Abortion vs Adoption....... [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

ufcrusher

12-31-2002, 12:36 AM

Personally, I am Pro-Choice and anti-adoption. I really dont believe in giving up your children, its not something I would ever do.

That said.... I can say that under most circumstances, if I got a female pregnant whereby we did not have a relationship nor any desire to be in a relationship, I would bring up the idea of an abortion. However, I would not insist on it, and if she chose to have the baby, I would take care of it. On top of that, in the event that she did not want an abortion and did not want the kid, I would take care of it myself, rather than allow any child of mine to be placed up for adoption.

I have family and family friends, who have adopted children, and they are happy and healthy as a result of this, but I personally could never do it.

WhiskeyPapa

12-31-2002, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by ufcrusher
Personally, I am Pro-Choice and anti-adoption.Isn't adoption a "Choice"? :P

oblongmelon

12-31-2002, 05:23 AM

Adoption.

zenbooty

12-31-2002, 05:51 AM

Adoption. I believe a responsible woman's choice is made when she chooses whether or not to have unprotected sex. Yes, there are a few circumstances where the woman has no choice, and in those cases an argument could be made for abortion. But I would still choose not to terminate the life and instead give the child up for adoption, if raising it is an unwanted burden.

Abortion shouldn't be illegal, though, under any circumstance. I think the question of the fate of the unborn falls under the moral sphere rather than the legal sphere, since you can't really extend to the unborn the rights and privileges of living human beings. The government shouldn't be wasting our time trying to legislate morality. That only cheapens it, because morality itself should be a personal choice.

faither

12-31-2002, 06:17 AM

Adoption.

Crusher...How can you be anti-adoption? If I understood your post, you'd kill the child rather than have it placed with adoptive parents that would want to raise him or her????? :confused: :confused: :confused:

BTW, I believe in a woman's right to choose.

SpeedyVic

12-31-2002, 07:27 AM

adoption

Hunny

12-31-2002, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Somehow I think a poll would be more effective. Kind of a crappy question anyway.

Like abortion vs adoption...answering this question was a choice :P

Where's my candybar :bonk:

SpeedyVic

12-31-2002, 09:05 AM

Putting in my $.02. My other post was really from Ensign Kim.

I do not think that you could generalize a decision such as this. It would really depend on the situation of both parents at the time that the decision were to be made. It is kind of like the Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life argument. In "my house" (I think Kim would agree with me) we are Pro-Life. But that is "my house". What right should I have to tell you what should go on in "your house"? So out side of "my house", I am Pro-Choice.

That being said, my "general answer" would also have to be adoption.

Tough question. Keep-em coming.

Nija

12-31-2002, 09:25 AM

First off it's not my choice. I just have to live with the consquences of my actions. Whatever the female decides I have to live with. Given my current state of financial being, if a child was diagnosed, I would have the personal feeling of abortion. However, if the female wanted to keep it, (and it was proven to be mine :P) I would be the father of that child, and show it all the love that my child deserves.

If she choose to abort it, well, what's done is done, and I would totally agree with her.

And I agree with Mr.zenbooty, re:

Abortion shouldn't be illegal, though, under any circumstance. I think the question of the fate of the unborn falls under the moral sphere rather than the legal sphere, since you can't really extend to the unborn the rights and privileges of living human beings. The government shouldn't be wasting our time trying to legislate morality. That only cheapens it, because morality itself should be a personal choice.

TERRIBLETOM

12-31-2002, 09:42 AM

I am for freedom of choice whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

Cantacuzene

12-31-2002, 10:33 AM

I am pro-choice but there is a line for me. Late term abortions are pretty scary, I cant support them. I think adoption is a possible solution... if you are white. Sad truth is most people who want to adopt want white babies. Orphanages are overflowing with kids yet there are waiting lists to adopt white babies. Its racism but its the reality.

Also important is the situation. Its hard to ask an 18 year old girl to have a baby and/or keep it. Their chances of being sucessful in life are drastically reduced. College is basically not an option and securing a husband of means is almost out of the question. But for a 29 year old woman things are a bit different. It all depends on the give and take of the situation.

