Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ustwo
adopt /\u0259\u02c8d\u0252pt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-dopt]
[...]
7. adopt out, to place (a child) for adoption: The institution may keep a child or adopt it out.
Just saying for those who don't think that a fetus is the same as jacking off to Henti.
|
As witty as it is to reply to an entire post of mine with the definition of a word, I think I'd be stating the obvious if I said that you directly avoided responding to my points, either for lack of time or want, or because you actually agree with them. It's particularly disingenous, though, because it doesn't address the question of the OP at all (i.e. threadjack).
But to humor your premise that somehow adoption is the answer for a couple recently pregnant and deciding on marriage, let's take a look at what "adoption" would actually cost the mother:
Physical costs:
Nausea and vomiting
Fatigue and sickness
Missed work and/or school
Frequent urination
Mood swings and stress
Sleep deprivation
Tender, swollen breasts
Slight bleeding or cramping
Headaches
Constipation
Faintness or dizziness
Death (potentially)
Financial cost:
Quote:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2005 45.8 million Americans do not have health insurance. If this figure includes you, you can anticipate an average hospital bill of $5,000-$10,000 for a vaginal delivery. Add at least $2,000 if you need a c-section.
These figures do not include the medical costs associated with nine months of prenatal visits, ultrasound costs and other lab costs. If your baby is born premature or with health problems, neonatal costs can range from a few thousand for a short stay to more than $200,000 if you baby is born more than 15 weeks early.
Even those parents with health insurance can expect to pay coinsurance and deductibles related to pregnancy and childbirth.
|
Additionally, women who take maternity leave typically lose 25%-50% of the income. I think at my work its 75% of salary during the leave.
So you're suggesting that because YOU believe she should bring the child to term, she should choose option b below:
(a) Abort the child, with little medical cost, no lost wages or physical pain, with the ability to make a decision about marrying her boyfriend based on her actual feelings for him rather than being forced into the decision by an unexpected coagulation of cells.
OR
(b) Keep the child, experiencing nausea, vomiting, fatigue and sickness, mood swings, sleep deprivation, bleeding and cramping, headaches and constipation, faintness and dizzines, thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars in medical bills, the possibility of DYING before or during childbirth, dozens of doctor's visits, missed work and school - so that the child can be adopted?
Why, again, do you believe that option B should be selected? Even in the IDEAL case that this clump of cells actually survives to birth, is born succesfully and is adopted into a loving, functional household; I fail to see how justifies a woman sacrificing her life, body and money for 9 months when a much simpler, cost-effective and safer option is available. This point is driven even further by my points above; it's not like she CAN'T have a child at a later point. It's not as if a man's sperm is somehow in limited production, or that a woman doesn't release one egg every month. There are hundreds of opportunities for a woman to become pregnant during her ages of fertility, so why choose the most inopportune time to conceive one? Why not wait until financial, emotional and physical stability are actually PRESENT and the child is actually DESIRED before forcing them into a situation because "well, it's here now, so we'd better bring it to life!"
As a man, I find it very difficult to believe that I'd suffer even a few of the physical costs (not to mention, financial costs) above just because someone thought I should. How can you believe that women would behave any differently?