|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 1, 2005 14:52:21 GMT -5
Interesting. So it is you OPINION that if a lady has sex and gets pregnant then she is to have to have the child? Regardless of anything, she has to carry the child to full term? Then you oh so casually toss out the ever popular bandwagon solutiuon of adoption. You should really do some research into the adoption business. If you were to apply even a mere tenth of the tenacity you use to research homosexuality and why it should be banned into the adoption business, you would likely not be so free about tossing adoption out as a solution to abortion.
But then, I suspect that you will not even make an honest attempt. Chosose the lessor of the two evils (at least according to your memes).
The fact is that adoption is not only an extremely bad solution for adoption, but it is my opinion that those who so casually toss it out as an acceptable solution just flat out do not know what they are talking about.
You are complaining about the money you have to pay to support abortions, but mention not a word about the money you are paying for the adoption business to take care of all the children who have not been and likely never will be adopted.
Since my wife and I have spent the last six and a half years trying to get through all the red tape and flat out bullshite over my wife adopting my daughter, I do know quite a bit about the way the adoption business works.
Don't take my word for it. Actually look into it honestly. You will see for yourself what a crock of crap it is for people to spout out "put the kid up for adoption instead of aborting".
As far as the killing children part: The fetus is not a child until after it is born. Until then it is liken to a parasite.
I know that my view here will likely not be taken very well, but it is the truth and no amount of religious whining and/or word play will make it not true.
Just because you choose to ignore the 500 pound gorilla in the corner, doesn't mean that it isn't there.
|
|
moonchain
Guide
It raises a fever of intense apathy.
Posts: 595
|
Post by moonchain on Dec 1, 2005 15:42:33 GMT -5
Funny I met a girl a few weeks back (she talked to our social work class about putting her child up for adoption). She had dozens of families to pick from. I do know that older kids are not all that welcome which is sad, but often they have a lot of issues from abuse etc. when they are a bit older. Well then, I'm happy for that girl. It's also nice to see that she put more effort into finding a home for the child. But that doesn't account for children who are just abandoned into agencies or temporary foster care. In this report (caution: pdf file), the statistics show 129,000 children placed or already in adoption agencies in 2002 waiting to be adopted, with only 53,000 being adopted. In this Science Blog entry (which is mainly a Californian study), we see a number of points on minority children and older kids being left behind (which usually leads to some serious trouble for those who end up being booted out of foster care to live on their own). If you look at other countries, such as Great Britain and South Africa, adoptions are decreasing around the world, even as Americans try to adopt from other countries, we still have a surplus of abandoned children. And the Adoption Institute has some more random facts on international adoption. No. But that's the problem. Kids don't get the education they need on what the natural results of their choices are and figure out for themselves that it doesn't matter. So... what are you doing to help girls get higher self-esteem? Do you protest advertisements that show women as sexual objects? Do you boycott movies with scantily clad women in them? Do you tell any of your male friends who try to show of their machismo that their just making douches of themselves? Why should I pay for another unwanted child to be born and then supported by federal adoption agencies until it's too old to stay in foster care? (Mind you, I'm not against supporting children, I'm just making the point that littlepea was making on the expenses that children in foster care really do end up adding up on top of hospital costs to have them delivered. In the long run there is a higher cost.) And even when they're told to be abstinent, they often don't. So where do we draw the line? Oh, and by the by, there is a decreasing number of teen pregnancies, according to this website's statistics (which go up to year 2000, but I've seen other sites that show the steady decrease is still continuing). For some girls, abstinence works, but for others, the proper sexual education is still a necessity. But neither of these "tactics" have yet to reach certain areas of America. And there are always going to be girls who just make stupid mistakes (or, as I noted before, can't prove rape or don't want to for threat of being hurt). chicories? You're spelling becomes scarier. I actually agree with this statement. Only, the difference between you and I is how to go about teaching. I think these two statements go together because a) I noted before that I don't believe an embryo, especially within the first trimester, is a 'person' or 'human' and ergo, I don't think that being pro-choice equates to me saying "if you don't like a person, you can kill them." I hate to sound like I'm mimicking Polytheist here, but to me that's apples and oranges. keep people healthy - like when a woman or the fetus will suffer horribly if born, or when someone desperately needs assistance from stem cell research save lives - above help the poor - like when we have people taking care of kids they can't afford (and the state is becoming less helpful in the area of child welfare), or when a kid leaves foster care and becomes homeless or gets into trouble with the law.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 1, 2005 16:10:31 GMT -5
Well I see humans as people even if they are young I can see that we are not going to agree on this point and therefore most of the other issues surrounding will land in the same boat ( Oh and sorry about the spelling sometimes I neglect to spell check or click through it a little to fast.)
[quote author=moonchain board=society thread=1133299214 post=1133469753 So... what are you doing to help girls get higher self-esteem? Do you protest advertisements that show women as sexual objects? Do you boycott movies with scantily clad women in them? Do you tell any of your male friends who try to show of their machismo that their just making douches of themselves?[/quote]
Actually I do avoid movies with half/all naked women. I have a T-shirt that says “I’m not your husband keep it covered” Some people get offended by it, but the basic point of it is that women’s bodies should not be displayed for the whole world to see. There is a time and a place for intimate relationships, but outside of that people should keep their cloths on. (On average my t-shirt gets 2 complements for every 1 complaint). I’m not a highly active (letters to the editor going on a lecture tour, book writing etc.) In that area, but I speak up when ever I feel it is proper to do so. I’ve had words with several roommates over the years on their inability to value women beyond what they can see. I’ll stop tooting my own horn now, but I am very big on respecting women.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 1, 2005 16:15:59 GMT -5
I agree. Also, I do not feel that the fetus is consciously aware, or can feel pain--and so I do not consider it a "person". Therefore, I do not consider abortion to be immoral, any more than I considered it to be immoral to take the tubes out of Terry Shiavo. I will post a couple of sites that deal with the issue of "consciousness" and what neuroscientist's have to say: www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtmlwww.slate.com/id/2120872/
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 1, 2005 16:18:23 GMT -5
There was a similar argument to yours about smoking and cancer you can deny it all you want. That will not alter the facts. You reject scholarly journals and don’t seem to inclined to accept what God has said on the issue what do you want?
