Home - List All Discussions

Question for pro-lifers...

...regarding adoption

by: rsg007

I propose we have a national referendum in this country--you can either vote to outlaw elective abortion, or to keep it legal.
But if you vote to outlaw it, you automatically sign up to adopt at least 2 unwanted children.
How would you vote?

reply from: sander

Even though my husband and I are getting up there in years, if that's what it takes then sign us up!

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I would disagree with abrogating the responsibilities of the biological father and mother.
We were created to do good works. We have jobs to do, just as each of the animals and plants have jobs to carry out. Plants make oxygen. Insects pollinate. Scavengers clean up carcasses.
Our value lies in our doing good works. Those who feed, clothe and shelter the needy will inherit the Kingdom. Those who don't feed, clothe, shelter and care for the needy, such as their own children, will be punished with everlasting destruction. Paul said whomever does not care for his own family is the worst of creatures. You are required to care for your kids. You shall suffer eternal death if you don't. I don't want to participate in making you a worthless low-life by caring for your two kids that you abandon. I'd feel responsible for contributing to your death.

reply from: Faramir

I would sign it.
But I just want one, if possible.
We could guarantee that every baby would have a wonderful home, but this would not change the position of Planned Parenthood, and any other abortion advocacy concern.

reply from: AshMarie88

I have a friend who was adopted. She's set to graduate high school this year, and then she'll be going to college.
I guess she should've been aborted, I mean obviously she wasn't wanted and couldn't have had a good life, right?

reply from: rsg007

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.

reply from: rsg007

I would sign it.
But I just want one, if possible.
We could guarantee that every baby would have a wonderful home, but this would not change the position of Planned Parenthood, and any other abortion advocacy concern.
Sorry, but if women can't choose to end a pregnancy then you wouldn't be able to choose how many to adopt--the deal would be at least two.

reply from: sander

Ever hear of CPS, for starters?
You can't have kids in this country and leave them by the side of the road when things get tough.
Are you saying you never heard of personal responsiblity?
The only thing that is hurt our cause are people who have de-humanized the child in the womb and think murder is a viable option when the going gets tough.
The real crazies are those who kill a human being because they're too damn lazy to face up to their actions and do the right thing.

reply from: sander

You're the one with the reading problems...I replied to the statement you didn't know who required parents to care for their kids.
People take that right all the time, ever heard of laws? Just because a bad law allows women to murder their children in the womb doesn't negate the fact that there are laws that make people take responsibility for their actions., one way or the other. Don't do the right thing...then face the law.
CPS, is suppose to be a safety net for the children. It's an example of the state stepping in to protect and if the parents dont' comply they loose custody. A feeling parent would be devestated, still CPS tries at all costs to reunite parent and child. What do you propose, just let the bad parents murder their children?

reply from: carolemarie

You make it sound like there is nobody willing to adopt....there is a waiting list of over a million couples. In America there is a shortage of babies to adopt because they are killed by abortion instead.
I have no problem with adoption, I think it is great and there is always room for more, so sign me up!

reply from: Faramir

I would sign it.
But I just want one, if possible.
We could guarantee that every baby would have a wonderful home, but this would not change the position of Planned Parenthood, and any other abortion advocacy concern.
Sorry, but if women can't choose to end a pregnancy then you wouldn't be able to choose how many to adopt--the deal would be at least two.
Okay, I'll agree to take two. And all of us who vote to outlaw abortion do as well.
Are you then okay with giving up the "right to choose"?

reply from: lukesmom

You mean there are "unwanted" children? Isn't PP very slogen that no child would be unwanted? Come on, say it isn't so!
BTW, I have 4 kids in a small space and limited income but if it will save a child's life sign me up for as many as needed. The life of a child is more important than selfish "comforts". I will always have room for 1 more...

reply from: lukesmom

BTW, answer your own question, how many will YOU take or are you just satisfied killing them?

reply from: sheri

I would feel really selfish adopting two babies when there is such a long waiting list for people who want to adopt.
Also without the safety net of abortion many people would think twice before getting involved in risky behavior and we wouldn't have the call for so many abortions, like before roe v wade.
It would be great though to be given two babies just for voting against killing them, that would make it alot easier for us when the time comes for my husband and I to adopt a baby, we had planned on going over seas due to the dearth of American babies up for adoption.

reply from: 4given

What? Have you researched adoption much? There are plenty of waiting children. Were you only interested in newborns? There are special needs and older children(over 2)who need a home as we speak.. Anyway, when you are serious about adoption, I can help you become familiar with the laws etc.. even if that child is preferably a newborn- Talk to me if you are serious.

reply from: 4given

Oh yippee! A hypopathetical (or is it hyper?)
Well I thought I would let this foolishness slide, as I don't like to play along typically.. but I will play this time. I have one.. so does that mean I need to take another child? I am sure my awesome husband would take 2 as well.. So within my family and friends alone, I am sure we would have quite the tribe. What are you willing to do? How many babies are you willing to birth to be adopted, rather than killed.. or how many are you willing to adopt that aren't your own?

reply from: yoda

I'd certainly vote for it.
And of course, I've posted a thread, on which you choose not to comment, about the website which lists photos and bios of people in various states who want to adopt. It's well known that there is a waiting list for newborn babies, but of course you choose to ignore that, don't you?
In fact, you choose to ignore just about everything that might take away from your support of slaughtering babies, don't you?

reply from: rsg007

I have already made the decision that when I am ready to have children, I will adopt, either instead of or as well as having my own. That's if they will let me adopt--I am a lesbian.

reply from: rsg007

I would sign it.
But I just want one, if possible.
We could guarantee that every baby would have a wonderful home, but this would not change the position of Planned Parenthood, and any other abortion advocacy concern.
Sorry, but if women can't choose to end a pregnancy then you wouldn't be able to choose how many to adopt--the deal would be at least two.
Okay, I'll agree to take two. And all of us who vote to outlaw abortion do as well.
Are you then okay with giving up the "right to choose"?
No, I'll never be OK with giving up that right--this is just a hypothetical question designed to see how pro-lifers feel about being forced to have children they didn't plan for.

