Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

Embryo-shmembryo...they ain't worth zilch at 23 weeks, either. Amirite?

 

[Warp12]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7166961523ce53c3c6.jpg[/qimg]

Hey, it's your position, not mine. Or are you saying that developing infants have more inherent worth at 23 weeks than they do earlier in the term?

 

[abaddon]

You forgot about putting baby up for adoption, which basically takes care about the concern finances, lack of home, lack of stable environment, and lack of ability to care for the child.

So you want to force women to carry to term and then give the resulting child up for adoption.

This was actually a policy before. It did not work out well.

See if you can look that up.

 

[Stacyhs]

You forgot about putting baby up for adoption, which basically takes care about the concern finances, lack of home, lack of stable environment, and lack of ability to care for the child.

May I ask if you are a woman or a man?

Speaking from my own female perspective, I'd much rather abort an early stage pregnancy than deliver a child and give it up for adoption. Knowing that I have a child out there somewhere being raised by other people would be unbearable.

 

[Stacyhs]

Hey, it's your position, not mine. Or are you saying that developing infants have more inherent worth at 23 weeks than they do earlier in the term?

You're like a dog with a bone, aren't ya? Go away.

 

[Warp12]

May I ask if you are a woman or a man?

Speaking from my own female perspective, I'd much rather abort an early stage pregnancy than deliver a child and give it up for adoption. Knowing that I have a child out there somewhere being raised by other people would be unbearable.

What an unselfish position. "I'd rather kill this thing than allow someone else to raise it".

 

[Warbler]

So you want to force women to carry to term and then give the resulting child up for adoption.

When the reasons for the abortion in lack of finances, home, stable environment, lack of ability to care for the child, perhaps yes, in some cases. (not rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger)

Adoption solves the problems you mentioned in your previous post, that was my point.

 

[Stacyhs]

So you want to force women to carry to term and then give the resulting child up for adoption.

This was actually a policy before. It did not work out well.

See if you can look that up.

It's not always 'women' who get pregnant, either. Girls also get pregnant. The earliest confirmed was Lina Medina who gave birth by C-section at age 5 years 7 months old. She had gone through a hormonal precocious puberty and had likely been sexually abused by her father. This was in 1939 before DNA could confirm the baby's father. This is a list of births by mothers starting at age 5. As you can see, girls 8,9,10,11 years old give birth.

Forcing them to go through pregnancy and birth and then give the baby up for adoption can be a trauma they never get over.

 

[Stacyhs]

What an unselfish position. "I'd rather kill this thing than allow someone else to raise it".

I'm really tired of your continual baiting and personal attacks. It's obvious and childish. Stop it.

 

[Warp12]

It's not always 'women' who get pregnant, either. Girls also get pregnant. The earliest confirmed was Lina Medina who gave birth by C-section at age 5 years 7 months old. She had gone through a hormonal precocious puberty and had likely been sexually abused by her father. This was in 1939 before DNA could confirm the baby's father. This is a list of births by mothers starting at age 5. As you can see, girls 8,9,10,11 years old give birth.

Forcing them to go through pregnancy and birth and then give the baby up for adoption can be a trauma they never get over.

Except that nobody here is advocating that someone be forced to carry a baby to term, much less a forced adoption.

 

[Stacyhs]

When the reasons for the abortion in lack of finances, home, stable environment, lack of ability to care for the child, perhaps yes, in some cases. (not rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger)

Adoption solves the problems you mentioned in your previous post, that was my point.

You have to take into consideration the life long emotional cost of giving a child up for adoption for many women.

 

[Warbler]

May I ask if you are a woman or a man?

Speaking from my own female perspective, I'd much rather abort an early stage pregnancy than deliver a child and give it up for adoption. Knowing that I have a child out there somewhere being raised by other people would be unbearable.

If you must know, I am male. But may I remind you there are many females whom are pro-life and would prefer that a woman give a child up for adoption rather than aborting it.

Maybe you are right because I am a guy that I can't relate. But I can't can't understand why you prefer abortion than having someone else raise the child. At least with adoption, the child is still alive.

 

[Warp12]

I'm really tired of your continual baiting and personal attacks. It's obvious and childish. Stop it.

I am paraphrasing your own words, which were:

I'd much rather abort an early stage pregnancy than deliver a child and give it up for adoption. Knowing that I have a child out there somewhere being raised by other people would be unbearable.

If that is much different than this:

What an unselfish position. "I'd rather kill this thing than allow someone else to raise it".

Please explain how. I feel it is an accurate summary of the position presented. Just less wordy than the original.

 

[Warbler]

You have to take into consideration the life long emotional cost of giving a child up for adoption for many women.

I would still say adoption is better than abortion. At least the child is alive.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you must know, I am male. But may I remind you there are many females whom are pro-life and would prefer that a woman give a child up for adoption rather than aborting it.
Maybe you are right because I am a guy that I can't relate. But I can't can't understand why you prefer abortion than having someone else raise the child. At least with adoption, the child is still alive.

I never said that ALL women feel that way. But what those anti-choice women prefer other women do doesn't matter. It's not their life.

 

[Warbler]

I never said that ALL women feel that way. But what those anti-choice women prefer other women do doesn't matter. It's not their life.

Then why did you ask me if I was a man or woman?

 

[smartcooky]

What an unselfish position. "I'd rather kill this thing than allow someone else to raise it".

Reductio ad Absurdum.... Spoken like a true fundy

 

[Warp12]

Then why did you ask me if I was man or woman?

Because it is a trap intended to invalidate your position, based upon the assumption that you are likely male.

 

[abaddon]

Except that nobody here is advocating that someone be forced to carry a baby to term, much less a forced adoption.

Warbler is.

 

[Stacyhs]

I would still say adoption is better than abortion. At least the child is alive.

That is a personal opinion and you would have every right to make that decision for yourself if you were a pregnant woman. I don't consider an early stage embryo 'alive'.

I saw on TV just last night a case where a couple's fetus was diagnosed with a developmental brain condition at 19 weeks gestation. The child is now 7, and is severely mentally and physically disabled. She cannot talk or walk. She's the size of a 4 year old and will die early. They chose not to abort which was their right. They've had no more children and their entire lives rotate around taking care of her. Me? I would have aborted because I know I could not have done that. And who would have adopted a child in that condition? She would be institutionalized until she died.