Amazon.com Widgets

Should pro-life activists be morally obligated to adopt, love and provide for a "saved child" currently living in state care?

Asked by: BEM1019
  • You made your bed...

    Pro-life activists insist that a embryo is a "human life" and should be treated as such. They believe that abortion is equivalent to murder. The more extreme pro-life activists say abortion should be banned entirely. So, if you believe this, that young life is worth the cost of leaving it in care of the state, well, you made your bed, now lie in it.

  • Being part of the solution

    If Pro lifers are son adamant that adoption is a counter argument and solution for the choice of abortion, then should they not be part of the solution?
    If they actively intervene and picket and slander women on the grounds of morality for choosing to access termination services then shouldn't they also be proactive in their number one solution? I think so if you stick your head in other peoples business be prepared to wear the trauma.
    If you get carry the Plak card and save the baby you get to carry the baby home. Love it , provide for it and raise free from discrimination of being the scarlet letter A off spring.

  • Put Your Money where your Hypocritical Mouth Is

    If men got pregnant and had babies, abortions would be legal and available at Wal-Mart. Fuck every religious/morality based view on the subject. It's absolute nonsense. Nearly zero percent of these pro-lifers have adopted children, 99% are pro-death penalty, 99% are anti-government assistance, and 99% eat dead animals everyday. Killing a defenseless animal is just the same as killing a fetus. It's an "independent life", a living creature, blah blah blah (I'm not vegan or vegetarian). A female egg + male sperm at conception is not where "life begins" and isn't an independent life form. A woman's body is a host for life. The fetus/baby is a part of the host. It's a leech that's attached to the mother and doesn't develop brainwaves until 20-24 weeks (6 months). Anything within a woman's body belongs to her. She should be allowed to decide to terminate the birth or not. We don't dispute the monthly egg(s) leaving her body. They're not a debatable property even though they're terminated babies waiting for sperm. Miscarriage? The mother isn't a murderer when she has a miscarriage or stillbirth. 100% bullshit. The moral argument is complete and utter horseshit.

  • Why be pro-life

    " The ultimate responsibility lies with the parent, and if they are not prepared, then prevention should be taken at all costs. "
    Well hindsight is 20-20. So if the parents end up being crackheads, you would just let the child stay there? That sound like you care for the child. It sounds more want to use babies as punishment for sex.

    "No most of them aren't fit to parent kids"
    So then why is it your business to care about my fetus UNLESS you truly just see children as punishment for sex?

  • I think so

    Pro-life activists want to force women to live with children they don't want so it's only fitting that they be subject to the same punishment. I mean, if they love children so much they would force other women to have them against their will then logically they should be more than happy to add to their family.

  • That's irrelevant and non-sequitur

    First of all, the debate needs to be centralized on the rights of the fetus. If it is a living individual human being, it must not be aborted.

    Second of all, if it is a living individual human that doesn't morally obligate every person who advocated for its life to go out and adopt one. It just means they saw that it was murder and argued against it.

    All in all, the argument is just an attack on pro-life activists (so I guess as hominem should be thrown in there), and it doesn't logically connect to the true issue.

  • No, they shouldn't

    First, there are long waiting lists for people to adopt new borns, so it isn't necessary. Second, if abortion really does take the life of an innocent human being without justification, then we all ought to oppose it whether we're willing to adopt or not. Third, the suggestion that you can't oppose abortion unless you're willing to adopt is just as absurd as the suggestion that you can't oppose slavery unless you're willing to give an ex-slave a job and a home.

  • The argument is rhetoric made to provoke thought

    When people ask pro-lifers why they don't adopt, it's a rhetorical question. Pro-choicers know the reasons why. It's asked to provoke thought. And when pro-lifers understand why they cannot just randomly take on the responsibility of a child, they can empathize with a woman more easily.

    Then when you start to crunch some numbers, you can reflect on whether denying abortion is unethical. In the US, there is about 400,000 children without a permanent home. The majority of those kids are foster kids, and they aren't properly cared for, due to lack of homes.
    In the US, there is about 1 million abortions every year. Which makes you wonder what would happen to these kids, if we can't take care of the 400,000.

  • Get real people..

    What a completely irrelevant point of argument... Outside of exercising your own agenda; how is this not the same as saying,

    "If you're so against pro-life you should be required to go have an abortion to show your support."

    Get real people. I swear half of you care less about the subject matter itself and more about being right/arguing.

  • No, doing all that you can to prevent that pregnancy, would be the best resolution (of course not including rape cases).

    Should pro-choice activist's be required not to have sex unless they were prepared to love and provide for the child they themselves created?

    The question posed above, lays the responsibility of the child on the people that are fighting for the rights of the child, not the person who may have lay down to conceive it (dismissing rape cases of course). The ultimate responsibility lies with the parent, and if they are not prepared, then prevention should be taken at all costs. Pro-life activists are simply fighting for the rights of an individual that cannot yet speak up for themselves. All in all. Prevention is better than cure, my mother would say.

  • No, doing all that you can to prevent that pregnancy, would be the best resolution (of course not including rape cases).

    Should pro-choice activist's be required not to have sex unless they were prepared to love and provide for the child they themselves created?

    The question posed above, lays the responsibility of the child on the people that are fighting for the rights of the child, not the person who may have lay down to conceive it (dismissing rape cases of course). The ultimate responsibility lies with the parent, and if they are not prepared, then prevention should be taken at all costs. Pro-life activists are simply fighting for the rights of an individual that cannot yet speak up for themselves. All in all. Prevention is better than cure, my mother would say.

  • No, but there are other concessions they can make.

    While it does appear that most anti-abortion activists are often only concerned with the health and welfare of a child until it's born, there are less extreme ways they can demonstrate their commitment to the sanctity of life and motherhood. For starters, stop opposing all forms of birth control and contraception. When you stop resisting access to those things, the number of abortions actually goes down. Go figure.

  • No most of them aren't fit to parent kids

    They should be taxed 5000 a year to help run state facilities that take care of children. These freaks mess up their own children enough that I wouldn't want them to have anymore. Especially not any nonwhite babies who these people would teach to hate themselves and their heritage. Children should all be property of the state until they are able to prove their ability to care for themselves at which point they can be considered adults.

  • No most of them aren't fit to parent kids

    They should be taxed 5000 a year to help run state facilities that take care of children. These freaks mess up their own children enough that I wouldn't want them to have anymore. Especially not any nonwhite babies who these people would teach to hate themselves and their heritage. Children should all be property of the state until they are able to prove their ability to care for themselves at which point they can be considered adults.

  • Compassion is needed from pro-life people

    Foster care and the pro-life movement are not connected. Usually, those parents wanted to parent, but they were unfit parents. I think that many pro-life people should be more compassionate. Perhaps, they should consider helping in another way besides infant adoption since most women won't relinquish their children. I say this as a pro-life person.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.