Before anyone speaks out against abortion, they should do their part and adopt an unwanted child. Agree or disagree?

I'm still thinking about this. It sounds kind of retarded, but I don't know why yet. Then again, when this first came to my mind, I thought it was brilliant. Like before someone speaks out against killing animals, they should do their part and go vegetarian first. Well? Any thoughts?

There are millions of couples who are willing to adopt a child because a child will make every home happy and every parentless child deserves a foster family and home to be happy and every child deserves to live.

I have a better idea.

Before anyone speaks out in support of abortion, they should make sure that they are responsible enough to deal with unintended consequences of having sexual relations with someone. Be responsible.

Of course, in my opinion, this does not include getting raped because that involves an involuntary act.

Well the thing is is that the population as a ratio of many western nations is falling quite rapidly. Some countries primary population growth each year is immigration or close to it.

There are various reasons why this is happening:

* The job market is not allowed to operate freely, as immigration makes sure that the lowest offers are always artificially filled, especially when this is combined with handouts that are only for migrants and not for the traditional citizen, this pushes many out of a good standing in society, leaving many homeless.

* Feminism (very effective on a societal level).

* Divorce.

And technically abortion comes into this as well, as it is more the people with "something to loose" from another baby that get abortion, rather than those with "something to gain" $$$. Cynical but realistic. Food for thought. Individual responsibility is a prerequisite for a healthy society, so all of this "what if a mistake" thoughts are at least somewhat improper. It's like "that's the point. You are all going to have to get your act together if we are to become sustainable", do you see my line of reasoning?

1.
As I think you realize, that is more an emotional argument then a logical argument. It's meant to appeal to the emotions.

Children find themselves with our parents for many reasons; car accidents; war; genocide; plane crashes et cetera. "Before you complain about pedophilia, you should do your part and adopt a child," is neither here nor there as to the equation of (1) protection of life (2) and whether as the U.S. courts points out in the case of males: willful engagement in sex constitutes risky behavior (an argument that can logically be applied to females).


2.
Analysis of the legality of abortion does not have to always be analyzed from a moral stand point. If one believes in the principle of democracy, as well as in the legal principle of equal protection under the law, one can dissect the Supreme Court ruling (with all its commentary by the various Justices), and ask why is opting out of parenthood not democratized and extended to males, rather then limiting it to the aristocracy of gender (biological sex to be more accurate).


3.
Pro-choice advocates often bemoan anti-choice advocates reducing abortion to a moral issue, yet in all hypocrisy they often turn around and do the same thing. Within the United States abortion was legalized (Roe vs Wade) having little to nothing to do with morals as a reason. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that females in the U.S. should be allowed the choice to become parents. I believe Justice Blackman (I think that was his name) stated numerous times that females in the U.S., to pursue careers, fun, whatever the hell, ought not be bound by the responsibilities of parenthood. Something U.S. males can not opt out of, but rather be held financially bound to a child at minimum, because U.S. Courts have Pontificated (Judges are wealthy men and women) that a male knows sex can produce a child, and therefore assume all responsibility that comes with that "risky behavior."

Before Roe vs Wade U.S. courts held for both males and females, that the "welfare of the child comes before personal choice." After Roe vs Wade females were exempted from that equation, essentially creating an inequality where 16 year old boys must assume more responsibility (even if the work at Burger King making low wages - unlike the wealthy judges that sit in aristocratic relics of black robes from centuries ago in Europe, and Pontificate from a bench on high, what the mere peons of the world should do and think) for their sexual acts then a 27 year old woman.

On these grounds, feminists (does not = egalitarians) lobbied with ferocity against Roe For Men, and on those grounds Roe For Men was ruled against in high court.

Laws are passed almost always, in the United States, by "interest groups" (e.g. MADD, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood et cetera) and not by individual people with individual opinions. This is not my opinion, it is a known fact amongst Political Scientists, and hence the debate over to what extent the United States can be regarded as a democracy.