reply from: rsg007

I'd certainly vote for it.
And of course, I've posted a thread, on which you choose not to comment, about the website which lists photos and bios of people in various states who want to adopt. It's well known that there is a waiting list for newborn babies, but of course you choose to ignore that, don't you?
In fact, you choose to ignore just about everything that might take away from your support of slaughtering babies, don't you?
You, and everyone else here who claims there's no shortage of people wanting to adopt, fail to say that the vast majority of them want (probably white) healthy newborns. I'm not surprised there's a shortage of newborns. However, before we outlaw abortion so there's more newborns to adopt, how about making sure every older, special needs, racial minority, etc. kid is adopted. As one honest poster said--there's definitely no shortage of these children (just look at the foster care system).
If you argue that people shouldn't abort a child because it might be born with Down's Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, etc., then you have no place saying you'd prefer a healthy newborn over a 10-year-old child with one of these disabilities.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

So you're against abortion AND adoption? And you wonder why rational people think the crazies are only out to punish and force their warped values?
Really? By whom?
Keep your fairy tales out of it.
Are you saying that the only acceptable circumstance is one in which women MUST gestate and MUST keep their children? It's statements like this that are hurting your cause.
You are good at making up material jou. I've had six children that were live born. My wife is pregnant now. She has said we should adopt more, but financially, I've told her I believe our family is sufficiently large. My brother has adopted 3 girls. I am in favor of adoption. I never said I was against adoption. I am against people being required to take on the responsibility of two additional kids that abortion minded dads and moms wanted to kill. A man or woman is not required to marry or have kids, but if they do have sexual relations and a pregnancy results, they, the biological mom and dad, are responsible to take care of the kids. This is my understanding of Judeo-Christian values, that God requires it. We were made for His purposes, don't you know? My brother adopted three children from a mom and dad that were not mentally competent to care for their kids, I believe this is fine, a very good work in fact.
Again, we were created for good works. If you are not performing good works, you are trash. Don't you already believe you die forever when you pass away? This should be no big change from what you already believe.

reply from: jujujellybean

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.
Yet you still avoided it!

reply from: jujujellybean

I would sign it.
But I just want one, if possible.
We could guarantee that every baby would have a wonderful home, but this would not change the position of Planned Parenthood, and any other abortion advocacy concern.
Sorry, but if women can't choose to end a pregnancy then you wouldn't be able to choose how many to adopt--the deal would be at least two.
Put simply: if women can't kill their child, than we are going to force on you two children because these women got pregnant when they shouldn't have. Hmmmm...

reply from: rsg007

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.
Yet you still avoided it!
OK, here's my answer: If her birth mother was satisfied with adoption as a way out of raising the child then of course she shouldn't have been aborted. There is no reason she couldn't have had a good life being adopted.
The reason I didn't answer is it has nothing to do with the original question I asked and I wasn't quite sure why you brought it up. I mean, it's a really nonsensical response. By the way, what IS your response to my original question?

reply from: rsg007

I would sign it.
But I just want one, if possible.
We could guarantee that every baby would have a wonderful home, but this would not change the position of Planned Parenthood, and any other abortion advocacy concern.
Sorry, but if women can't choose to end a pregnancy then you wouldn't be able to choose how many to adopt--the deal would be at least two.
Put simply: if women can't kill their child, than we are going to force on you two children because these women got pregnant when they shouldn't have. Hmmmm...
It saddens me that, as a woman, you are so anti-woman. What man brainwashed you to be this way?

reply from: sander

WHO brainwashed you into believing that to be pro-woman you must be pro-abortion? You don't have a clue of what it takes to be a real woman.
Real woman face up to their responibilties and care more about others then themselves. That's womanhood, not some "it's my body" and that's ALL that matters, bs. Being selfish and self centered hardly qualifies as being a genuine woman and all the beauty and importance that entails.
P/S..Juju is just a kid, an intelligent one, no doubt, but still very young. So, save your self righteous "I am woman" speeches for the adults.

reply from: Faramir

WHO brainwashed you into believing that to be pro-woman you must be pro-abortion? You don't have a clue of what it takes to be a real woman.
Real woman face up to their responibilties and care more about others then themselves. That's womanhood, not some "it's my body" and that's ALL that matters, bs. Being selfish and self centered hardly qualifies as being a genuine woman and all the beauty and importance that entails.
P/S..Juju is just a kid, an intelligent one, no doubt, but still very young. So, save your self righteous "I am woman" speeches for the adults.
I wonder if sander knows that "kayluvsdeadbabies," who she likes to knock around, is also a kid.

reply from: rsg007

WHO brainwashed you into believing that to be pro-woman you must be pro-abortion? You don't have a clue of what it takes to be a real woman.
Real woman face up to their responibilties and care more about others then themselves. That's womanhood, not some "it's my body" and that's ALL that matters, bs. Being selfish and self centered hardly qualifies as being a genuine woman and all the beauty and importance that entails.
P/S..Juju is just a kid, an intelligent one, no doubt, but still very young. So, save your self righteous "I am woman" speeches for the adults.
I did not know she is young, but it's not like I was being nasty to her--I just asked her a question. And as Faramir points out, the fact that "kayluvschoice" is young doesn't stop you from harassing her.
You say real women face up to their responsibilities--why do you think the only way to do that is to carry a child to term if you are pregnant? Don't you think some women realize they don't have the money, time, inclination, etc. to give a child a good life and so make the hard choice to abort instead of bringing a child into potential suffering? That's living up to responsibility too in my opinion.

reply from: sander

WHO brainwashed you into believing that to be pro-woman you must be pro-abortion? You don't have a clue of what it takes to be a real woman.
Real woman face up to their responibilties and care more about others then themselves. That's womanhood, not some "it's my body" and that's ALL that matters, bs. Being selfish and self centered hardly qualifies as being a genuine woman and all the beauty and importance that entails.
P/S..Juju is just a kid, an intelligent one, no doubt, but still very young. So, save your self righteous "I am woman" speeches for the adults.
What faramir points out is totally irrelevant. There's a big difference in Kay's and Juju's ages. One is just this side of playing with dolls and the other is just this side of being old enough to be on her own.
I didn't say you were being nasty, I was pointing out the fact that you were using the argument of "I am woman" to a very young girl, accusing her of being anti-woman.
Further, kay is proabortion, I will always counter an abortion argument, no matter their age and if that's harrasment in your view, well, tough.
I fully realize the excuses women make for killing their very own child, none of which hold water and none of which is actually facing the consequenses of the choice she made in having sex in the first place.
Not having the inclination to carry a baby to term is the single most selfish, self centered act there is.
Isn't the topic of this thread, "adoption"? So, there goes all the pathetic excuses you listed for killing your very own child.
That womb should be the safest place on earth, but with all the brainwashing the aboriton rights advocates have done, the womb is now a potential tomb.