WhiskeyPapa

12-31-2002, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Sad truth is most people who want to adopt want white babies. Orphanages are overflowing with kids yet there are waiting lists to adopt white babies. Its racism but its the reality.
It has nothing to do with racism. The reason most adoptive parents want a white baby is because they are white. It's just a matter of numbers and percentages.

I'm not just spouting opinions off the top of my head, either. We support and work very closely with a children's home in Haiti. They are not an orphanage, but on occasion, they do need to find permanent homes for some children. In working with prospective adoptive parents, we find that many just want to have a child that gives the "illusion" of a their natural born child. It doesn't just end at skin color either. Some parents want a kid who's hair and eye color matches theirs.

Also, no fully-available, healthy babies go unadopted. It doesn't matter if they're black, white, brown, or whatever. The only reason a baby will not get adopted is if one of the parents refuses to release their parental rights.

I can't even begin to count the number of families in my family/church/homeschool group that have adopted children of another race. It takes a very special person to adopt and raise a child that is not their own. Believe me, that type of personality and "racism" don't go together.

cheapie

12-31-2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by ufcrusher
Personally, I am Pro-Choice and anti-adoption. I really dont believe in giving up your children, its not something I would ever do.

That said.... I can say that under most circumstances, if I got a female pregnant whereby we did not have a relationship nor any desire to be in a relationship, I would bring up the idea of an abortion. However, I would not insist on it, and if she chose to have the baby, I would take care of it. On top of that, in the event that she did not want an abortion and did not want the kid, I would take care of it myself, rather than allow any child of mine to be placed up for adoption.

i find it amazing that you would rather kill your child than face the responsibility of raising it, or even giving the child an opportunity to live with someone else. i'm pro-life but agree with zenbooty that this is a moral issue not a legal issue, and should be dealt with accordingly. but still, dayumm. maybe it's cuz i have a 16-month-old boy that i love more than anything, and i can't image having killed him because i didn't have enough money or because i didn't get along with his mom. (both are theoretical instances).

as for it being racist to want a child of the same race as yourself, that's bs. most people marry within the same race. is that racism?

Butch

12-31-2002, 11:45 AM

Abortion

The adoption system is already crowded enough with kids who need to be adopted. No need to crowd it further and give each of those kids even less of a chance of being adopted by a loving family.

cheapie

12-31-2002, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Butch
Abortion

The adoption system is already crowded enough with kids who need to be adopted. No need to crowd it further and give each of those kids even less of a chance of being adopted by a loving family.

Did you not read Whiskeypoppa's post? I have experience in this area also. You are completely wrong. It's nearly impossible to adopt a baby in a short time frame in this country. There are thousands of people on waiting lists begging for a child, and not caring about the gender or race. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are talking about older children. There are many teens that need adoption. However, to claim that there are orphanages being crowded with babies waiting for parents is incorrect.

Butch

12-31-2002, 12:02 PM

Hence why I didn't say babies.

sbp

12-31-2002, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I think adoption is a possible solution... if you are white. Sad truth is most people who want to adopt want white babies. Orphanages are overflowing with kids yet there are waiting lists to adopt white babies. Its racism but its the reality.You forgot about the black social workers union who only want black babies to be adopted by blacks. Thats not racism is it? :o

What about all these white couples who were going to Asian countries and adopting Asian babies? :hmm:

True kb0wwp. I've seen quite a number of white couples with adopted kids of another race.

As for the question at hand: Had a couple cousins who were adopted. You couldn't ask for better parents than they got.

Pinkgirl36

12-31-2002, 12:38 PM

I would never want to do either, but I think I would have to go with adoption. It would be hard to deal with say 20 years later when your kid shows up wanting to know why you gave them up and they think that you don't love them or something. It's a hard thing to understand when a parent(s) abandon you and you try to seek them out again.

But then again, I know a few people that have had abortions, and they honestly aren't the same after something inside them dies ( and I don't mean the unborn baby ) but one girl I know after she had an abortion, you could look in to her eyes and they were always sad, always missing something that she knew she would never have again.

