Alonzo Fyfe

Absolutely NOT!

The argument begs the question as to the permissibility of abortion. We have to assume that abortion is permissible for other reasons for the number of adopted children to be relevant. Because, if we deny that abortion is permissible for other reasons we get a clearly invalid moral inference.

Let us assume, for example, that abortion is not permissible for other reasons -- that abortion is wrong. But, the argument would have us say, because these other adoptable children exists, abortion becomes permissible by reason of the existence of a certain number of adoptable children.

If this were a valid inference, then this would not only make abortion permissible, it would be permissible to kill any child on the basis of the fact that a certain number of adoptable children already exist.

"Oh, too bad, Jamie's parents died in an airplane crash and there is nobody else to raise him. But we already have 100,000 adoptable children. This makes it 100,001. Obviously, we get to kill one of them."

No?

Unless it is permissible to kill that child for some other reason, it is not permissible to kill him for the reason that 100,000 adoptable children already exist.

Bad Kitty

For me, no it doesn't. It has nothing to do with whether a fetus deserves the same rights as a newborn.

I'm not saying it isn't a valid issue. And of course I see where you are going with it in regards to adoption being the alternative choice to abortion. And yes Cheetah I *do* care. But ethically I just can't see how that fact affects whether or not a fetus fundamentally deserves rights.

But the question brings to mind the morality of having babies at all when there are children waiting for adoption. Is it immoral to choose to have a baby (or multiple babies) of one's own when there are parentless children in the world? Maybe if people stopped getting deliberately pregnant there would be no child without a parent -- all accidentally born children would have a willing adoptive parent ready and waiting. Problem solved!

How very clever. How many adoptive children do you have, Cheetah? Or does your pro-abortion stance automatically absolve you of caring about these poor parentless children. I see.

Sure, you could make any ill-defined rule you like, if you can get a majority of people to agree. But I mean, what does the second part of that quote mean: "when she discovers she is pregnant". Does she get 15 minutes to withdraw consent? One month, three months, nine months? You would still have to draw an arbitrary line to prevent "late-term abortions". What would you base that line on? Some amount of time YOU think is reasonable for a woman to have made up her mind?

In regards to late-term abortion, I personally think fetal viability rightly has everything to do with it.

And as far as your "flying" analogy, I don't know where you're going with that. It is to be criticized to think ahead -- and perhaps not that very far ahead at all? I imagine all sorts of medical ethicists might disagree with you as we approach the ability to genetically engineer and clone.

abe smith

" Teens shouldn't be having sex". Hey hey... the allegedly-virgin Mary was about 12, 13 years old; and she assented! and she was one of a community --- well, you can read about it , the rules in the OT.

cheetah

It does, because I am not the hypocrite that claims every child deserves a life, then abandons them to the dregs of society. Do pro-lifers care only about quantity over quality? Not that I am to judge quality, but it would seem they do not care about quality, as a few years later, you'll hear those same pro-lifers (conservative) jawing about how that lazy motherfucker better get himself a job and stop living off welfare. Hmmm, they cared a lot more about him when he was in the womb. And if they care so much about life that they would force that child to eb born, they should eb the ones to take care of that life.

Why would I have adoptive children? I don't care to adopt and I am not hypocritically stating that all fetuses should live, thereby implicitly stating that the adoptive population ought to be increased. If they are going to increase the adoptive population by their actions, they ought to have to help mitigate it. I'm not kidding. I really think people should be held accountable for the things they do knowingly, like this, particularly when they oppose sex education.

Bad Kitty

No way. You made a post I agreed with. I even understood it completely. Wow.



Michelle

P.S. I know, the reverse isn't true. Oh well, it's tough being a minority opinion.

Bad Kitty

I see. Well, from your heartwarming statement I can infer that pro-abortion folks aren't hypocrites -- they're just uncaring, unfeeling, selfish sub-humans who feel no obligation to their fellow human beings. Screw all those parentless kids who failed to get themselves aborted, right?

Hmmm, maybe pro-abortion folks could show their softer side and just adopt war orphans. I mean, that wouldn't imply any agreement with pro-life folks (war orphans weren't abortion escapees, so they deserve some compassion), it would just demonstrate some basic human decency.

I guess I'd better prepare my spare room as I don't have the "pro-abortion get out of adoption free" card. Do not pass go and do not collect a hundred dollars.

cheetah

True, I am not heartwarming. If you want to talk about selfishness, though, there's a thread on the benefits of it right now. I am selfish in certain ways, but I hardly see how my stance on the abortion/adoption question benefits me (the definition of selfishness) to the exclusion of others.

And yes, you should prepare your spare room if you want to avoid being a hypocrite, and think adoption is a good solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Then, you'll actually be making a connection between your actions and your words.

Just because I'm not nice doesn't make my opinion invalid. Niceness does not a successful argument make.

openeyes

Notice I said "part" of the reason. I'm not saying it's true of every anti-abortion person, but I do think it is motivation for some. I noticed you said "all". Who is doing the generalizing?

I also think there are some "pro-life" people who may not be religious but are still influenced by the religious point of view that life begins at the moment of the DNA merge (though pregnancy doesn't officially begin until implantation), partially because of the "ensoulment" idea. This point of view isn't necessarily practical or correct.

We humans don't really need all the fertility that we've developed over the eons with the decrease in infant mortality and the added demands on the earth's resources due to the increasing human population. This decrease need for offspring hasn't decrease the human sex drive overall. We have ways to prevent conception, but they aren't fool proof. Responsible parenthood, in my view, is more important to the well-being of society than to award equal rights to fetuses that are non-viable.

TACurtis

I voted "Desire for Control," not because they want to control others, necessarily, but because they are driven by insecurity over the nature of their own existence.

Accepting the absurdity of religion and religious teaching -- which is the root of the "pro-life" conviction -- gives them the illusion of control over what is, at least for the time being, completely unknowable to humankind.

Bad Kitty

I was being sarcastic and making stupid broad generalizations to make a point. I can see that doing so was, in fact, pointless.

Yes, adoption is a possible solution to some unwanted pregnancies. And I connect my actions with my words by supporting early sex education and easily available birth control. So I think I'll leave my spare room "as is".