reply from: galen

-----------------------------
I would vote to outlaw... and take as many kids as i had space for... probably around 7.

reply from: rsg007

WHO brainwashed you into believing that to be pro-woman you must be pro-abortion? You don't have a clue of what it takes to be a real woman.
Real woman face up to their responibilties and care more about others then themselves. That's womanhood, not some "it's my body" and that's ALL that matters, bs. Being selfish and self centered hardly qualifies as being a genuine woman and all the beauty and importance that entails.
P/S..Juju is just a kid, an intelligent one, no doubt, but still very young. So, save your self righteous "I am woman" speeches for the adults.
What faramir points out is totally irrelevant. There's a big difference in Kay's and Juju's ages. One is just this side of playing with dolls and the other is just this side of being old enough to be on her own.
I didn't say you were being nasty, I was pointing out the fact that you were using the argument of "I am woman" to a very young girl, accusing her of being anti-woman.
Further, kay is proabortion, I will always counter an abortion argument, no matter their age and if that's harrasment in your view, well, tough.
I fully realize the excuses women make for killing their very own child, none of which hold water and none of which is actually facing the consequenses of the choice she made in having sex in the first place.
Not having the inclination to carry a baby to term is the single most selfish, self centered act there is.
Isn't the topic of this thread, "adoption"? So, there goes all the pathetic excuses you listed for killing your very own child.
That womb should be the safest place on earth, but with all the brainwashing the aboriton rights advocates have done, the womb is now a potential tomb.
There's no guarantee a child will be adopted--just look at the foster care system. If you're a white healthy newborn then you probably have a good chance. If you're not, then you probably don't. And who knows what may happen to a child in the foster care system, or even in an adopted family--they can be abused, neglected, thrown out, etc. If I were pregnant and didn't want the child, I'd want to save it from these potential sufferings.
Do you think it's worse to be aborted than to have a life filled with misery and suffering? I know you'll say there's no guarantee that will happen. But there's no guarantee it won't either.

reply from: sander

So, if there's no guarantee either way, then why not err on the side of life? Nobody has a crystal ball and can see into the future. There are alot of examples of people coming from very difficult circumstances and making great contributions to society.
Hypothetical hardship is the worse excuse of all and that's all it is...an excuse.
I think killing an innocent child is the worse option of all.
Let's do what you suggest, advocate adoption and give every human being at least a chance.

reply from: rsg007

So, if there's no guarantee either way, then why not err on the side of life? Nobody has a crystal ball and can see into the future. There are alot of examples of people coming from very difficult circumstances and making great contributions to society.
Hypothetical hardship is the worse excuse of all and that's all it is...an excuse.
I think killing an innocent child is the worse option of all.
Let's do what you suggest, advocate adoption and give every human being at least a chance.
It seems to me that your (and many other pro-lifers' here) definition of "life" is simply related to breathing in and out. What about quality of life? In my opinion, it IS erring on the side of (quality of) life to not expose a child to the potential horrors of the foster care system. Honestly (and you'll probably say this is an extreme view) I think it's pretty selfish to bring a child into this world at all, what with all the potential suffering they could endure. If you plan for a child and are willing to raise him or her and try your hardest to shield them from life's downsides then that's one thing. If you give birth to a child and relinquish it into the hands of people you don't know, knowing full well the horrors that could befall it without you being there to protect it, well, I think that's a pretty rotten thing to do.
By the way, my definition of "life" (i.e., "quality of life") is what I refer to when I say a mother's life should take precedence over an unborn child's, who doesn't even know the slightest thing about quality of life yet.

reply from: sander

One has to be able to actually, "breath in and out" to begin with. Then we can talk about quality thereafter, get my point?
And until you can come up with a working crystal ball, you're not erring on anything but the side of fear and selfishness.
I would guess from your aviator you're a young woman, so don't let your life be led by fear. Life holds the potential for great things, but there has to be a life in the first place.
If we allow fear, especailly irrational fear, to guide our decisions, then best not step outside the house tomorrow. Heck, better be careful in the shower...the floor gets slippery when wet.
Trust life and trust that there is goodness and worthwhile things to see, do and feel. It's leads to success and a brighter future.

reply from: 4given

I agree with sunshine.

reply from: 4given

What is your knowledge of the foster care system?
No you wouldn't. You likely have no understanding either way about what it takes to become a foster parent or adopt a child. I am thinking you are a child yourself and think that your hypothetical's are new.. The bottom line is about excusing selfish and homicidal tendencies to carry on with life as you know/aspire it to be. Abortion is forever. Whatever pretend scenarios you have concocted to suit you are nothing more than a garment of lies designed to help you deal with why you feel the need to justify the killing of a child- is more important the the child's life itself. That is pitiful! Potential is a lie. We can't guarantee much in this lifetime, so to state that death exceeds potential- well, you need some help. Seriously. You aren't educated about such things, and as far as I know, have yet to reveal your experience with abortion. Have you aborted? Who do you know that has? Why are you a pro-abort?
You answered your own question there. What experience do you/ have you had with misery and suffering?

reply from: cracrat

Few things in this world scare me as much as the prospect of me being completely responsible for the life of another human being. There is no measure, except for my age in the eyes of the law, by which I could be considered ready for the rigours of parenthood. However if someone turned up at my door with a pregnant woman on each arm and told me if I didn't take care of these kids they'd be aborted, I'd not consider it for a second before agreeing. I'd vote against such a change in the law though.

reply from: churchmouse

I would vote to hold those that created the life responsible. You want to punish those that value life and let everyone else off the hook. Why should people that simply believe that abortion is wrong have to tote the load, while people that are promiscuous get away with their actions. They think the simple solution is to just kill a living human being.
We do not hold people accountable for their actions anymore. We live in a no-fault society. No fault divorces, car accidents etc. You can just file bankrupcy and walk away from everything.....rack up credit card debt and walk away.......what happened to responsiblity for your own actions....standing up to the plate?
People know what happens when they have sex. I would suggest that if they are not ready to have children, they not take the chance of getting pregnant. And if pregnancy occurs........they do what is right and have the child, either keeping it or giving it up for adoption.
Your referendum is ridiculous.