WhiskeyPapa

12-31-2002, 12:47 PM

Isn't it amazing the troubles you can avoid by simply keeping your pants on? :heh:

cheapie

12-31-2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by kb0wwp
Isn't it amazing the troubles you can avoid by simply keeping your pants on? :heh:

this coming from a guy with 9 kids? :heh:

InfiniteNothing

12-31-2002, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd

this coming from a guy with 9 kids? :heh:
9 kids!? What do you have? a farm? Don't you realize the population of the US and the world is quickly over growing. We will eventually hit our max (3*10^10)and then half of us will die of starvation. If everyone would just be a little more responsible and have 2.1 kids, we wont EVER see that happen.

Jenny

12-31-2002, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

9 kids!? What do you have? a farm? Don't you realize the population of the US and the world is quickly over growing. We will eventually hit our max (3*10^10)and then half of us will die of starvation. If everyone would just be a little more responsible and have 2.1 kids, we wont EVER see that happen.

Ok, for the sake of my sanity, I'm refraining from commenting on the rest of this thread, but damn man, I hope you were joking with this post! He is married, raising 9 children without the help of the government and without relying on other people to pay for or raise his children and you slam him?? Save that attitude for the idiots who pop out child after child after child and don't bother giving them to parents who WOULD raise them well, instead they rely on welfare and don't worry about birth control!

TERRIBLETOM

12-31-2002, 01:22 PM

InfiniteNothing

12-31-2002, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Jenny

Ok, for the sake of my sanity, I'm refraining from commenting on the rest of this thread, but damn man, I hope you were joking with this post! He is married, raising 9 children without the help of the government and without relying on other people to pay for or raise his children and you slam him?? Save that attitude for the idiots who pop out child after child after child and don't bother giving them to parents who WOULD raise them well, instead they rely on welfare and don't worry about birth control!

Fair point. It really could be alot worse.

I think there is a restriction in China or there used to be of 1 child. I'm not looking for a legal restriction. I just want people restraining themselves

TERRIBLETOM

12-31-2002, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

I just want people restraining themselves You'll never get that, especially with the younger generation and there raging hormones and the older generation and there search for love. Then you just have the people out there who love the one night stands...

Nija

12-31-2002, 01:37 PM

i6s1

12-31-2002, 01:46 PM

My grandparents adopted a kid with red hair cause they already had 3 naturals with red hair. I guess they're racist against Brown/Blond hair.

No, white people adopting white babies has nothing to do with racism.

EDIT

Adoption.

I believe abortion is immoral, and population control is no reason for killing babies. 1st world countries have declining populations. As the 2nd and 3rd world countries join the 1st world, thier growth rates will flatten out as well. Its nothing to worry about.

InfiniteNothing

12-31-2002, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
You'll never get that, especially with the younger generation and there raging hormones and the older generation and there search for love. Then you just have the people out there who love the one night stands...
If I can't "get there" I can aleast convince a few people. Perhaps wars, plagues, and abortions will take care of the left over? I can atleast try and slow down the growth.

Kim

12-31-2002, 01:57 PM

InfiniteNothing

12-31-2002, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by i6s1

Adoption.

I believe abortion is immoral, and population control is no reason for killing babies. 1st world countries have declining populations. As the 2nd and 3rd world countries join the 1st world, thier growth rates will flatten out as well. Its nothing to worry about.
I agree that abortion should not be done for popuration control reasons alone but it is a selling point if you ask me. Still, note that in my situation, I'd never abort a child.
Even if we are not at our carrying capacity the earth is over populated. Who cares if it's tapering off, it could be better. Watch the population rise (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/clock2.html)

InfiniteNothing

12-31-2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Kim

oh my....

Why don't you not have any kids, to make up for those of us who can take care of more than the 2.1 you suggest.

That's not really fair is it? I think everyone has the right to the joys of parent hood iregardless. I'm just not crazy about the number of "joys" (kids) people have.

TERRIBLETOM

12-31-2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

If I can't "get there" I can aleast convince a few people. Perhaps wars, plagues, and abortions will take care of the left over? I can atleast try and slow down the growth. I hope it wont dig into any of my tax dollars.

