Adoption - Make it an option

Not necessarily.

I think you are being led to believe something that just isn't reality.

Well I'm pregnant, I've read the statistics and I've done the research. I have no fear for any life threatening problems with my pregnancy and birth. It really is very rare nowadays.

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

Ah, another person adopted! Yes.

I don't think there's anyone who's not in support of addoption, with the exception of some fiscal conservatives and capitalist libretarians, as adoption stands in direct opposition with Capitalism, and thus, conservative fiscal policy.

Statistics show it is very rare with today's technology to have any sort of fatality risk for the mother or baby. Unless the mom does drugs, smokes, or those types of things (which she shouldn't be).

About 400 mothers die during childbirth every year in the United States. By removing a woman's right to choose you are effectively also removing the right to live from about 400 women every year.

Originally Posted by 8bit

About 400 mothers die during childbirth every year in the United States. By removing a woman's right to choose you are effectively also removing the right to live from about 400 women every year.

There are about 305,318,046 Americans. 400 of them die a year eh? Well, sorry but that is a VERY VERY small amount to justify a reason not to go through with a pregnancy. Unless its known early on that its going to be life threatening. As for the unexplained deaths at the time of birth, well, life happens.

And that is a completely retarded stance to take. "Only 400 mothers die during childbirth? What EVER." You consider the simple fact that a foetus is alive, regardless of what kind of life it lives, more important than the lives of the mothers in question.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

And that is a completely retarded stance to take. "Only 400 mothers die during childbirth? What EVER."

Did I say whatever? No, I said life happens... You make it sound because 400 mothers die a year, we should go without having children at all. Now that is a retarded stance to take.

Life. Happens.

You didn't use that exact word, but you were waving off four-hundred deaths as expendable if it means that babies will be born. I was not arguing that no one should have children at all to stop those 400 from dying, that's you inferring something by making one hell of a huge jump between my words and your conclusion, effectively putting words into my mouth. I'm simply saying that as 8bit pointed out, forcing pregnant women to have their children, even those who could die from childbirth, is pretty totalitarian and shows a total disregard for the livelihood of that mother in question, purely for the sake of a new potential for life.

And I state again - you consider the future life of an unborn child more important than the liberty of the women involved. You consider the right to life more important than the right to liberty, and that as long as the person is alive, that's all that matters. If this is the case, why do you not advocate a totalitarian regime? This would help to prevent murder and unnecessary death by monitoring every single person twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Sure, those people lose their freedom, but at least they're alive, right?

Who are you to say to go through with pregnancy? Let the woman decide.

I would much rather adopt then go through childbirth. The world is over-populated, and I'd much rather adopt an already born kid, than enduring pregnancy.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

And, well, contraceptions can and do fail, even if the chance of that is something like 10% with just a condom, and continuously decreases depending on how many and which you use.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

With proper knowledge and application technique—and use at every act of intercourse—users of male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate.

This means you would statistically have to consistently use condoms for 50 years before causing a pregnancy.

Did I say whatever? No, I said life happens... You make it sound because 400 mothers die a year, we should go without having children at all. Now that is a retarded stance to take.

Life. Happens.

What? I believe the stance is that we should keep abortion legalized, AT LEAST in the cases where the mother will die in childbirth to prevent these kind of things.

That said, these statistics are taken while abortion is legal. I don't know the amount of mothers who abort their child to save their own lives, but I bet the the number of deaths during childbirth would increase if they didn't have that option.

^ Abortion should never be unlegalized in any way again. That would cause even more back-alley abortions to arise, where the woman has a higher risk of death than a safe, medical procedure.

Of course, my sources are outdated, so don't quote me on it.

Originally Posted by Neurokika

^ Abortion should never be unlegalized in any way again. That would cause even more back-alley abortions to arise, where the woman has a higher risk of death than a safe, medical procedure.

Of course, my sources are outdated, so don't quote me on it.

This is the reason that nurses are allowed to handle abortions in Britain - if they weren't, doctors would have to, and since doctors aren't as numerous as medical staff altogether, people would have to go to back-alley abortion clinics to have it done instead. Essentially it's also the same reason abortion is legal in civilized countries - they know they can't stop people from doing it altogether, so they think it'd be better overall to allow it and do it properly than risk more harm than is necessary.