reply from: faithman

I understand you are trying to be reasonable. But there is nothing reasonable about allowing someone to kill an innocent human being. Professing yourself to be wise, you have become a conflicked fool.

reply from: nancyu

So, you wouldn't kill a baby, but if someone else does, it's okay with you?
What is up with all of the emotional blackmail you pro choicers use? Okay, we won't kill our babies, if you take care of them for us. What is right about that?! So unbelievably selfish.
YOU had the fun that made the babies, YOU take care of them! I'm not babysitting! And NO you CAN'T kill them!

reply from: yoda

So killing an innocent human being is your answer to all "future potential problems"?
Killing is your answer to just about every problem, right?

reply from: yoda

You answered your own question there. What experience do you/ have you had with misery and suffering?
Yes, and I'd love to know what experience s/he has with death? How many times has s/he died and come back to tell us how "wonderful" it is?

reply from: yoda

Apparently, they also want the "fun" of killing them, too.

reply from: sander

Apparently, they also want the "fun" of killing them, too.
This is what it all boils down to, doesn't it?
Sad is an understatment.

reply from: sander

So, you wouldn't kill a baby, but if someone else does, it's okay with you?
What is up with all of the emotional blackmail you pro choicers use? Okay, we won't kill our babies, if you take care of them for us. What is right about that?! So unbelievably selfish.
YOU had the fun that made the babies, YOU take care of them! I'm not babysitting! And NO you CAN'T kill them!
Very well said, Nancy.
I never thought of it that way, but you're so right, it is nothing more than emotional blackmail these goons use.

reply from: rsg007

So let me get this straight: You don't think people should have abortions, you don't think people should ask others to care for their children (adoption), and (many of) you don't think contraception should be legal.
Do you realize how unrealistic a view this is? I know you think people shouldn't have sex unless they are married and fully willing to bring a child into the world, but NEWSFLASH--they DO anyway. This is not about what your morals say SHOULD happen, but what actually does in the real world. What do you propose someone should do if they become pregnant and don't want to raise the baby. Do so anyway, perhaps neglecting or even abusing it????

reply from: sander

I propose people take personal responsibility for their actions.
And if they are not willing to "care" for the child, then there are many loving couples awaiting the chance to take up for where the mother leaves off.
It's called adoption.

reply from: sander

Oh, and you really shouldn't bring up the tired excuse of "abuse", since the proabort biggest and one of their first lies was abortion would eliminate abuse.
They were wrong then and you're wrong now.

reply from: rsg007

I propose people take personal responsibility for their actions.
And if they are not willing to "care" for the child, then there are many loving couples awaiting the chance to take up for where the mother leaves off.
It's called adoption.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just agree with the poster who said it's emotional blackmail for people who are pro-choice to challenge those who are pro-life to take more of a responsibility when it comes to adopting unwanted children?
Do you not see that if you oppose abortion you must at least show those who are pro-elective abortion that you fully support the alternatives?
I did think you were pro-adoption until you agreed with the poster who said it's emotional blackmail. Please clarify.

reply from: sander

What's to clairy?
I'm still pro adoption, one doesn't exclude the other.
The emotional black mail is when proaborts like you try and dictate that we can't be prolife without taking up your slack.

reply from: rsg007

You really can't, you know. Children won't stop being unwanted if abortion is outlawed, so what do pro-lifers propose to do about it? People who are pro-choice know what they want as the solution to unwanted children (the possibility to end the pregnancy). So what do pro-lifers want?
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for provisions to be put in place for unwanted children if abortion is outlawed.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to hold pro-lifers responsible for consequences (i.e., more unwanted children) that will arise from their desire to outlaw abortion.
You all talk a great deal about the "poor little unborn babies," but are you actually willing to get out there and get your hands dirty in helping to care for the poor little children that have already been born and need a caring family? Or does your level of participation in the pro-life movement only extend to berating pro-choicers on this board and hanging out outside abortion clinics harrassing people?
You speak about personal responsibility, but not everyone has the same idea about what this is (and yours isn't necessarily the only right way). Many people who are pro-choice believe it is acting responsibly to end an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-lifers obviously don't. So what is your notion of the responsibility you have towards unwanted children who might be brought into the world as a direct consequence of your beliefs?

reply from: sander

You're delusional and have twisted rational thinking.
I'M NOT responsible for YOU or anyone else, having sex. Are you not even willing to take that much personal responsibility or see the rationale of others doing the same????
YOU made the baby, YOU go thru with the pregnancy and with little effort on your part adoption is made possible.
And provisions are in place for unwanted children, have you not heard of foster care. People are doing their level best to help in these areas. Yet, your solution is killing the child.
And you better go back and get your abortion advocates to change their language, since from the beginning unwanted children were suppose to be a thing of the past. Guess abortion isn't the solution it was touted to be, now is it?
Oh, and btw, I all ready help support, financially one single mother who kept her baby when abortion was an option and I help support a crisis pregnancy center.
What do YOU do beside advocate killing a child as the solution???

reply from: rsg007

You really can't, you know. Children won't stop being unwanted if abortion is outlawed, so what do pro-lifers propose to do about it? People who are pro-choice know what they want as the solution to unwanted children (the possibility to end the pregnancy). So what do pro-lifers want?
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for provisions to be put in place for unwanted children if abortion is outlawed.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to hold pro-lifers responsible for consequences (i.e., more unwanted children) that will arise from their desire to outlaw abortion.
You all talk a great deal about the "poor little unborn babies," but are you actually willing to get out there and get your hands dirty in helping to care for the poor little children that have already been born and need a caring family? Or does your level of participation in the pro-life movement only extend to berating pro-choicers on this board and hanging out outside abortion clinics harrassing people?
You speak about personal responsibility, but not everyone has the same idea about what this is (and yours isn't necessarily the only right way). Many people who are pro-choice believe it is acting responsibly to end an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-lifers obviously don't. So what is your notion of the responsibility you have towards unwanted children who might be brought into the world as a direct consequence of your beliefs?
Let me set your mind at ease. If you don't kill them, neither will we. We'll figure out what to do with them, just as we are now. We're not going to start executing unwanted children, or allowing anyone to abuse them. Are you really worried about what will become of the poor children if they are allowed to live? How noble of you...
Yes, whether or not you choose to believe it, I am actually worried about what would happen to unwanted children after they are born. It seems obvious to me that there is much more potential for suffering after an unwanted child is brought into the world than if it were aborted. I can't quite understand how people don't see this. It's admirable, though naive, that you say you wouldn't allow "anyone to abuse them." How exactly do you propose to ensure this?
It's good that you are trying to figure out what to do with unwanted born children. Wouldn't a good part of the solution be to ask as many pro-lifers as possible (and indeed pro-choicers--we are not against adoption) to adopt a few of them? Or is it OK for other people to adopt unwanted kids but not you because perhaps you don't feel up to raising another kid, or never wanted any in the first place? Ever considered this is how a woman with an unwanted pregnancy might feel?