WhiskeyPapa

12-31-2002, 02:19 PM

http://www.pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis.com/popmap.jpg

I don't see a problem. Just confine the wars, plagues, and abortions to the blue areas! :P

Nija

12-31-2002, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by kb0wwp
*that freakin' map that he loves*

I don't see a problem. Just confine the wars, plagues, and abortions to the blue areas! :P

good lord, that map has been chopped almost as many times as Passwird's head... sheesh :P

TERRIBLETOM

12-31-2002, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by kb0wwp

I don't see a problem. Just confine the wars, plagues, and abortions to the blue areas! :P Looks like 99% of the country is doing just fine.

Hunny

12-31-2002, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
[B]Somehow I think a poll would be more effective. Kind of a crappy question anyway. [QUOTE]

:shake:

[QUOTE]Anyone for a candybar? :bonk:

Bravo for the one with 9 Children..If that was your choice..and as long as you have healthy, happy children and you love them, take care of them, feed & clothe them...and educate them about contraceptives ;)
...9 children is not an easy task, I'm sure of it... because let me tell you, two is enough for me...

I've never had an abortion, and I've never had to put a child up for adoption, but I'm sure for either choice, its not easy..no matter if you were having fun spreading your legs to begin with...
S*** happens...and I really believe that its a rare few of us that during the "hot, intense,moment" really give too much THOUGHT to the consequences...:rolleyes:

Remember that next time you get drunk and you make an ass out of yourself and someone reminds you of that fact the following morning...
...and now I'm off on my own little path here

:rolleyes:

Have a great New Years !!

InfiniteNothing

12-31-2002, 05:22 PM

I am amazed at how quickly SOME people can be decieved. I guess it's not so hard to understand how people could belive something just because it agrees with them. Still, I'm suprised with the lack of education about the growing population problem. Also I'm thinking we should redefine 99%. It seems to be abused so frequently.

While it's good that you can support your kids, this planet can't support them. We have a limited amount of fossil fuels that will be depleted some day. Another example is the ground only has so many nutrients and plants that are grown too fast don't provide the same nutrition as plants. In short there are only so many resources on this planet. By giving birth to your children you may inadvertently consume some of the planets non renewable resources.
I'm guessing that many of your kids will drive, poluting the air. Now this is just one way they polute the planet. How about their refuse? I hope you are teaching them to recycle.
In Human's short stay on this planet we've changed the evironment so fast mother nature can't keep up. Normally (like durring an ice age) animals evolve to survive. The change happens over a long period of time. Today we change the evironment so fast animals don't have time to evolve and animals are going extinct at record rates. Well, I've exhausted my freshman enviornmental science knowledge on overpopulation.
Anyway you put it, the earth and it's evironment are probably better off if humans morally self impose a 2.1 child restriction.
I had an idea from Kim. I'm not sure how well it would work. Perhaps we (those of us who wanted to have more than 2.1 children) could buy the rights to procreate from those who really shouldn't have kids, and sterelize them.

TERRIBLETOM

12-31-2002, 05:32 PM

What is the percentage of animals endangered of extinction because of not being able to adapt to the changing environment as compared to the ones that are endangered because we as humans have literally killed them off for food or game in the past 100 years?

ufcrusher

12-31-2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd

i find it amazing that you would rather kill your child than face the responsibility of raising it, or even giving the child an opportunity to live with someone else. i'm pro-life but agree with zenbooty that this is a moral issue not a legal issue, and should be dealt with accordingly. but still, dayumm. maybe it's cuz i have a 16-month-old boy that i love more than anything, and i can't image having killed him because i didn't have enough money or because i didn't get along with his mom. (both are theoretical instances).

as for it being racist to want a child of the same race as yourself, that's bs. most people marry within the same race. is that racism?

Where the heck did you get the idea that I would rather kill my child then take the responsibility fo raising it? I said and I quote, "... and if she chose to have the baby, I would take care of it. On top of that, in the event that she did not want an abortion and did not want the kid, I would take care of it myself, rather than allow any child of mine to be placed up for adoption."

