Welcome to Gaia! ::

Just wanted to comment on this.

If they want to adopt, then why don't they? There are hundreds of thousands of children who need homes in this world already. If they are willing to raise a child, and can't have one, what's stopping them from doing so already?

Course, there's a lot of racism/ageism in the adoption system, so that may apply to adopting fetuses too.

sweatdrop I'm just wondering, but do you have any other sources than abortionfacts.com? Because, personally, I wouldn't often trust statistics from really biased sources such as them before looking them up on more non-biased sites. And since abortionfacts.com is EXTREMELY, CRAZY biased... xp And a'course, since it's biased against my side, I'm less inclined to go with their statistics. --;


And regardless of whether or not they are being allowed to adopt, if they're white, and the adoption agency isn't letting them adopt colored children, that's unlikely to change, even concerning fetii...


Lastly, concerning the "badmouthing" of adoption by ...Planned Parenthood, was it? Some lifers I know do the same, badmouthing adoption. Their statements border along "She should have to care for the children themselves, because you made your bed, now you'll have to lie in it." or "A slut who is willing to carry the pregnancy to term redeems herself a little, in my eyes, but if she gives it up for adoption, and avoids all the responsibility, she loses whatever respect she's gotten.'


So basically, a lot of people from both sides badmouth the adoption system.

(knows this is old, but feels it applies to self)

Well, in layman's terms, Tough Cookies.

Sure, it's their kid. But it's also a seperate human life, in a different location. You DON'T have an inalieable right to kill your developing child, no matter the circumstances. You DO have a right to kill the child because, if you don't want it, it'll affect your life, and you just can't deal with birthing a child.

So, if abortion allowed a woman the right to kill her developing child, no matter where, when, or in what kind of environment, I would NOT support it.

But it doesn't. It's unique to the circumstances that pregnancy creates.

Shard, when you put it in the terms "right not to reproduce", you're grouping everything else under it.

The fact that we HAVE abortion is something that proves that, yes, there is a right NOT to reproduce, that has been made legal. It's not that that bothers me.

It's that people think that they own their DNA, and therefore can just have conrtol over whether it will be brought to term, in any and all circumstances. When talking about abortion, I agree with this point of view. Artificial Wombs, I do not.

If you had control over the propogation of your DNA, wouldn't the murder of your 2 year old child be legal? If you had control over the propogation of your DNA, in the 'artificial womb' situation, wouldn't you theoretically be able to slice up that developing child that is in a seperate location?

It's not about not letting people stop their reproduction, it's about drawing the line between abortion, and between slaughter of a child for reasons having NOTHING to do with the mother, her life, and her well-being.

Clearly, we're not going to see eye-to-eye, Shard, because I believe the fetus is a human being, a person, and you don't.

Nothing I can say will change that. You and I both know that.

Oh, and also (not trying to sound rude), I'd like to correct this part:



I'd just like to say that from the moment of conception (science proves this, I've even read it up in my health book), that it already has it's own DNA. And it's never, ever, belonged to anyone else, and never will.

It's is a human being:



And the child is, by definition, a human. It can't be a platypuss... it's not a tree, either. It's also alive, because you can't kill something that's already dead.

Good. So a fetus can do whatever it wants, so long as it doesn't involve the anyone else's bod- but wait. Fetus is ATTACHED to the woman. It is taking up living space in the uterus, leeching off her nutrients. It, by living, is involving her body. And if it's unwanted, it's involving an UNWILLING body.

Hrmm... You know, your statement, if you place a fetus in the same category as a human being, has to apply to the fetus as well.

And the woman, can do whatever she wants with her uterus, can she not? The same way I can do whatever I want with my kidneys. If she refuses to let the fetus use her uterus, even if it'll kill it, it is her right, the same way that if I refuse to donate my kidney to someone else, even if it'll end up killing him, it is my right.

I'm just wondering, but would you still find fault with the fetus's right to bodily integrity if it weren't sucked up by a vacuum? (To the tell the truth, I don't think it's usually...torn up. I think it would be small enough to fit in the vacuum. Not sure though, so don't quote me.) What if it were simply taken out. (Assume no harm was done to the fetus)- but obviously, it would die anyway, because it needs to be attached to the woman's uterine lining, but I don't really see how it would violate the fetus's right to bodily integrity. No harm was done to it, other than the cutting off of it's life support system. However, that life support system is at the expense of another person, and it is the body of another person- unwilling.

And could you list some exceptions, please? I can see where you're going, but I'd like to know what exactly you have in mind before I discuss things you haven't exactly stated yet.

*Was under the impression that 'all human beings' and 'everyone as pertaining to people' were the same things* @_______@

It's not that I don't believe what you're saying (though I do disagree), but I was saying that if you implied 'anyone else's body' and suchlike. Erm. That sounded funny, allow me to rephrase. I understand the point you're getting at, but I'd have to disagree.

What I was referring to was that if you say that 'I'm for rights of everyone to do what they want to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't involve anyone else's' would not only pertain to the mother, but also to the fetus, because you implied that a fetus is a human being. Which, obviously, you stated you understood.


Um, I stated that it was 'Extremely, crazy biased'. I could kinda get that maybe you thought I implied that they were not sane, so apologies for the misunderstanding.

My usage of the word 'crazy' was used as an adjective to 'very'. So I was emphasizing it's bias, basically.


I don't know if the site is wrong. I knew only that it was biased. So I asked if perhaps you had another source, because I am less likely to trust statistics from biased sites. I was not demanding one, just asking if you had another.

What is wrong with biased sites is that they do often give inaccurate information. I've seen it on both pro-choice and pro-life sites. I do not know if abortionfacts.com does, though I have heard, solely from word of mouth, that it has. So I was hoping you might have had another source. If you don't, that's fine. I'll go look up stuff myself, but I was just wondering.


Which is fine, because I know that, and I was only asking if you perhaps had another one, and not demanding.



Good for that. I was providing reasons for why I, personally, disliked what I had seen of abortionfacts.com, and why I was more likely to distrust it. I haven't called you a liar, I haven't been declaring your sources to all be false because they are biased, I haven't been attacking -ANYTHING-.

I fail to see why you become so defensive over a simple questioning of whether you had more sources than the one you provided


No worries about that, your post was clear enough to me.