Welcome to Gaia! ::

Another aspect of the abortion issue I want to address today is the quality of life vs. the quantity of life for the potential unborn child.

Pro-choice seems to acknowledge what the child's future predictiments might be. Unwanted children may be wedged through many foster homes, children with mental aborations and genetic disorders may have a life of unneccessary suffering (and expensive treatments), and so forth. Pro-choice is not concerned with the quantity of children being born (while the world is growing more and more overpopulated), rather, they are concerned for both the mother's quality of life and the potential child's. (Although, to be fair, I think that many pro-choicers put more value on the woman's life).

Pro-life, from what I have seen so far, does not seem to address the caretaking of the unwanted fetus after it was to be birthed. Obviously, they do not care about the mother's predictiment (even though it's hard for many to admit, I must say). But pro-life, in their seemingly noble stance to give all human lives "a chance", haven't provided me with satisfactory answers as to where all of the unwanted fetuses go. Well, what do we do with them? And how will they be ensured to a quality of life? Do pro-lifers REALLY care about the fetus, or do they just care enough to see that it reaches birth?

+ If pro-lifer's care about the unwanted fetuses so much, why not adopt a kid themselves? Actions speak louder than words, and I, for one, would respect their position volumes more.

+ somebody feel free to mention that adoption psychologically harms the mother, as well as it's not a really good system of allocating children to sensitive and loving parents. I don't have the sources on me.

+ one could look at this from an evolutionary perspective. The idea of the "survival of the fittest" weeds out the less desireable from the gene pool. If nobody wants a minority child riddled with disorders due to the mother's negligance during her pregancy (she drank alcohol, engaged in drugs, etc, or has diseases), nobody should be forced to upbring it. Some people just wern't meant to live, as disheartening as that sounds. (example, harlequin fetus). Adoptive parents want healthy babies, can you really blame them?

+ For those babies whose lives are prolonged, some do not live amongst the rest of the society. Some have to have special provisions to override nature (such as the bubble boy). In the process, resources are used. Now I'm not saying that humans do not deserve resources, far from it. But one must take into account how much resources a human needs, and what the end result will be. It's plainly not sensible to waste a large amount of resources so one human being can live in excrutiating pain for 5 minutes longer.

Well, that's all I can think of off the top of my mind. comments are welcome xd

very good! I like what you are saying here!

After reading those sources, that's put me right off putting any child of mine up for adoption. Or at least, I'd want to have full consent of where they went, to be sure.