If you are getting that I would rather kill the child then raise it, you are completely misunderstanding what I said. I have a problem with adoption, for the simple reason that it IS NOT taking care of your responsibility. It is simply passing the buck to someone else.

sbp

12-31-2002, 09:53 PM

InfiniteNothing: what is the primary cause of the US population increase?

InfiniteNothing

12-31-2002, 10:36 PM

I'd guess Imigration. You tell me.

TERRIBLETOM

12-31-2002, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I'd guess Imigration. You tell me. I would second that.

Cantacuzene

01-01-2003, 12:27 AM

Immagration has nothing to do with it. Nature expands to fill a vacuum. We had so much untapped resouces that it makes sense that people filled in the gaps. Between 1760-1790 our population doubled. Granted much was to immagration but much of that immagrationw as to available resources.

Th eproblem is people dopnt know how to "slow down" when its time to stop.

Cantacuzene

01-01-2003, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by kb0wwp
http://www.pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis.com/popmap.jpg

I dont see a problem either. The blue areas seem to also be where people with college degrees live, the red where Red neck hicks live. Just my idea but college educated people > hicks.

LPMiller

01-01-2003, 07:09 AM

That map is false.

the blue area in northern Minnesota? That's a heck of a lot of protected land, filled with maybe 6 people. There are many things you can say about the North Shore, including how beautiful it is, but you can't call it over populated.

I'll have to find the link, but most over population crying is a myth. The earth is NOT overcrowded, though areas of it are. And we have more than enough resources to feed everybody. We in this country dump tons of food every year. Just the US could end the hunger problem in Africa, we make so much friggin food.

Besides, having Less kids in America is not going to solve any population problem. You don't try saving water by fixing the only faucets in the house that don't have a leak.

Jenny

01-01-2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

I dont see a problem either. The blue areas seem to also be where people with college degrees live, the red where Red neck hicks live. Just my idea but college educated people > hicks.

Wow. You have never sounded more like a ****ing jackass than you did with that paragraph.

Kim

01-01-2003, 07:36 AM

You make me glad to be a hick Canta.

Jenny

01-01-2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Kim
You make me glad to be a hick Canta.

:stupid:

TERRIBLETOM

01-01-2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Immagration has nothing to do with it. Nature expands to fill a vacuum. We had so much untapped resouces that it makes sense that people filled in the gaps. Between 1760-1790 our population doubled. Granted much was to immagration but much of that immagrationw as to available resources.

Th eproblem is people dopnt know how to "slow down" when its time to stop. So you're saying that 25 Immigrants jumping out of a rowboat and swimming to shore to avoid the coast guard then running through the streets of Florida isn't a primary concern for over population among other things?

WhiskeyPapa

01-01-2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by LPMiller
That map is false. It was a joke. It's the "Bush/Gore" map from USA Today. I just like to throw it up whenever I can! :P

And InfiniteNothing, you're spouting the ZPG pap that everyone gets bombarded with in government schools. Once you spend a few years away from the government nanny system, you'll start to see that not everything you learn in school is true. The earth is much bigger than you can comprehend.

InfiniteNothing

01-01-2003, 01:38 PM

I'm willing to be open minded. I'd like to have more than 2 kids, I just thought it was socially irresponsible. I've never heard any concrete evidence that the population is okay. I'm glad you finally told people the map was fake. I thought they figued that after the Photochop comment. Anyhow, any evidence you could give me that the earth is apreciated. Keep in mind that even if the earth isn't over populated, it may soon be. Evidence to the contrary is again apreciated. You're right, I belive what I hear in highschool; I have good reason to trust them.

It occured to me. Canta thought all the red was hicks. His not so hidden thought about republicans is revealed, again.

LPMiller

01-01-2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I'm willing to be open minded. I'd like to have more than 2 kids, I just thought it was socially irresponsible. I've never heard any concrete evidence that the population is okay. I'm glad you finally told people the map was fake. I thought they figued that after the Photochop comment. Anyhow, any evidence you could give me that the earth is apreciated. Keep in mind that even if the earth isn't over populated, it may soon be. Evidence to the contrary is again apreciated. You're right, I belive what I hear in highschool; I have good reason to trust them.

