A valid question/argument or just more tu quoque/fallacy of relevancy tactics? I would think that a pro-life stance is right or wrong based upon it's own merits. The only thing that being pro-life necessarily entails is to not kill and unborn child. Was there something in the definition of pro-life about adoption that I missed?
2007-09-27 13:31:42 · 10 answers · asked by Zombie: Rebel Without a Pulse 2 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
It is just another tactic to discredit people who disagree with them by using two similar but different topics to come to a faulty conclusion. There was another question that did the same thing by asking if pro life men should pay child support for a fetus. While the fetus is a living being and deserves to be nurtured and cared for it isn't right to say a man has to take care of the woman so long as his care can be abused or discarded by the woman having an abortion anyway. So those questions are just about putting out more propaganda because the feminists know they are losing the arguments here. If you watch real close they will do this every time they lose a couple of arguments. Too bad for them they lose these arguments too.
2007-09-27 17:51:09 · answer #1 · answered by Chevalier 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Definition of pro-life: A term that can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, human cloning, research involving human embryonic stem cells, and the death penalty, but most commonly to abortion, and support for fetal rights.
Though some pro-lifers do like to promote adoption. However, I'll take a question asked by a pro-choicer and try to deduce the argument from that.
"Why don't you pro-lifers help some of the people who are already here"?
The unspoken conclusion is that pro-lifers should help those already living instead of fighting for those who aren't born. But it misses the point. It dismisses all arguments to the contrary without contradicting or saying anything against them. It simply assumes the moral high ground and proceeds from there. This is an example of begging the question. The truth of a statement such as "a baby is a person who has rights" does not rest on the fact that "I don't adopt". One has no logical connection to the other and as such both are irrelevant.
2007-09-27 20:53:56 · answer #2 · answered by Fortis cadere cedere non potest 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
The pro-choicers' argument that all pro-lifers ought to have adopted kids and/or be on an adoption wait list reveals that the pro-choice crowd does not want to be held responsible for their own actions. In other words, pro-choicers feel that they should have every right to have as much sex as they want but it is then somehow wrong to expect them to raise the babies they make.
2007-09-27 21:08:17 · answer #3 · answered by Theodore H 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I don't think pro choice people actually expect pro-lifers to actually adopt the unwanted babies of the world.Most healthy babies do not have any difficulty being adopted.Unfortunately babies born with special needs are more difficult to place and may spend their youth in foster care until a permanent home is found,if at all.Who is stepping up to adopt these children?All children deserve a loving home and to be wanted.I don't know what the answer is but we must all make choices we can live with.Sometimes just because something is the popular choice does not make it the right choice.What is your definition of parents?
2007-09-27 20:57:39 · answer #4 · answered by gussie 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes, I think it is. The fact is, we're not really just dealing with the abstract here. We're dealing with a real issue that effects the well being of citizens. If you're against abortion, you should be prepared to help out with the ramifications of lots of unplanned pregnancies. You're against abortion, but you don't want to deal with the issues that would arise if you got your way and it was made illegal?
Basically what I'm hearing from the anti-choice crowd is that they don't want any life "denied", but they're OK with crack babies languishing in foster care or growing up in extreme poverty. That's cool.
And Gussie: actually you're wrong. In china, for example, only a percentage of children in orphanages are ever adopted. It might be true that a healthy baby in America has a good chance of adoption , but when you take all the world into account, most aren't.
2007-09-27 20:37:39 · answer #5 · answered by Priscilla B 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Amen to that, Theodore, "pro-choice" is all about promoting hedonism without having to be held accountable!
2007-09-27 22:35:10 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Most pro-lifers try to force putting a kid up for adoption on women. They want to overcrowd the adoption centers, and do nothing to help it.
2007-09-27 20:42:40 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
How can someone who fights for the right of the inoscent be wrong. Most women who choose abortion are not informed of the ramifaction. They think it is just a simple medical procedure, but that is a lie. Adoption is a postive option for all involved.
2007-09-27 20:49:33 · answer #8 · answered by angela b 1 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Fallacy, because the fact that I am unable to support a child at this point in my life doesn't negate the fact that taking the life of someone who did nothing to deserve it is wrong. If you think abortion is acceptible then you should abort yourself.
2007-09-27 20:42:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
Yes. If women are so unintelligent or childlike that they cannot make their own medical decisions without "help" from someone with a supposedly superior set of values, then you folks claiming to be morally superior must take over the raising of her child. Surely an idiot like your typical sexually active female can't be trusted with a child, right?
2007-09-27 20:37:41 · answer #10 · answered by Junie 6 · 6⤊ 6⤋