reply from: sander

Killing a child is never a solution, never.
It's cruel and unusual punishment for a life not even given the chance to live.
You can't advocate death for the unborn who "might" be abused and not advocate death for the born child who "is" abused.

reply from: rsg007

The problem is that I believe it's possible to have sex just for pleasure and without intending to concieve a child (indeed, I do it all the time--I'm a lesbian). You do not seem to agree with this (and what's your stance on contraception?--If you believe it should be illegal then you barely have a leg to stand on here). So I believe a child can be conceived accidentally. I guess you can say since you don't then you have no responsibility toward unwanted children, but it's stances like this that really expose the ridiculousness of pro-life thinking--even if you don't agree a child can be conceived accidentally at least acknowledge that there are people who do believe this and who do accidentally become pregnant, and then try to do what you can for the innocent children that would be born unwanted if your desire to outlaw abortion was fulfilled.
Yes, foster care does its best for unwanted kids, but its far from perfect. I'm sure all the caring pro-lifers out there would really ease the burden on the system and help unwanted kids so much if they agreed to adopt a few.
I think this was an admittedly unrealistic claim on the part of abortion advocates--they didn't reckon with the pro-lifers who would do their very best to talk as many women as possible into having unwanted children instead of aborting them. There are also many people who feel abortion is not a solution for them (remember, it's all about choice) and so they go ahead and have the child. Once the child is born they may realize it wasn't actually as wanted as they tried to convince themselves it was.
I support many charities, though admittedly none at the moment that help unwanted, abused or neglected children--that's the one good point from your post. I will begin donating to one such charity as of now.

reply from: sander

I've been married to the same man for 38 years, I don't need any lessons on the pleasures of or reasons for sex.
I believe in the kind of contraception that will not kill a newly fertilized egg. I believe in family planning. And with having sex I believe in personal responsibility.
So, if my contraception fails and it did once, I go thru with the pregnancy and love my child all the same as those who were planned. It's really not hard.
Outlawing abortion will have many benefits, one of which you will see the incidence of unwanted pregnancies go down. People will think twice or more like they use to. Now, society has given them an easy out, so they think.
Yes, it's far from perfect, so we should just keep killing the children born and unborn. It's the only logical solution. After all, how unfair to advocate the killing of one stage of developement for the unwanted and not for the further developed child who may not be wanted.
Right, it's the prolife people who are at fault that not ALL unwanted children were murdered. Then what are the rest of you proabortion peole waiting for, best get busy advocating the murder of the born unwanted.
Musn't let us prolifers stand in the way another minute. Kill them all, that'll fix everything.
Well, how about we compromise? Just kill half the scheduled abortions, then we may have enough people alive to adopt and foster care?
Can't keep killing off generations and expect there to be enough people to pick up the slack.
Good.

reply from: carolemarie

What if it had a great foster family? What if that child had a great life?
It isn't kinder to kill a baby to spare it potienal pain. I mean your baby sitter could kill your wanted child, or a drunk driver could run the wanted child down...there are no guarantty in life. But good or bad, you have to be alive to have either.
Death just sucks.

reply from: yoda

Really? A human institution that isn't perfect? What a shock!!
But of course you do have the "perfect solution", don't you? Or do you call it the "final solution"?

reply from: sander

Really? A human institution that isn't perfect? What a shock!!
But of course you do have the "perfect solution", don't you? Or do you call it the "final solution"?
It would appear that is exactly her solution; the final solution. Sound familar?
She carps that prolifers aren't doing enough to pick up the slack for those parents who won't parent properly, yet she advocates the "final solution". How can there ever be enough people to foster or adopt older children if society keeps killing off future adults? There are just so many prolifers to go around.
Seems these proaborts want everything both ways.

reply from: faithman

Really? A human institution that isn't perfect? What a shock!!
But of course you do have the "perfect solution", don't you? Or do you call it the "final solution"?
It would appear that is exactly her solution; the final solution. Sound familar?
She carps that prolifers aren't doing enough to pick up the slack for those parents who won't parent properly, yet she advocates the "final solution". How can there ever be enough people to foster or adopt older children if society keeps killing off future adults? There are just so many prolifers to go around.
Seems these proaborts want everything both ways.
If abortion is such a wonderful thing, maybe the pro-aborts could line up to have a post birth one preformed on themselves? It would save them from having to live in an imperfect world, help out on global warming, and cut back on that over population crisis. It would give Planned Parenthood something to do when we make them quit killing babies.

reply from: sander

That would put to rest the debate on whether abortion was painful for the child, now wouldn't it?

reply from: yoda

Do you think THEY would go "straight to heaven".... ???

reply from: sander

Mommy dearest????
Not if she didn't get the chance to say a deep, sincere, I'm really, really sorry!
Now, get ready for the self-righteous stone throwing that the anti-self righteous, anti-stone throwers start throwing!

reply from: nancyu

Hey CP, I'm wondering if you are a US citizen. Because if you're not, then the point about believing an unborn child is a person, is meaningless. If you are, then could you explain to me why are these persons not protected by the US Constitution. I'm sorry I'm so stupid, but if you want to win me over, you really should try to be nicer to me.

reply from: Faramir

Mommy dearest????
Not if she didn't get the chance to say a deep, sincere, I'm really, really sorry!
Now, get ready for the self-righteous stone throwing that the anti-self righteous, anti-stone throwers start throwing!
Will you say you're sorry for all the times you violated God's law by using contraception?
Or does your disbelief and/or ignorance of this law excuse you?

