This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Abortion

Reply 780

1

Allthewayhome

There's alot of people who can't have children but are willing to adopt so if you don't want the child or feel you won't be care for them, then I would urged them to give them up for adoption.

Ys but there are also a lot of people only willing to adopt cute, little babies. If people were so desperate to have a child then why wouldn't they adopt one of the older children and give them the love and care that they deserve just as much as a baby does. If I carried on with an unwanted pregnancy and gave up my baby for adoption then there's more chance of that poor, little 10 year old being passed on from foster family to foster family.

Reply 781

ForumFreak

9

CheesyBeans

Ys but there are also a lot of people only willing to adopt cute, little babies. If people were so desperate to have a child then why wouldn't they adopt one of the older children and give them the love and care that they deserve just as much as a baby does. If I carried on with an unwanted pregnancy and gave up my baby for adoption then there's more chance of that poor, little 10 year old being passed on from foster family to foster family.

Completely argee with that. If these infertile couples were so desperate to adopt and start a family then they would be willing to adopt older children.

Reply 782

Melancholy

20

Some do.

However, some prefer babies because they're not old enough to realise that they're not the true parents, and can care for them from an early age.

There are plenty of people who want to adopt babies, as well as older children. I would encourage others to adopt when they're babies so that the transition is at a time where the subject won't remember it.

Sure, many are willing to adopt older children. But I don't see why they wouldn't or shouldn't be willing to adopt babies. There are plenty of babies around, and children. If they're desparate to adopt then they;d be willing to adopt anyone; baby or older children. You're quite correct if that's your point.

Reply 783

CheesyBeans

1

Why would someone suggest that people shouldn't be able to adopt babies if they want to? The point is that if people are as desperate to adopt and have a child as people are immplying then they should be willing to adopt an older child too.

Reply 784

Melancholy

20

CheesyBeans

Why would someone suggest that people shouldn't be able to adopt babies if they want to? The point is that if people are as desperate to adopt and have a child as people are immplying then they should be willing to adopt an older child too.

True, people are willing to adopt older children. People should be able to adopt babies as well, and they do. There are loads of people willing to adopt, and they adopt across all age ranges. More people adopt babies. :s-smilie:

Reply 785

Tufts

17

This isnt a discussion about adoption. Its about womens right to choose an abortion and how some people would like to put a stop to it. Adoption is only relevant once that choice is taken away.

Reply 786

Allthewayhome

10

But arguement also surrounds the right of the child. We knows there's a distinction between a zygote and a baby but when does a zygote have rights?

I made this point ealier but I can't find any soltuion to it other than to say both have must have equal rights and that in not breaking one we must compromise the other.

However can say that the to avoid the unpleasant situation natural plan ning and other preventative methods must be taken, failing to do so one must live with the consequences, again however some would argue there are situation where abortion may be condoned such as safeguarding the welfare of the mother due to complication and in the instances of rape.

Reply 787

-steph-

2

I agree with abortion if the woman gets raped or incest as well as if it causes compilcations that may lead to death. I dont agree with when the woman does it just for the sake of getting rid of the baby due to her mistake i.e. not using protection.

Reply 788

Alasdair

14

**steph**

i.e. not using protection.

So if a condom breaks, she's okay?

Reply 789

Melancholy

20

wesetters

Surely a contradiction in terms ?

No, a zygote has the potential to become life without intervention. A sperm and egg do not because they only have 23 chromosomes and therefore do not have the instructions to become a human. However when they join together they undoubtedly have the 'potential' to become life (of course, unfortunately some do not, but nevertheless they had the instructions and potential to do so). Scientists can not define what a baby is. Potential life is a term that can definately and accurately be applied. There is no contradiction.

Reply 790

ForumFreak

9

But a zygote doesnt just become a life on its own. It needs to be inside its mother. A zygote on its own will die.

Reply 791

Logan

4

question is, at what point do we consider the fertilised egg as human?

Reply 792

Melancholy

20

ForumFreak

But a zygote doesnt just become a life on its own. It needs to be inside its mother. A zygote on its own will die.

Which is why the mother must be responsible and keep it alive. That's just the way it is. Nobody asked it to be for the mother to harbour the zygote.

Reasoning is becoming circular now. The heart of the matter is where your morals lie and what you consider morally wrong/morally right.

Reply 793

PinkMobilePhone

Chat Forum Helper, Life & Style Forum Helper

22

The_Myth Leader

Reasoning is becoming circular now. The heart of the matter is where your morals lie and what you consider morally wrong/morally right.

This is true.

Really we could debate this for eternity.

Reply 794

ForumFreak

9

The_Myth Leader

Which is why the mother must be responsible and keep it alive. That's just the way it is. Nobody asked it to be for the mother to harbour the zygote.

Reasoning is becoming circular now. The heart of the matter is where your morals lie and what you consider morally wrong/morally right.

If a mother and a child are a good tissue match and the child is dying from renal failure the mother is not reqired to donate a kidney to keep her child alive. Why should the situation between a mother and her fetus be any different.

Reply 795

Melancholy

20

For goodness sake! That is an entirely different issue. Who is to say that I'm not against the current laws regarding kidney donations? The fact is that if the woman has got pregnant then she has to live with the consequences. If she is responsible enough to have safe sex in a loving relationship then she needs to be willing to acknowledge that potential life could result as a consequence.

The kidney donation is a separate medical and ethical issue. The mother didn't ask for her child to need a kidney transplant, unlike when she has sex and (surprise, surprise) becomes pregnant. However I should like to make it clear that a loving parent would probably want the best for her child anyway and go ahead with the transplant. Regardless of this, in many occasions there is already a match for a transplant.

Might I also add that I think after 40 pages of justifications one can conclude that this anti-abortion stance is perfectly valid and justified. The rest is where your own morals stand. Interestingly I have yet, very much, to attack your views. It seems, ironically, that this side of the debate is the most compromising and empathising side. I have yet to truly question your side of the argument, as I respect your views. I seem to be only defending arguments rather than attacking; unlike you who seems to be doing all the attacking without much defending. As I have said many posts ago, perhaps it is time to lay this debate to rest. It's being boring. We have justified our side of the debate enough. I am not at liberty to say whether you have decided your side well; however I will say this: we have at least, at great length, backed up our claims. It's a huge moral and debatable dilema for society to discuss; something which a thread will never reach a conclusion on.

This isnt a discussion about adoption. Its about womens right to choose an abortion and how some people would like to put a stop to it. Adoption is only relevant once that choice is taken away.

This debate is about abortion. Part of the debate is about the potential life that would become a child. Adoption is an option for parent that don't want their child but have not aborted it. I would say it is entirely relevant (although only a side-point). It offers an alternative to abortion, in a way, and is part ofn the moral question of what happens to the potential life.

This is true.

Really we could debate this for eternity.

It certainly seems that it has been debated for eternity, and both sides have made legitimate arguments. It is a debate based on morals; something which is hugely subjective anyway. However I hope others can see it is a huge moral question that one woman can't just decide on. One person cannot simply conclude whether killing a zygote (if indeed killing is right word or not) is right or wrong. It is for the academics of society to make their informed decision. I quite agree that this debate has gone quite far enough. No side has made a breakthrough. Opposition arguments are becoming repetitive and we have already offered justifications. There comes a time for both sides to admit; that they simply cannot win a debate of this nature, so highly dependent upon individual morals. Our side has; indeed we're largely just defending attacks. Will yours (not you, xenaglamrocker :smile: