Why is this not in the news?

[Michchamp]

You make it sound like I was bitching about the process. I was not, just stating the facts.

That's one of the reasons people went out of the US, because a baby was hardly a baby by the time the adoption went through. Is the process necessary? Absolutely. Is it a reason people often look outside the US to get a quickie baby? sure is.

I'm not offering my thumbs up or down on the whole thing either way.

I just like to bitch about government.

 

[Thumb]

Obviously you've never seen Raising Arizona.

Um yes, it is very difficult to find babies to adopt in the United States - even for private adoptions. I have a brother-in-law who has adopted 2 children, both toddlers because it was nearly impossible to find a baby to adopt. A woman he works with was literally giving him the third degree when she heard about his adoption because she has been trying to find a baby to adopt for years - she practically accused him of bribing someone to get ahead if her because she thought he was lying when he told her he was adopting a 3 year old child. I also have a close friend who has adopted 4 kids - he makes SIZE and even he said it's very difficult to find babies for adoption in the US. Another close friend of considerable means tried for over a year and finally found a pregnant mother on the other side of the country through an ad they placed with a service. And I have a coworker who has literally spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to find a baby through private adoption for over 2 years - she and her husband produced a 20 page hardcover book about themselves that they mail out to agencies and mothers looking for couples to adopt their babies. That's 5 people who all attest to the difficulty of adopting babies in the US - 3 of them easily .5%ers that use private adoption agencies.

Your little anecdote says nothing about the process before finding a child - just that it takes >6 months to complete the process once it's started. Frankly, I'm shocked that someone can complete an adoption that quickly. I think my brother-in-law's first adoption took close to a year with the foster program, children's services visits, etc, etc. Although they were adopting a neglected kid from an unfit mother so that probably adds some time to the process.

I love how 1 hour and 30 mins after I post about a friend and adoption, you try to one up it by mentioning 392646842638 people you know who are adopting. Convenient.

 

[Spartanmack]

I love how 1 hour and 30 mins after I post about a friend and adoption, you try to one up it by mentioning 392646842638 people you know who are adopting. Convenient.

I think it was 1 hour and 40 minutes. I love how you say you "posted about a friend and adoption" when in fact what you posted was an incorrect statement that I was absolutely wrong about the difficulty of adopting a baby in the US. Then I respond that I'm right with evidence of multiple cases and your response is that I'm just trying to "one up" you. Sorry if I didn't comply with the 90 minute rule but you did wait 4 hours and 20 minutes to incorrectly say I was wrong so maybe you can cut me a little slack there - I was away from my iPad for about 4 hours last night.

 

[Thumb]

I think it was 1 hour and 40 minutes. I love how you say you "posted about a friend and adoption" when in fact what you posted was an incorrect statement that I was absolutely wrong about the difficulty of adopting a baby in the US. Then I respond that I'm right with evidence of multiple cases and your response is that I'm just trying to "one up" you. Sorry if I didn't comply with the 90 minute rule but you did wait 4 hours and 20 minutes to incorrectly say I was wrong so maybe you can cut me a little slack there - I was away from my iPad for about 4 hours last night.

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit. I never argued it was not difficult to adopt in the US, in fact, my whole post was about how it is.

What I refuted was your saying there are not many kids available for adoption in the US, and you vaguely hinted abortion was the reason behind this which is in fact bullshit.

What there is a lack of is instant babies, which was why people went to China or Africa to get a "boutique baby" because in the US the process is so lengthy you end up with a toddler not an infant. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of young children in the US in foster care or state run facilities that nobody will adopt because the demand is for one less then 6 months old.

 

[Sbee]

Pretty funny coming from a guy who wants the entire world to abide by his "consensus as science" beliefs re: anthropogenic climate change. Yes, being that I'm not a science denier and I don't pick and choose when science matters so that I can select a convenient, arbitrary definitions of life to justify killing human beings, I do have a logical definition of where human life begins. I know that life begins at conception, the point at which a new organism with it's own DNA now exists that didn't exist before. The baby has a heartbeat, circulatory system and organs in 3 weeks - before most women even know they're pregnant. According to all the laws of nature, the offspring of two members of a species is always the same type of creature as the parents - the offspring of humans is without exception, human. The idea that you use "viability outside the womb" or whatever to say the baby is some other-than-human organism is clearly anti-science. The idea that you use poverty to justify abortion is downright appalling particularly in this dayand age when you have couples searching the world over because there aren't enough babies to adopt here in this country.

