T
Hmmm ... I don't think so. You still don't seem to understand my hypothesis.
I never said it was, and I have no idea where you got that idea.
I said usually those who are against allowing abortions to remain legal say that adoption is a better alternative to abortion. Do you think that women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy should not consider adoption as an option? Should their only choices be abortion or keep the child? That doesn't really make sense to me. If this is what you're saying, you're going to have to explain why you feel that way.
Great -- for your friend, it worked out well. She was adopted by a loving family. There are thousands -- maybe millions -- of children who do NOT have a happy ending. They end up getting bounced from foster home to foster home. Some of them can pull through and succeed despite this, but I know many who could not. Finding one example -- or even a thousand examples -- of cases where it worked does not negate the times when children ARE devalued.
No, you totally missed the whole point of the hypothesis. The point of this was that these un-born babies would NOT be "thrown away." Hopefully, they would be adopted by parents who wanted them for whatever reason -- couples who wanted to have children, can't have their own for various reasons, this would be perhaps a better option than adoption, because it allows for better bonding between parent and child, saves money, is much safer -- both for mom and child...
I NEVER suggested "throwing them away." Scanning through the thread, you're the only one who has brought that up. Which somewhat begs the question: if you think embryos are so disposable that you read "throw them away" into a paragraph that never mentions or hints at it, what does that say?
If you are willing, please re-read the original post, keeping in mind that I am NOT suggesting that anyone kill these embryos. On the contrary, I am suggesting a hypothetical solution for all unwanted pregnancies to be saved, not killed. Re-read it, as I wrote it, and tell me why this is a bad thing.
It sounds to me like you're saying it's better for a fetus to be aborted than dehumanized, and that still makes no sense.
I never said it was, and I have no idea where you got that idea.
I said usually those who are against allowing abortions to remain legal say that adoption is a better alternative to abortion. Do you think that women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy should not consider adoption as an option? Should their only choices be abortion or keep the child? That doesn't really make sense to me. If this is what you're saying, you're going to have to explain why you feel that way.
Great -- for your friend, it worked out well. She was adopted by a loving family. There are thousands -- maybe millions -- of children who do NOT have a happy ending. They end up getting bounced from foster home to foster home. Some of them can pull through and succeed despite this, but I know many who could not. Finding one example -- or even a thousand examples -- of cases where it worked does not negate the times when children ARE devalued.
No, you totally missed the whole point of the hypothesis. The point of this was that these un-born babies would NOT be "thrown away." Hopefully, they would be adopted by parents who wanted them for whatever reason -- couples who wanted to have children, can't have their own for various reasons, this would be perhaps a better option than adoption, because it allows for better bonding between parent and child, saves money, is much safer -- both for mom and child...
I NEVER suggested "throwing them away." Scanning through the thread, you're the only one who has brought that up. Which somewhat begs the question: if you think embryos are so disposable that you read "throw them away" into a paragraph that never mentions or hints at it, what does that say?
If you are willing, please re-read the original post, keeping in mind that I am NOT suggesting that anyone kill these embryos. On the contrary, I am suggesting a hypothetical solution for all unwanted pregnancies to be saved, not killed. Re-read it, as I wrote it, and tell me why this is a bad thing.
It sounds to me like you're saying it's better for a fetus to be aborted than dehumanized, and that still makes no sense.