It occured to me. Canta thought all the red was hicks. His not so hidden thought about republicans is revealed, again.

Son, in high school they told me we'd be out of fossil fuels by 2001. They told me the pollution would be so bad, there would be days we'd need oxygen masks for breathing. They told me we'd have a base on the moon, and that space travel - just for fun - would be available. They told me high school would be the best years of my life, that AIDS would kill most of the people I knew before I was 30, that the 'Japs' would own all of America, that computers would rule the world.

They got one right.

The first thing you learn in high school is to not believe everything.

InfiniteNothing

01-01-2003, 03:47 PM

LOL, all I gotta say is LOL.

x1337xD335C1P13x

01-01-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

Fair point. It really could be alot worse.

I think there is a restriction in China or there used to be of 1 child. I'm not looking for a legal restriction. I just want people restraining themselves

Started 2002, it was 2, but parents there still want males to pass on the family name, just making it worse.

WhiskeyPapa

01-01-2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by LPMiller
Son, in high school they told me we'd be out of fossil fuels by 2001. They told me the pollution would be so bad, there would be days we'd need oxygen masks for breathing. They told me we'd have a base on the moon, and that space travel - just for fun - would be available.
And flying cars! Dang it, they said there would be flying cars by the year 2000! I want my flying car!

You know, IN, I appreciate that you are willing to consider other possibilities. I was probably a little too harsh in my response to you. Your teachers work with the best information that is given to them. Unfortunately, that information does not always come from the most reliable sources.

Let me give you one example - You've probably heard that second-hand smoke kills 50,000 people each year. That conclusion was reported by the World Health Organization (part of the United Nations) and was based on the results of 8 independent studies. What you probably weren't told was that the WHO actually considered 15 studies before issuing their conclusions. 7 of those studies showed there was no measurable increase in death rates due to second hand smoke. In fact, the WHO's own study showed that death rates actually showed a slight decrease among non-smokers living with smokers!

What does that mean, that smoking is good? No, it means that no positive link can be made at this time between second-hand smoke and increased death rates. But that didn't stop the WHO from telling us that smokers kill 50,000 innocent people every year.

Everything you are taught gets run through a "template" - if it doesn't match up to the school administration/teacher union/government template, you don't get to hear it. It's not just a liberal/Democrat thing either, conservatives/Republicans have their own templates.

So when you hear some alarming news or statistics, look at the organization from which the information comes, and see what motives they may have.

And one final point - the school system tends to portray people as nothing more than "consumers" - we simply consume resources. The fact is: people are resources! You, me, my children, and your future children are the most important resource this country has, or ever will have.

InfiniteNothing

01-01-2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by kb0wwp
and one final point - the school system tends to portray people as nothing more than "consumers" - we simply consume resources. The fact is: people are resources! You, me, my children, and your future children are the most important resource this country has, or ever will have.

That's what I was thinking with my "buying birthright" post. I just tend to think some people are more of a resource than other. Sad truth.

I'm not sure I agree though. I see humans a burden to the earth. Between global warming and landfill filling it seems almost selfish to want more than 2 or 3 kids.

latingirl

01-02-2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Kim
You make me glad to be a hick Canta.

:bigmouth:

latingirl

01-02-2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by ufcrusher
Personally, I am Pro-Choice and anti-adoption. I really dont believe in giving up your children, its not something I would ever do.

Isn't abortion basically "giving up your child"?

I would put my kid up for adoption. But, I would also want to have the potential parents screened first. I would be putting my child up for adoption so that they could have a better chance a life than I could give them, not put them into an abusive home.

Also, its an individual's prerogative on how many children they want to have. As long as they are providing for them, taking care of them and teaching them to be good, productive, healthy people no one has the right to complain.

Cantacuzene

01-02-2003, 01:16 PM

I'm glad to see people recognize a joke. The Bush Gore map is always humorous. Anyone offended by what I said needs to go stick their head in teh sand.

WhiskeyPapa

01-02-2003, 01:52 PM

FWIW, Canta, I'm glad you got my joke, and I thought your's was pretty funny too.