reply from: nancyu

Mommy dearest????
Not if she didn't get the chance to say a deep, sincere, I'm really, really sorry!
Now, get ready for the self-righteous stone throwing that the anti-self righteous, anti-stone throwers start throwing!
Will you say you're sorry for all the times you violated God's law by using contraception?
Or does your disbelief and/or ignorance of this law excuse you?
Were you talking to me, or Sander. I'm the one who used abortifacient b/c.
(I know we resemble one another.)
But no my ignorance and/or disbelief does not excuse me. I suspect I will have to pay for that one on judgment day.

reply from: sander

Mommy dearest????
Not if she didn't get the chance to say a deep, sincere, I'm really, really sorry!
Now, get ready for the self-righteous stone throwing that the anti-self righteous, anti-stone throwers start throwing!
Will you say you're sorry for all the times you violated God's law by using contraception?
Or does your disbelief and/or ignorance of this law excuse you?
Were you talking to me, or Sander. I'm the one who used abortifacient b/c.
(I know we resemble one another.)
But no my ignorance and/or disbelief does not excuse me. I suspect I will have to pay for that one on judgment day.
You won't have to pay anything on judgement day with your obvious sense of remorse. I don't think everyone needs to own fartyboy's take on things, Catholic or not.
And yeah, we are starting to look alot like each other.

reply from: ProInformed

"I propose we have a national referendum in this country--you can either vote to outlaw elective abortion, or to keep it legal."
I agree that we need to have a national referendum in this country to determine the legal status of abortion. That is a much more democratic way than 9 male judges deciding to make abortion legal based on perjured testimony (lies). The legalization of abortion was achieved via a violation of the normal checks and balances that were designed to prevent any one branch of government from overstepping their authority. Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton should be and most likely will be overturned eventually because it was unconstitutional the way that handful of judges struck down the existing state laws. This controversy would be best settled by granting the citizens the right to choose the exact legal status of abortion by a referendum vote.
BUT the citizens do NOT have to choose between just the two choices of the status quo of unregulated, unrestricted abortion vs a total ban on abortion. Citizens who do not endorse late-term abortions for non-medical excuses have a right to vote for restrictions on abortion. Citizens who do not want abortions for rape to be outlawed but who oppose abortions being used as birth control have a right to vote accordingly.
"But if you vote to outlaw it, you automatically sign up to adopt at least 2 unwanted children."
I personally would be willing to adopt two children and in fact I am working towards that goal anyway. But what makes you think you have the right to deny any citizen their right to participate in the democratic process unless they earn the right to vote by doing your bidding? And IF citizens had to earn their right to vote, then why not require all the citizens to adopt children? Why let choicers get away with claiming they care about children and things are supposedly so bad that they have to resort to killing babies? AFTER THEY do all they can to help children, maybe then they can expect to be taken seriously about how abortion is 'needed'.
Also, why not require all those who vote to first learn all they can about abortion so they can make an educated choice about what should be legally allowed.
AND IMHO everyone should have to sign a statement specifying exactly what they do and don't endorse. We don't live in Nazi Germany, when this holocaust is over the citizens who endorsed it, enthusiastically, apathetically, or ignorantly, should be held accountable.
"How would you vote?"
My individual vote would not count for much and I realize that when such a vote does take place the resulting legal status of abortion will probably be somewhere in between what is currently legal and a total ban on abortions.
But if the citizens do their civic duty to become well-informed before voting they will learn things that will shift their POV more towards the pro-life position. Very few people are aware of what is currently allowed, let alone knowingly endorse it.
That is why I believe that even when pro-life legislative efforts to protect women and babies from the abortion industry fail to get passed, it is still worth the effort because even with the biased media coverage the public learns a little more about what is going on (for example the attempt to ban the partial-birth abortion method).
I personally would vote for a total ban on abortion, but also would vote for patient protection rights and regulations IF abortion remains legal. I would also vote to make it illegal to lie to women in order to sell abortions, or to force women to abort. And I would vote that any abortion clinic staff that helps a rapist or child molester cover up their crime be put in prison along with the rapist/molester.
What will you vote for? Which abortion techniques do you endorse? What patient protection rights and regulations would you vote for in order to protect women? Will you vote to endorse late-term abortions?

reply from: ProInformed

"Don't you think some women realize they don't have the money, time, inclination, etc. to give a child a good life and so make the hard choice to abort instead of bringing a child into potential suffering? That's living up to responsibility too in my opinion."
Sex is an adult activity, adult rights come with adult responsibilities.
If you don't have the money, time, inclination, etc. to care for the innocent babies you bring into existence, to refrain from inflicting fatal violence against them, then you are not ready to have sex yet. And if things are really so bad that you think you have to kill your baby then why would you be having sex anyway? Close your legs, get off your back and go get a second job. Or how about stop having sex with deadbeats who don't even love you and your baby enough to care for you? I'm no gold-digger but I'm not exactly turned on by poor, deadbeat losers either. If you settle for having sex with immature and irresponsible mates then what do you expect? It's BECAUSE pro-aborts are more willing to kill their own babies and risk abortion surgery, then to refrain from having sex with losers, that they end up pregnant without the resources and relationship needed to raise a baby.
Legalized abortion has increased irresponsible and immature sexual behavior.
Legalized abortion enables those who are admittedly not yet mature and stable enough to be having sex to do so anyway. Choosing to participate in the adult activity of sex and then choosing to fatally abuse the babies you create to avoid adult responsibilities is NOT living up to responsibility! It is selfish immaturity at its worst. If you're not adult enough to take on real adult responsibilitites then you have not really arrived at the age of consent for sex yet, regardless of your age. Aborters are about as 'mature' and 'responsible' as those coddled momma's boys who pose as grown-ups but have their mommies still doing all their laundry and cooking.
It's not legal to have sex with children. Children can't have 'consensual sex'. You are either still a child or you are an adult - you can't claim to be an adult when you consent to sex, but then revert to being a child as an excuse to kill your baby.
When you think you're grown-up enough to start having sex you should have to sign an agreement to live up to adult responsibilities too. You don't get to enjoy the adult priveledge of drinking while still claiming to be a child free from any consequences of your drinking; you don't get to enjoy the adult right to drive while enjoying immunity from traffic laws.
GROW UP before you start having sex.