The reason for concern for homosexuality in this particular issue is that they appear (smoke not fire, but worth a look) to molest children at a far higher rate.
If it was up to me every guy who molested a child would go under the knife and have his gentiles removed. It is not up to me, but when there is suggestive evidence that a homosexual man is up to 20X as likely to molest a child as a heterosexual man that is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 1, 2005 16:23:49 GMT -5
Well as I just posted we are not going to agree because I call people people and you seem to think that they only get their status after a certain point of development.
Adoption is the ideal solution to the problems in society however people do not seem to be willing to keep their paint up. (Look into STD's as an example) and therefore we have a problem.
I still fail to see how killing innocent children is the right and moral thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 2, 2005 10:40:43 GMT -5
Nice try, but I never once said that killing children was right or moral. We are not talking about children anyway, We are talking about fetus's. This playing word games to elicit emotional support is yet another fallacy you seem to cling to.
Adoption is NOT an ideal solution. Why you want to think it is is beyond me. But any HONEST research in the matter shows differently. But you have already shown your research is merely to find data that supports your beliefs.
I accept scholarly journals. But not when they are over 5 years old and have been considered outdated for over two. This indicates that it is actually YOU who do not like scholarly journals, because you only present OUTDATED ones that support your beliefs.
As far as your deity.... I have not once made any claim that your deity accepts homosexuality. I have stated for the record that your gods encouraging the promotion of his homophobic agenda does not give ANY LEGAL grounds to ban it in a country that claims religious freedom.
You are clinging to the IDEA that homosexuals are 20x more likely to molest. You have done nothing but present outdated sources that support your belief. One of those sources is over 19 years old!
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail a leg.
Once again with the words games in order to poison the well by appealing to emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Dec 2, 2005 11:12:02 GMT -5
Also, I do not feel that the fetus is consciously aware, or can feel pain--and so I do not consider it a "person". You know what I learned recently? Scientists think fetuses dream because they experience REM.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 2, 2005 14:30:48 GMT -5
I accept scholarly journals. But not when they are over 5 years old and have been considered outdated for over two. This indicates that it is actually YOU who do not like scholarly journals, because you only present OUTDATED ones that support your beliefs. And your social science degree comes form what university? "Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail a leg." My point precisely thank you for making it. Renaming something does not change what it is only how it is perceived. Oh and as far as problems with adoption most of the articles (available on Proquest and Ebscohost) related to international legal issues or problems children have being adopted latter in life. If you can find one that shows that children who are adopted as an infant have significant problems I’d be interested to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 2, 2005 14:57:44 GMT -5
Your argument starts AFTER the child has been adopted. My argument is about the millions of infants that are NEVER adopted. As I said before, adoption is not a solution to abortion and as long as there are people like you who refuse to do any honest research and continue to endorse an option that is merely moving the problem from one ball park to another, nothing is going to get fixed. "I really don't understand right to lifers. Pre birth: We're behind you 110%!!!! Preschool: Up Yours! You're on your own!!" The same cracker jack box that yours came from. Wanna keep playing the ad hominem game? LOL You completely missed the point. Though I am not surprised. How about looking up "Poisoning the well" and "Appeal to Emotion" Here is a good place to start: www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htmIt is illegal for anyone to use silencers. The military doesn't use silencers. The military uses 'noise suppressants'. "Noise Suppressants" are legal. What is the difference between noise suppressants and silencers? Other than the spelling, noise suppressants are legal, whilst silencers are not. Since the scientific comunity does not call a fetus a child until after it is born AND since the medical field does not call an embryo or a fetus a child until AFTER it is born ... Of course with your extensive knowledge of "Scholarly Journals", one whould think you would be well aware of these facts. Yet you continue to use the fallacy of definition to poison the well with your appeal to emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 2, 2005 15:20:19 GMT -5
Yeah I have read some info on that too. Makes you wonder what is going on in there if the fetus really is dreaming?
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Dec 3, 2005 12:28:57 GMT -5
Well I wonder what their dreams would consist of. Sounds?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 3, 2005 13:22:36 GMT -5
It would be most interesting to be able to find out. Whether fetus's dream or not and if they do what they dream about.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Dec 5, 2005 16:17:28 GMT -5
Poly my question about your degree was because you are making an assumption that is not correct or partf the social science filed. Research does not expire after 5 years.
As to my degree after finals (next week) I will be one history class short of my bachelor’s in sociology. The president of this Cracker Jack box was the Dean of the Harvard business school for the past 10 years or so. I must therefore conclude that I am attending a rather good Cracker Jack box.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 5, 2005 20:04:26 GMT -5
Perhaps you do not understand what is meant by outdated? With all the studies on homosexuality in the last year alone, you are going to attempt to convince me that a research paper that is five years old or older is not outdated?
LOL Cracker Jack Degrees. I was playing your ad hominem game.
|
|