For those who are staunch anti-abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don_Machiavelli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Don_Machiavelli

Guest
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
 
There are many couples who can’t have children who would love to adopt. Abortion should definitely be banned. If couples don’t want babies why aren’t they more responsible and abstain?
 
Suppose I had a one-year-old child. Would it be fair for me to say, Adopt my child or I will kill him? Because that is the essence of your argument.
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/illinois-severs-foster-ca_n_894766.html

The Democrats are also making it harder for Catholics to adopt - where’s your logic now?
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Yes. And we do that all the time. It doesn’t really take much convincing since there are many more homes than children.
This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).
Click to expand...
There is no party divide on social welfare. You won’t find a single Republican who wants to stop social welfare programs altogether and precious few Democrats who support programs that encourage adoption instead of abortion. What it ultimately comes down to is a discussion of how much to spend and how much waste to tolerate. 🤷
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Adoption is hard and very costly. Abortion is against Gods Law and is immoral. Your blanket assumtion that the only people against abortion is a republican is appalling. And not everyone wants kids who is against abortion or cannot afford to adopt children, are physically unable to have to many children or can also be too old. People against abortion come from all walks of life, political parties and religions.Social welfare is fine to those who truely NEED it. The problem is to many people who are on it who dont deserve it, need it use it properly or are abusing it. It must be controlled. Not to mention money for social issues is proven to get used best and goes further when it is in private hands not the governments.
But know this
“YOU CANNOT BE CATHOLIC AND PRO CHOICE!”
If you dont stand up for what you believe you may as well stand against it.
 
I will choose to ignore the political side of the issue for now, since that isn’t exactly relevant to your question (Unless you are asking both, which it doesn’t appear you are).

Your question isn’t a fair one, I believe. It detracts from the issue at hand. The issue isn’t who is going to take care of “unwanted” babies. The issue is abortion. While I will certainly grant that speculation over who would adopt “unwanted” babies is prudent, it isn’t the main focus of the abortion debate. Furthermore, asking those who oppose abortion if THEY SPECIFICALLY would take the babies seems very much like an ad hominem to me. It is akin to asking those who oppose war: “If you are so against war, would you take responsibility for standing on the sidelines while Hitler and the Nazis killed millions of people during WWII?” It’s not a fair question, and it detracts from the issue.

However, in the interest of this thread, I would have to say that personally, if I had a chance to conceive with my (future) wife, I would not be willing to adopt. If we could not conceive, I would certainly consider adopting.
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Yes. I made that exact offer to a friend if she would not have the abortion. We had three kids at the time so we were well prepared for a fourth. Unfortunately her boy ‘friend’ compelled her to abort their child. My wife and I have four kids and we are still prepared to take that step if needed.
 
fermat said:
Yes. I made that exact offer to a friend if she would not have the abortion. We had three kids at the time so we were well prepared for a fourth. Unfortunately her boy ‘friend’ compelled her to abort their child. My wife and I have four kids and we are still prepared to take that step if needed.
Click to expand...
👍👍 If the government allows you. 😦
 
I’ll take four. But actually I would prefer that people who do not truely love each other and wish to have a family keep their pants on and not foster the results of their selfish and unhealthy behavoirs on other people. (especially innocent children.)
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
So, if a person is dependent on anyone else, it’s okay with you to murder them if the person on whom they are dependent doesn’t feel up to the task?

Since when did God die and make you the Author of Life? It is for God to choose when someone is created and when they die. Not you.

By the same token, I think those on the welfare rolls who are physically healthy, should be picked up by the bus every morning and made to do menial labor according to their ability, for the money they receive. Pick up paper on the highway, cut grass, paint government buildings, babysit for those on welfare with kids (have a big building where the bus drops them off on the way to bring “Mom” to her assigned place of work.). No work, no pay. This would cut down tremendously on the freeloaders in the system.
 
IMO What the OP is not understanding - There is no moral ground - no moral argument - that can justify murdering the most innocent of society.

NONE…no matter how anyone tries to justify abortion.
 
I am single with no hopes for marriage in the near future but if someone I knew had asked me to adopt rather than kill their child I would gladly take that child. Abortion is murder.
 
