Bolding added–Adoption is definitely a major factor in serial killers. MANY were adopted.
On one hand, the pregnant woman has an abortion, finishes school, goes on to a productive life. On the other hand, she has the child, goes on welfare, and the child(ren) ends up on welfare, as that is the way they were raised. Or she adopts the child out and spends a lifetime grieving for the child.
One thing I absolutely hate about anti-abortionists is how the think a woman can go through nine months of pregnance and give the child up (and most think only to a married, religious couple) and then go on like “nothing happened.” It’s a insult to motherhood.
I agree, too. We had another thread where a poster was all, “There are women who would forgo sex if there were no abortion.” There was definitely a, “What’s the big deal about nine months of pregnancy?” vibe. I don’t think a lot of men realize how truly horrifying being pregnant is if you don’t want to be. The loss of control over your body, the knowledge that something painful (i.e., labor) will be happening at the end, hormonal changes…and all for something you wish wasn’t there in the first place.
I’ve acutally heard a female abortion protester say “Every women regrets having an abortion. No women regrets having her child adopted.” I asked her if she thought Michelle Landers, the mother of Lisa Steinberg, regretted her decision.
To say that abortion is always wrong and adoption is always right is just ridiculous.
Heh, I can’t speak for those fellows of course, but many guys have a true horror of lifelong celebacy. They would rather suffer many a disfiguring physical imposition rather than never have sex again - rather, literally, to lose a leg or an arm, painfully. Pregnancy has a huge and lifelong affect on a woman’s body, but it is not (unless complications ensue) as significant as losing a leg … hence, some guys have difficulty with the notion that celebacy is worth avoiding the risk of pregnancy.
Not so much that pregnancy is no big deal, more that it is not as big a deal as it would take for them to impose lifelong celebacy on themselves. It is simply a different rating on the relative scale of horrors.
If those parts of Africa took more proactive steps in controlling their population, they wouldn’t be always literally a crumb away from death. It’s not the hunter-gatherers that will practice infanticide if necessary (because abortion isn’t always an option in their world) to control their population who are starving. It’s agricultural people who feel every conception must lead to a birth that can’t feed their too large families.
Some day, it would be terrific if you would provide a cite that shows causation between the two. I seriously doubt that a child of a healthy mother who is adopted by healthy parents has any more chance of turning out to be a serial killer than anyone else.
It’s the risk that would have to be taken, but life if about risk. But the one thing I do know is that I could not gamble the lives of living, breathing people I know who have lives and personalities over some potential person that I have no emotional connection with and no desire to form an emotional or family relationship with.
Okay, you’re kind of hilarious. Life is about risk, but you should be able to kill babies because otherwise there’s a chance your relatives might all become prostitutes.
Here’s a quote from the first paragraph of one of the studies from your first link:
Adoption itself is not the cause. The childhoods of secrets and lies, the frustrated, blocked searches for birth parents, maybe those things are causation. None of that is an inherent part of adoption. That’s like saying being born causes people to be serial killers when it was really because they were abused in childhood.