reply from: carolemarie

Mommy dearest????
Not if she didn't get the chance to say a deep, sincere, I'm really, really sorry!
Now, get ready for the self-righteous stone throwing that the anti-self righteous, anti-stone throwers start throwing!
Will you say you're sorry for all the times you violated God's law by using contraception?
Or does your disbelief and/or ignorance of this law excuse you?
Were you talking to me, or Sander. I'm the one who used abortifacient b/c.
(I know we resemble one another.)
But no my ignorance and/or disbelief does not excuse me. I suspect I will have to pay for that one on judgment day.
Actually, if you repent, your off the hook on judgement day. There is no "anwering for sin" unless it is sin you don't repent of.
Imaginary sin my have different rules though......

reply from: Faramir

Mommy dearest????
Not if she didn't get the chance to say a deep, sincere, I'm really, really sorry!
Now, get ready for the self-righteous stone throwing that the anti-self righteous, anti-stone throwers start throwing!
Will you say you're sorry for all the times you violated God's law by using contraception?
Or does your disbelief and/or ignorance of this law excuse you?
Were you talking to me, or Sander. I'm the one who used abortifacient b/c.
(I know we resemble one another.)
But no my ignorance and/or disbelief does not excuse me. I suspect I will have to pay for that one on judgment day.
I was talking to sander, hoping that she occasionally peeks, since she has decided to go the route of putting me on "ignore" while still taking shots at me. I know she supports the use of contraception, but not aboritifacient contraception.
My point is that we can't fault people for doing the best they can with what they know, even if sometimes they are untwittingly participating in evil.
I don't think you will be harshly judged for your ignorance, nor will anyone else. Not unless it was willfull.

reply from: Faramir

The only Catholics who would reject "my" take on the contraception issue would be those of the "cafeteria" variety.
Your ignorance of the evils of contraception excuses you if it is not willfull.
Certainly nancyu would not be condemned to hell for her abortifacient use if she was ignorant, and especially if she has repented. And she might very well be giving names to NON imaginary people.

reply from: AshMarie88

Pro-choicers claim they wanna end abortion as badly as we do... If that's the case, we should ask them this very same question. Would YOU people take in 2 unwanted children if it meant it'd stop abortion from happening?

reply from: 4given

News for you.. Being Catholic won't get you to Heaven.. It is about a personal relationship with God. Sure people justify whatever suits them if they feel the need to. I am often curious when another Christian- that understands the Faith and natural convictions (at most to me)- yet trade what is natural in place of convenience.. but I just inform them.. and some accept the information. Seems you were trying to be condescending in that post Vernon. How can you accuse another of being less Catholic, for not agreeing with you? How hypocritical! It isn't about serving a Church- but ONE LIVING GOD. Seems to me you like to hide behind the Catholic shield.. but somehow it does not seem to be sincere.. at least not always. Sound familiar?

reply from: 4given

Right.. I have seen the question posed.. Yet none so willing..

reply from: rsg007

Right.. I have seen the question posed.. Yet none so willing..
I am glad you posed this question. It's actually the first time I've seen it posed to pro-choicers. I wanted to respond right away and say that I would absolutely adopt unwanted children that are brought into this world. In fact, when I am ready to have kids (I figure in 5 years or so) I have decided to adopt instead of or as well as having biological children.
However, that does not mean I don't think it should remain possible for a woman to have an abortion if she wants one. Adoption is one solution for unwanted children, but not the only one. The main argument for legal elective abortion is to uphold women's rights over their own bodies. If a woman does not consent to being for 9 months she should be able to have an abortion.
I definitely think that elective abortion should be legal and as rare as possible. Therefore, my motivation behind adopting unwanted kids is to provide a viable alternative to abortion for a woman (thereby facilitating making it rarer). This does not mean, however, that I would use the option of adoption to coerce or "force" the woman not to have an abortion: She should be fully informed of all her choices so she can effectively exercise her right to choose.
Edited a typo in first paragraph.

reply from: rsg007

The real problem is that it is also possible to conceive a child without having intended to do so, and many of you seem to feel that intentions rather than actions determine responsibility. You imply that, even though you caused the conception, the fact that you did not intend to absolves you of all responsibility for your actions, which you were fully aware were not guaranteed to have the desired result.
Let's apply this "logic" to another situation, just for clarity. Suppose a group of people are blocking the road, and refuse to move and allow you to pass. It is true that you have a right to continue down the road, and they have no right to impede your progress, and you can logically assume they will move if you simply drive toward them, so, with no intention of harming any of them, you cautiously proceed. While the crowd reacted just as you logically assumed they would, moving to avoid being struck by your car, due to some unforeseen circumstance, you run over one of them.
Does the fact that you never intended to do so absolve you of responsibility for the consequences of your actions?
Is this the post you wanted me to respond to? There is another that I didn't answer too--I'll get to that in a minute.
And yes, in my opinion, the crux of the abortion debate is women's right's over their own bodies.
But in answer to your hypothetical situation and the assumption of responsibility, even though there was no intention involved: In a legal (and moral) sense, yes, the driver would have to assume some responsibility. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess a charge of vehicular manslaughter would be brought. But there are many other factors that need to be taken into account in the scenario you describe--the assumption of risk on the part of the people blocking the road, the exact nature of the "unforeseen circumstances" that contribute to the accident, etc. A jury would decide exactly where to place responsibility in the case.
But the whole hypothetical is not really relevant to assumption of responsibility in the case of accidental pregnancy: Why is the only way to take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy to carry to term and raise the child or give it up for adoption? I have stated many times that the mother is exercising notion of personal responsibility if she determines that abortion is in her and the child's best interest. (See my next post for more about "potential suffering.")
Just because some people feel abortion (or adopting out) equals a lack of assumption of responsibility does not mean that all people feel this way. And in the end, it is the choice of the mother to do what she so desires with her body.