I am against abortion as much as the next Catholic but I wonder if it would be better to instead of praying outside abortion clinics, to hand out cash outside of abortion clinics to single mothers in order to encourage them to keep their baby (with promises of further monetary support.

All the replies to this thread were great, however I dont get the well people should be responsible and abstain from sex, why should we have to shell out cash for their mistake- argument made earlier. It seems to punish a child for the sin of the parent.
 
Birdpreacher said:
I am against abortion as much as the next Catholic but I wonder if it would be better to instead of praying outside abortion clinics, to hand out cash outside of abortion clinics to single mothers in order to encourage them to keep their baby (with promises of further monetary support.

All the replies to this thread were great, however I dont get the well people should be responsible and abstain from sex, why should we have to shell out cash for their mistake- argument made earlier. It seems to punish a child for the sin of the parent.
Click to expand...
We do this as well at pregnancy clinics such as BirthRight or clinics that can be found under abortion alternatives in the phone book.
 
that is the same philosophy the woman who started planned parenthood had. to avoid the child misfortune in his or her life it was better they were not born at all. it would be wonderful and beautiful if the solution to end abortion was to adopt.
 
kimmielittle said:
huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/illinois-severs-foster-ca_n_894766.html

The Democrats are also making it harder for Catholics to adopt - where’s your logic now?
Click to expand...
I think you linked the wrong article. This article is about Catholic Charities not wanting to follow the rules of the State while continuing to be funded by the State. It has nothing to with Catholics adopting children. No where in the article is there a hint of any hindrances to Catholics adopting children. Catholics are not required to use Catholic Charities as it’s only source for adoptions…they can use any adoption agency. And there are no laws that I know of that restrict Catholics from adopting…quite the opposite is true in the article you linked.
 
Rence said:
I think you linked the wrong article. This article is about Catholic Charities not wanting to follow the rules of the State while continuing to be funded by the State. It has nothing to with Catholics adopting children. No where in the article is there a hint of any hindrances to Catholics adopting children. Catholics are not required to use Catholic Charities as it’s only source for adoptions…they can use any adoption agency. And there are no laws that I know of that restrict Catholics from adopting…quite the opposite is true in the article you linked.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what she meant was that Democrats are making it harder for the Catholic church to provide adoption services and since the church is one of, if not the largest, provider of adoption services, this makes it more difficult for the children to be adopted at all. It would also seem from what was written in the article that not only has Illinois removed funding from Catholic adoption agencies but has removed their legal right to operate. I don’t know if that is true though and I don’t really consider Huffington Post a particularly acurate source of detailed news. If it is true, however, it would imply that the persons who introduced and interpret the law in question believe that homosexual couples’ desire to raise children trumps the children’s right to be adopted at all, which I find somewhat disturbing. As you said, there are other sources for adoptions and if couples don’t meet the standards set by Catholic Charities for whatever reason, it seems to me they can go elsewhere and try their luck. What sense does it make to slow down the adoption process for babies who desperately need a stable, loving home by removing contracts from a good provider? I could possibly see the point of such a law being enforced on a government-run adoption agency, but this is clearly a case of trying to force the hand of a faith-based organization to act in a way that is contrary to their faith at the expense of children.
 
Birdpreacher said:
All the replies to this thread were great, however I dont get the well people should be responsible and abstain from sex, why should we have to shell out cash for their mistake- argument made earlier. It seems to punish a child for the sin of the parent.
Click to expand...
I did not mean to imply that the alternative to sexual responsibility should be killing children. I’m completely against abortion in any situation. My point was that the arguement set forth by the pro-abortion folks (If you don’t want me to have an abortion, you have to agree to raise my kid because I’m not willing to stop having sex with people I don’t love.) is rediculous because it removes all responsibility from the ones who are causing the “problem”. As it is, even children who survive abortion and are put up for adoption are often “punished” by a crazy child welfare system before they finally make it into the hands of a decent parents. Sometimes this “punishment” can last throughout the child’s entire infancy, causing longstanding emotional problems which the child and family must then overcome. Certainly, it’s an infinately better outcome than murdering the child, but it isn’t without its scars either. The only real solution to the problem is sexual responsibility. Would there still be situations where women get pregnant who can’t take care of their children. Yes, but the numbers would be much smaller and more condusive to providing such children with safe, loving homes in a timely manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top