Amazon.com Widgets

Should Unadopted children be put down humanely?

Asked by: juminrhee
  • We must do this

    Pets that are found and caught, and placed in adoption centres have a time period. If after a short time no one wants to adopt them, they are put down “humanely.” Why not do this for humans as well? Firstly, adoption centres for unwanted humans would obviously spay or neuter the kids upon entering the adoption centre. This is to control the population as the kids will grow up and mate, increasing the amount of feral humans. If after, lets say 5 weeks, that no one wants that child, he/she will obviously be put down humanely. There just isn't enough room, as I'm sure you understand. What other option do we have – release in the wild? God forbid.

  • Imho no really

    Why would u kill children just because they are not being adopted? It makes no sence. So what u should do to them is make ads and also find people who are desprate thats my opinion but i need more wirds so k k k k k k k k k

  • This poll isn't about humans, it's about animals

    It doesn't seem like your actually serious about this. The truth is that you are an animal activist and you think it would prove all your points to put a poll in such a radical way. Let me tell you that the tactic never works... It just makes you look like an idiot.

  • These are kids!

    It is never acceptable and it is completely immoral to even consider killing a child. There are certainly other ways to handle these issues then killing. It is not a child's fault for not being adopted and it certainly was not the child's fault for being put in an orphanage.

  • Call it what it is: killing.

    Nowhere in your absurd proposal did you use the word "kill", which is obviously what you advocate as a reasonable solution to overpopulation. Have you ever considered that we are not the same as wild animals such as dogs, and that there are other methods to address the population issue? For example, birth control that prevents the process of inception from occurring, so that abortion will not be required later on.

  • No, certainly not.

    Unless you volunteer to eat what you kill. Damn fool scum suggest these ideas, the media superior, espouses death, through abortion. That is what science does. So be it, eat it, if you kill it, lazy momma's. Cheers to you, for unlawful carnal knowledgers. El morinico der pluribicu esl satano.

  • What kind of question is this??

    Absolutely not. I know an orphaned child who came from a terribly abusive orphanage, which is why she ditched it and is living with her sister instead of a pair of adoptive parents. Many children in orphanages are already suffering from possibly severe emotional pain from being given up by their parents- or, in my friend's case, having them dead. Why punish them more by taking their lives away? I am very glad that only 14% percent of us have serious issues and should be put them themselves.

  • No they shouldnt

    The parents of the child both mother and father should have to pay for the child. If u have a kid well then u should have to support it. Dont kill a child cuz u were irresponsible. And this should happen until the child turns 18 or is adopted by someone.


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