Originally Posted by 8bit

What? I believe the stance is that we should keep abortion legalized, AT LEAST in the cases where the mother will die in childbirth to prevent these kind of things.

Yes, in these cases its justifiable. I didn't say that every mom had to die to let their child live. But either way, it really isn't life threatening, and if it is, its rare. Like I said, the mom would have be extremely unhealthy on purpose (drugs, lack of nutrients, etc).

That said, these statistics are taken while abortion is legal. I don't know the amount of mothers who abort their child to save their own lives, but I bet the the number of deaths during childbirth would increase if they didn't have that option.

Eh, this thread is slowly starting to turn into an abortion debate... I didn't mean for it to, but when someone gives any reason not to go through with it (whether mentioning it at all), someone will...

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

Yes, in these cases its justifiable. I didn't say that every mom had to die to let their child live. But either way, it really isn't life threatening, and if it is, its rare. Like I said, the mom would have be extremely unhealthy on purpose (drugs, lack of nutrients, etc).

You said that 400 is "a VERY VERY small amount to justify a reason not to go through with a pregnancy." Basically, you DID say that a mother should have to die to allow their child to live.

Well quite simply you are wrong, things don't go perfectly much of the time.

A healthy pregnancy does not guarantee a healthy birth.

You could die giving birth, but oh well you'd just be one of the 400 people who don't matter as long as the evil abortions are stopped.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

You said that 400 is "a VERY VERY small amount to justify a reason not to go through with a pregnancy." Basically, you DID say that a mother should have to die to allow their child to live.

LOL But what you fail to understand is that many if not all of those people actually wanted to have the child in the first place. Believe it or not, some mothers would rather do all they can to make sure their baby lives before worrying about their own. I, am one of those mothers.

Death is a natural thing. If it happens, it happens.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

You could die giving birth, but oh well you'd just be one of the 400 people who don't matter as long as the evil abortions are stopped.

*sigh* Seems like no matter what, people prefer abortion to adoption, and there isn't anything I can do. My thread failed....

This is for another debate, but... sure, if the mom lives, well, there is a life being ended anyways. As long as its not the moms, it must be fine, right?

Take it to the abortion thread if you want this discussion to go on further. If this thread is going to keep bringing abortion up, it might as well get merged with the other thread, if not locked.

I think I'm done here. I didn't come here to discuss abortion, I came here to promote adoption. Seems more people are selfish about the subject then I thought. Thank you for those who support adoption and more importantly, life.

Yea it is, because the child has no worth.

If the mother is endangered, measures should be taken to preserve her life.

You don't seem to realize how selfish you are being.

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

LOL But what you fail to understand is that many if not all of those people actually wanted to have the child in the first place. Believe it or not, some mothers would rather do all they can to make sure their baby lives before worrying about their own. I, am one of those mothers.

Whether they wanted it or not, childbirth killed them, and chances are they didn't see it coming until it had already happened. If you force the people who are having abortions now to instead go through with their pregnancies, these childbirths will then be occurring in people who DIDN'T want to have the baby to begin with, but were forced to because some dick in the government cared more about the developing clump of cells in their stomach more than them.

So if killing foetuses is "murder", so is forcing childbirth and the resulting death because of it. Under the definitions of murder in this country at least, you have to apply a "but for" test. "But for the actions of the accused, the victim would still be alive". In this case, it would be "but for the actions of the government in refusing to allow her to have the abortion, the mother would still be alive".

And I still pose the earlier totalitarian question - if life is so sacred, and we can restrict the liberty of a mother to ensure that her unborn baby gets to live, why do you not also advocate that everyone's liberty be taken away from them so that other murders won't happen?

Death is a natural thing. If it happens, it happens.

Saying "if it happens, it happens" justifies absolutely anything that is physically possible, and does not help your stance against abortion. After all, if it happens, it happens!

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

Putting up a child for adoption is not always an option because abortion is commonly done when giving birth would have fatal consequences for the mother or unborn child.

Yes, but the topic of this thread is children that have already been born. Killing them after their birth is considered murder even by most pro-choice people.

Well, she brought up the whole go through with pregnancies instead of aborting them.

So unborn children began to factor in.

Obviously, a child that has already been born and is unwanted should be put up for adoption, it usually is the requirement of the hospitals to make sure the child is wanted before they discharge mother and child.

Even still this doesn't guarantee the child will be adopted, it only guarantees they will have a hellish lifetime that is the foster system.