reply from: rsg007

Does this potential exist in the case of every unborn child? And you think it better they are killed to avoid the possibility? Why not just kill them all then? I mean, if it would be "best" for them...
Yes, I believe this potential exists in the case of every unborn child. For fear of sounding radical (no comments, please), I would not really want to bring a child into this world. However, those are only MY beliefs--I realize most people don't share them and if they want to have children, then they absolutely should be able to. Therefore, of course I don't think that all unborn children should be aborted. Equally, your beliefs that no child should be aborted should not be applied to every pregnant woman. Whatever happened to letting people decide how to live their lives, especially where their bodily integrity is concerned?
People will always do things that are not allowed. Obviously, that can not be prevented. We do our best, but we can't just kill potential victims to eliminate risk, can we? Suffering is part of life, and everybody gets a taste. Some get more than others, but who can say how much makes a life not worth living?
I have actually been through this before, and, believe it or not, the stats say that the supply of unwanted newborns doesn't even come close to meeting the demand. It is older children, many of whom were actually "wanted" by their mothers who are more difficult to place. There's really no need for a "call to arms" here on that issue. It's really a moot point.
You're not getting the point: The point is that if elective abortion were illegal there would be a higher number of unwanted born children (of potentially many ages--who knows at what point the child would become irreconcilably unwanted). People who vote to outlaw abortion should realize this reality and be prepared to do something to combat it since it would be a direct result of their desires.
Sure, that's OK.
Well, to be fair, you must admit the two situations are not exactly the same. There is a big difference between expecting a woman who has conceived a child not to kill it and expecting a stranger to assume personal responsibility for it. The law insists that parents, who create both the child and the dependence, provide for the child, but in the interest of the safety of the child, allows mothers options to avoid assuming that responsibility. We, as a society, have an obligation to care for all who would otherwise perish, however. Those of us who are too old, too sick, or for whatever reason, can not or will not take personal responsibility for those children will still do our part, even if that is just helping pay others to care for them...
The two situations are actually remarkably similar: A woman denied the option of abortion may be forced into carrying and raising a child against her wishes--she may have no money, resources, desire to do so, and it may have been unplanned. A person forced to adopt a child may equally have no money, resources, desire to do so.
You will argue that other people should not have to take responsibility for a woman's choice to have sex that results in an unplanned pregnancy, but they should have to take responsibility for denying her one of the options for dealing with that pregnancy. By voting to outlaw elective abortion, a person must assume some responsibility for the fact that more unwanted children will be born.

reply from: sander

Hogwash.
Personal responibility and possessing good character should be the only things needed for people to do the right thing. People have options denied to them all the time.
If I can't pay my bills, I'm denied the option of demanding the bank give me the money I need.
If you could just imagine for a moment that these are human beings we are discussing. Isn't there any sense of compassion for the child at all? Children are being killed for the sake of the creature comforts of the mother or lack of will or lack of desire or any number of mind numbing selfish reasons. There IS a third party in all of this and this third party doesn't have a say. That should appeal to anyone's sense of fairness.

reply from: AshMarie88

Why shouldn't it? What's wrong with giving EVERY INNOCENT CHILD LIFE?
And the same can be applied to the unborn child's body, which is mutilated and killed in an abortion, therefore disallowing them to make THEIR OWN choices about THEIR OWN bodies.

reply from: AshMarie88

Also I couldn't give a crap if the woman is a temporary "host". Yes the unborn child needs some of her nutrients and the womb to live, but um ever stop to think that's a NECESSARY life process? That sometimes you NEED to take responsibility and give someone else a chance? Or are you just that damn selfish that it's all about YOU YOU YOU and screw the little ones that depend on you?
There's two bodies in pregnancy, not one. There's two lives, two humans, two of everything. The woman isn't the only important being in the process.

reply from: galen

-------------------------------
i totaly agree

reply from: english

You need to think more deeply about this.
If elective abortion was outlawed, people would certainly learn very quickly to not ***** up their contraception. Women are very lax with their contaception for 2 reasons: 1, they don't realize how easy it is to get pregnant, and most importantly: 2, they barely even think about it and have a "cross that bridge when it comes" attitude as they are vaguely aware they could abort the child. There would be absolutely NOWHERE NEAR the amount of children needing to be adopted as there are currently children slaughtered.

reply from: rsg007

You need to think more deeply about this.
If elective abortion was outlawed, people would certainly learn very quickly to not ***** up their contraception. Women are very lax with their contaception for 2 reasons: 1, they don't realize how easy it is to get pregnant, and most importantly: 2, they barely even think about it and have a "cross that bridge when it comes" attitude as they are vaguely aware they could abort the child. There would be absolutely NOWHERE NEAR the amount of children needing to be adopted as there are currently children slaughtered.
May I ask if you are male or female? You talk a lot about women's responsibility to use contraception correctly. It is also the man's responsibility.
And where are you getting your stats about how lax women are with contraception? It's debatable that were abortion outlawed, there would be fewer children needing to be adopted--accidental pregnancy (i.e., where contraception fails even when used correctly) does happen.

reply from: english

I'm a 16 year old girl and know how people's mind works, I don't need to experience things to understand them. I'm a girl and can completely understand why girls don't use contraception properly. There is also a lot of ignorance surrounding it, and that is no one's fault but the mother's, it's her responsibility is she's having sex to know about it.
I know it's theman's responsibility too, I just thought that went without saying and didn't really mention it as we're talking about women because they're the ones that will get pregnant.
I'll be back in a sec with stats about contraception.

reply from: english

"If you follow the instructions in the information leaflet contained in packs, condoms are about 99 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that one in every 100 women per year could get pregnant using condoms."
Presuming said people using condoms have sex about 150 times a year, that does not mean once in every hundred times they have sex the condom fails, it's so much less that that, I can't work out the maths but you can see what I mean.
Implants and hormone injections have a greater than 99% annual effectiveness.
So if an implant is used along with condoms, the chance of getting pregnant really is tiny.
edit - I'm going to attempt the maths.
If 100 women have sex about 150 times a year using condoms, approximately 1 will get pregnant. That's a 1 in 15000 chance but obviously I don't know how much they are presuming people have sex on average. But say 100 women using condoms only have sex 10 times a year, it's still only a 1 in 1000 chance.
So say it's a 1 in 10000 chance to round it down.
Then there's the greater than 99% effective implants & injections. Round it down to 99%, so the maths are still 1 in 10000
one ten-thousanth = 0.0001
0.0001 x 0.0001 = 0.00000001 every year they are sexually active.
0.00000001 = 1 in 100,000,000 every year they are having sex. And that is why I'm so sceptical when people say they were using contraception properly but accidentally got pregnant.
Even if it was that condoms failed 1/100 times they were used, and implants say 1/100 times they were used, together, that is 0.01 x 0.01= 0.0001. 1/10000 chance.
So there you go

reply from: english

My bad not 1/100,000,000 every year, it's every time a woman has sex.
Say a woman does it on average 30 times a year over 30 fertile years (a relatively low number of doing it on average to make up for the fact that later years are less fertile and for possible "dry" years), that would be
40 x 30 = 1200
100,000,000/1200 = 1/8333 over her lifetime, very roughly.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics