Yes, and we know that ALL children put up for adoption are adopted, and adopted by caring, loving families. Yup.
Are you honestly going to use this as an excuse to kill them?
Or this:
Yes, of course - ALL babies are loved by their parents, whether they were wanted/planned or not.
This is your answer to suffering? Kill the ones that
might suffer? You might want to think that through a bit more.
As to this:
Except, of course, for the ones that He allows to die in utero, or the ones in the bellies of those deemed unworthy and are then ordered to be killed:
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Do you think that I am going to take Bible lessons from an atheist - sorry "other"? Not likely
Concerning "unwanted adults"
Babies grow up, do they not? Is it really your position that childhood traumas do not persist in the minds of adults?
So they suffered and that makes them unwanted adults? I am not following your logic here.
By your reasoning here, we should just euthanize at birth everyone with a high probability of greater suffering than some arbitrary standard. Kids with autism suffer a great deal - why not just stick a needle in their arms at diagnosis? Kids with severe mental damage suffer - and cause their parents to suffer greatly. Just kill them. Quadriplegics? The blind; the deaf; those whose mother dies in childbirth? How about kids born to drug addicts?
Concerning your studies and the poverty link:
Poverty, of course, plays a major role.
Such a major role, in fact, that all other factors are immeasurable against its backdrop. The effect of being "unwanted" cannot rationally be separated from the effect of poverty.
Women living in poverty are more likley than wealthy conservatives to be unable to afford birth control, prenatal healthcare, etc. another mouth to feed can create a great deal of stress.
That is pure ... nonsense. Birth control is free - it's called abstinence. Medicaid is exceedingly easy for a poor pregnant woman to get. And another mouth to feed is easy enough to manage with breastfeeding or adoption.
Right, of course not. better to trust the cherry-picked information from a member of Physicians for Life.
I think you'd better check the sources again.
Cruciform's article sites a journal:
The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer.
And at the end of the same article:
Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.
Knight's source cites a source, so it's that source that you should look at. Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, MD, wrote a book on the subject using peer-reviewed studies for his data. If you doubt that source, perhaps you should look at the individual studies and their reports to see if they hold any weight.
Before you go saying that it's not your job to prove or disprove the validity of the claim, perhaps you should consider the dire consequences if the doctor and the cited studies are correct.
Adoption is fine, but many Americans seeking to adopt want good looking very young babies with no family history of drug abuse, etc.
All babies can be put up for adoption at birth :squint: So I'm not following how that's a hindrance to adoption.
Humans have been controlling their population levels for centuries, probably for all time. And often, they do so by commiting infanticide or inducing abortion through many means.
So that makes it right? I'll be that didn't fly with your mom ("But Mom! Everyone else is doing it!" "If everyone else went and jumped off a cliff to their deaths, would you want to follow them too?") :sibbie:
Aborting an early term fetus is, yes, IMO, better than having to deal with all of the related problems of unwanted children.
What other remedies to "unwanted children" are acceptable to you? Shall we ask the mother at birth, "Did you plan to have this baby?" And burn up the "unwanted" ones in strong saline? Or cut away their limbs until they bleed to death? Starve them? What about a year later? Do you still want this child?
Right, except for the fact that miscarriage results in the death of an unborn baby. No relation at all. Almost as emotional as the anti-abortion rhetoric one sees.
One man dies of a heart attack, another is gunned down in his home. Same thing, right?
