medical care in public.if you're upset that you've shirked your responsibility of providing homes for poor unwanted babies, that's not my problem. then doesn't it sound like there's something broken in our adoption system? i never said that. i think people who are not prepared to be parents should terminate pregnancies. it's not responsible to have a child under the hope that someone else will take care of it. especially when there are so few households willing to take in adopted children. there is no action that makes this guaranteed. hell. even abstinence isn't. you might be raped. do you think that married people who have been sterilized shouldn't have sex because they might still get pregnant? btw, i've known several people who did so after being sterilized. no, all three parties don't necessarily win. squirting out a screaming brat just because you have some hope that someone else will take care of it is not responsible behavior. but it doesn't work. and what they do to children that have been removed from their homes is just obscene. they're not people.

Please provide more detail on "often causes problems"What kind of problems?
What percentage of adopted children that found out about their adoption suffer from these problems?
What is the severity of these problems? Are they so severe that is causes the adopted child to turn to suicide, drugs, or (gasp)fundamentalist Christian belief?
Are those problems worse than what the child would suffer under the biological parents? You write this as if it explains something. I never said I wanted her to and told you she had the option of adoption. However, you want to characterize me as evil or judgmental as if that lessens the value of my argument. Because life is so bad it is better never having been born. We should kill the little buggers before they find out how much life really sucks. Yet, you still wish to endure it to its bitter end. Really?
You mean that prior child molestation is a job requirement? You are distinctly implying that child molestation is pervasive within the ranks the child welfare system. How many people work for that system in your state? How many of those have been found to collect and view child porn? It is implied by the fact that 1-2% of adopted children are adopted as infants combined with the fact that it is difficult to adopt an infant since there are not many available. I would look for more data but I want to get this in before the thread closes. They would if you read the charts and saw that around 220,000 children go into the foster care system each year. You do realize that some children are orphaned or removed from their parents' custody every year? I don't know, talk to her instead of trying to paint every anti-abortionist as hypocritical. You are taking the words of supporters of the anti-abortion movement that are applied to different circumstances as if those people meant them to apply in every situation. Those words apply to the idea of a father and mother as a complete parenting group not a situation where the needs of the child are not met even with 2 parents.
Yes I do assume that giving an infant up for adoption in circumstances where it could not be adequately cared for is beneficial. Why do you assume that it automatically is not beneficial for the infant which, it seems, you think is better of dead? It is the default position since there is no requirement to be educated.Edited by LinearAq, : qs or /qs...keep screwing that up

You have not supported this accusation of "so few households willing to take in adopted children" with any stats. Additionally, you have not made much effort to show how this "low rate" of adoptions overall applies to the case of infants as a result of unintended pregnancies.

You really didn't answer my question, Linear.What is it about the zygote that gives it that potential?Its genetic blueprint?How is a zygote's genetic blueprint different from any cell that contains the human genetic blueprint?

quote:

---

If allowed to continue living, they both could grow up to be a scientist, pastor, president of a company, inventor of the solution to global warming.

​

A zygote is a human in an earlier stage of development than a 2 yo child.

​

Hey, they each could grow up to be a Hitler, Stalin or Ted Bundy also. However that is really no argument for destroying the blastocyst any more than it is an argument for destroying the child.

---

If it isn't an argument for destroying it, neither is it an argument for keeping it alive, you know.If the outcome isn't important, then it can't be used as an argument in either case, right?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This thread will likely close very soon, so I would appreciate it if you would start a new thread to address my message #240I am particularly interested in your response to "Alexandra's story", and also to my response to your claim that "everybody should be happy about a pregnancy".

I am not well versed in biology but I am reasonably sure that the "blueprint" is the same if you are speaking about DNA. However the zygote's cells can become different kinds of cells of the human body. I know that it will become a human child if not interrupted from it's growth. Do I understand how that happens or what exactly is the cause of this differentiation that occurs? No.
Does this eliminate me from the allowed-to-have-a-valid-opinion-about-the-disposition-of-a-zygote club?

Actually, I don't see the logic of that. Inapplicability of one facet of an argument does not eliminate the other.Be that as it may, I wasn't using it as an argument to keep it alive. You asked me how they were the same and I said so.The argument to keep it alive is that it has beaten the odds to get to a certain point...implantation on the uterine wall. Maybe that is arbitrary but no more arbitrary than birth. It is alive, being nourished by its mother and will become a member of society if it is not terminated.

Yes. I mean DNA. But, given the correct conditions, many different cell types can, if not interrupted, develop into a child.That's the point.A zygote is just a blueprint.Any cell that carries the genetic blueprint can develop into a child.Why is a zygote special?

Immaterial. No child is born homicidal. Nice strawman though, especially since you are against capital punishment. Then the same can be said for being shot in the head as you sleep. Let me know when the absurdity of your argument sinks in. What exactly is the difference between a person and a human? I was always under the impression that they were synonyms.What exactly defines personhood and being human? Lacking a brain? First of all, at 12 weeks of gestation, all the organs have developed. From that point on, the baby just gets larger and more aware of his/her surroundings. In fact, tell me the cognitive difference between an infant and a fetus (as if that is supposed to decide either way)? Her using that brain would be most beneficial then. You are made of human cells, but what makes you a person? Passing through a birth canal makes you human? I'm saying that it has a right to life. The inability to express one's will does negate that will anymore than it would for a person in a coma. You are using one specious strawman after another. You are a clump of cells! Which is completely irrelevant. You are the one using birth as some kind of determination for personhood. A blastocyst, fetus, infant, toddler, etc are merely descriptions of human development. Disagreeing with that would otherwise force you to take a position that some becomes more human as we age.Cognizance seems to be your main qualifier. Well, a 24 year old woman has a greater ability to express the world around her than a 2 month baby. Is one greater than the other based on their mental prowess? What makes you a person? What about all those people murdered in alleyways? Should I stand sentry in alley's waiting for crimes to be committed? What would you like me to do, spy on people?

quote:

---

:60 seconds before birth = inhuman clump of cells

​

60 seconds after birth = bundle of joy

---

What? You've never heard of that?Yes or no: Is a fetus (an unborn human) a person with rights? Thank you evolution. You completely overlook the context. Notice how only when Mom decides to keep the baby is it considered a BABY... Isn't that completely and totally inconsistent with every one of your tenets on personhood? They can do whatever they want. I can't force someone not to kill another human being. But I can sure make it illegal. It would all be so touching if only adoption didn't exist. If she's "not sorry," then neither am I. Killing your own babies is irresponsible and irrational. I would understand her plight so much better if she just did the right thing. There is literally no reason why it had to be that way.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Random fact.NPR news stated a couple weeks ago that adoption rate from China and Russia, the 2 largest contributers of orphans to be adopted by American parents, have decreased to a third of the rate just 2 years ago. The reason is that these countries have heightened their requirements such as minimum house hold income and parental physical fitness (as in you can't adopt from these country if you are obese or overweight).

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Since it seems that we don't have anything in common, I've been trying hard to see if there's anything (small as it might be) that we could possibly have in common. I think I just found one.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Huh? Could you provide a little more clarity? You are saying something besides a fertilized egg can become a child.I will admit that my biology training is rather limited but I can't find anything of the sort in my search. Perhaps I need some clues to get more information in this vein.Edited by LinearAq, : No reason given.

it is the same as if a biological parent raised and then abandoned them. it is the same as when adults are abandoned by spouses or friends. it is the reaction to being left behind. it's human. it is negligent and abusive to turn a child over to the dcf in florida. they are so beyond not a workable system it's criminal. they've been blamed, if not charged, in tons of child neglect cases and a few cases of kidnapping and murder of children. sometimes, yes. you should be careful what you assume about people. they fail to do complete background checks. how does that imply that infants get adopted quickly? you didn't show me a chart. you said that there were 120some k children in the system but the adoption rate was 220k. the numbers didn't make sense. we've had a thread on it. these people said that it was a difficult decision made on an individual level. as though everyone else having an abortion is recruited as part of a mass campaign to kill PRECIOUS LITTLE BABIESS(tm).i'm not interested in painting them as hypocrites. if you insist on reading it that way, i'm sorry. i'm trying to understand why they think that the decision they made is so different than the decision every one else makes. because abandonment causes mental issues. what part of school is required until age sixteen means there's no requirement to be educated? the constitution is not the only law in this country.

yes i did. i cited it from that link a few posts back. 1.7million households have adopted children. 82% have one child. 15% have two. 3% have 3 or more. there are over 300million people in this country. that means there are approximately 150 million households, assuming multi-family homes and singles balance out. so 1.7 million is very few compared to 150 million. how many babies do they tout as being murdered? about 40 million? there's certainly room, but considering that only 13% of adoptions are foreign children, i doubt there's some massive unmet need for adoptable babies.