InfiniteNothing

01-02-2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by latingirl

Also, its an individual's prerogative on how many children they want to have. As long as they are providing for them, taking care of them and teaching them to be good, productive, healthy people no one has the right to complain.

That's like saying we should have no emission controls on vehicals. We have responsibility to the greater good of society.

blueindian

01-03-2003, 04:10 AM

i've stayed out of this thread so far, but i guess now it's time for my 2 cents...

adoption would be my choice, though others can choose as they see fit. i do think we need legislation around 2nd and 3rd trimester adoptions.

canta is funny.

totally agree with infinate nothing.

i6s1

01-03-2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing

That's like saying we should have no emission controls on vehicals. We have responsibility to the greater good of society.

Or it's like saying that its alright to drive your car. For fun. Or cause you just want to.

Kevster

01-03-2003, 02:37 PM

I would choose Adoption. No matter what. Here's why:

In late April 1971 I was born and my birth-mother who was only 18 at the time (and apparently with no support from the parents and the sperm-donor skipped town) tried to take care of me. I was a sick little baby with a recurring ear infection problem. I was apparently in-and-out of the hospital for a couple of months because of these ear infections. After 4 months, my birth-mother made the huge decision to give me up for adoption because she apparently felt she couldn't give me the care I needed and wanted me to have a better life. I was placed in foster care with the Children's Home Society of Oakland, CA in order to make sure I was a happy, healthy baby. I was adopted on October 26th, 1971 by my parents (who then quickly created my brother after trying for the last 6 years). My arrival was such a suprise to my parents (they literally got a phone call saying, "Hi - we have a little baby boy here waiting for you - would you like to take him home?") that they had no baby items whatsoever and the whole neighborhood and a bunch of my parents' family showed up that day with baby stuff to give my parents.

I am pretty sure I would not have had the education or the opportunities that I had growing up had I been with my birth mother. I am living proof that adoption works.

I had a very closed adoption. I know little more than my ethnicity, place of birth and when I was adopted. I have never tried to contact my birth-mother nor do I have a desire to. If she ever wanted to get a hold of me, I have made that information available through the adoption agency.

TERRIBLETOM

01-03-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Kevster
I would choose Adoption. No matter what. Here's why:

In late April 1971 I was born and my birth-mother who was only 18 at the time (and apparently with no support from the parents and the sperm-donor skipped town) tried to take care of me. I was a sick little baby with a recurring ear infection problem. I was apparently in-and-out of the hospital for a couple of months because of these ear infections. After 4 months, my birth-mother made the huge decision to give me up for adoption because she apparently felt she couldn't give me the care I needed and wanted me to have a better life. I was placed in foster care with the Children's Home Society of Oakland, CA in order to make sure I was a happy, healthy baby. I was adopted on October 26th, 1971 by my parents (who then quickly created my brother after trying for the last 6 years). My arrival was such a suprise to my parents (they literally got a phone call saying, "Hi - we have a little baby boy here waiting for you - would you like to take him home?") that they had no baby items whatsoever and the whole neighborhood and a bunch of my parents' family showed up that day with baby stuff to give my parents.

I am pretty sure I would not have had the education or the opportunities that I had growing up had I been with my birth mother. I am living proof that adoption works.

I had a very closed adoption. I know little more than my ethnicity, place of birth and when I was adopted. I have never tried to contact my birth-mother nor do I have a desire to. If she ever wanted to get a hold of me, I have made that information available through the adoption agency. This is probably the only positive post in this whole thread, The nice thing is that it's "fact" NOT based on polls or scenarios, I'm glad everything worked out...

Hunny

01-03-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Kevster
I would choose Adoption. No matter what. Here's why:

I had a very closed adoption. I know little more than my ethnicity, place of birth and when I was adopted. I have never tried to contact my birth-mother nor do I have a desire to. If she ever wanted to get a hold of me, I have made that information available through the adoption agency.

I just sat and read your story :) ...You not only sound like a remarkable man, but a very grounded man...and obviously to know your background like you do,or enough to tell your story, you have remarkable parents...I will have to say this, your parents are the lucky ones ... You're not even mine, and you make me proud :P

Want a candybar? :bonk: :D