I understand that you want to take a group of cells and give it the same rights as a human being. there is a point where a fetus becomes viable, that's around 6 months, until then it's by definition a parasite.

who's the one that's picking and choosing science to fit their narrative?

 

[Spartanmack]

Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit.

Where's Vic to award me the victory now that Thumb just lost the argument with the whole "reading comprehension" bit?

I never argued it was not difficult to adopt in the US, in fact, my whole post was about how it is.

What I refuted was your saying there are not many kids available for adoption in the US, and you vaguely hinted abortion was the reason behind this which is in fact bullshit.

Ok, Ok, I won't take the TKO and instead knock you out with the facts. You are flat out WRONG. I did not say "kids", I clearly said this:

...in this day and age when you have couples searching the world over because there aren't enough babies to adopt here in this country.

Yes, I specifically said BABIES. To which you said this:

Um, no.

That is not why people adopted from outside the US. They did it because the adoption process in the US is painstakingly long and difficult, where as countries like China and several East African nations the paperwork was expedited assuming you had the money to pay the fees and grease the wheels.

I understand you're trying to make your point on the issue, but you're dead wrong, there are plenty of babies/children awaiting adoption in the US

It is you who is clearly dead wrong about how easy it is to adopt a baby in the US. In my rebuttal to this nonsense, I even pointed out that my brother-in-law, who doesn't have $100k to blow on private adoptions for 2 babies in the US, instead adopted two toddlers. And that friends of mine who can afford to pay $50k for a private adoption, definitely found it easier but also had great difficulty finding a baby to adopt in the US. But you, with your excellent reading comprehension skills took that to mean I was just trying to "one up" you.

What there is a lack of is instant babies, which was why people went to China or Africa to get a "boutique baby" because in the US the process is so lengthy you end up with a toddler not an infant. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of young children in the US in foster care or state run facilities that nobody will adopt because the demand is for one less then 6 months old.

This also is nonsense, if you have the means for a private adoption and are lucky enough to find a mother willing to carry to term, you can leave the hospital with a days-old newborn baby. I know because 2 of my friends have done it. But unless you have significant disposable income to pay adoption fees and medical care for the expectant mother, it's virtually impossible to find a waiting list for a baby less than years long. And it's a real shame that we are performing 1.21mm abortions per year with fewer than 2% "necessary" to protect the life of the mother or due to rape or incest when so many couples are so desperate to adopt a baby. You are absolutely wrong about this.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm reading both posts, and I can't understand why you're arguing with Thumb about it.

seems like you're doing your "moving the goalposts" thing now.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I understand that you want to take a group of cells and give it the same rights as a human being. there is a point where a fetus becomes viable, that's around 6 months, until then it's by definition a parasite.

who's the one that's picking and choosing science to fit their narrative?

I've never heard this. You have a reference?

 

[Spartanmack]

I understand that you want to take a group of cells and give it the same rights as a human being. there is a point where a fetus becomes viable, that's around 6 months, until then it's by definition a parasite.

who's the one that's picking and choosing science to fit their narrative?

Wow, you almost sound smart making that point, except "viability" is not what makes us humans - it's just a convenient cop out of the pro abortion crowd. And here's a definition of parasite -

par?a?site [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

So no, a human baby in a human womb is not, by definition, a parasite. Clearly, it's you who is picking and choosing their "science".

 

[Sbee]

Wow, you almost sound smart making that point, except "viability" is not what makes us humans - it's just a convenient cop out of the pro abortion crowd. And here's a definition of parasite -

par?a?site [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

So no, a human baby in a human womb is not, by definition, a parasite. Clearly, it's you who is picking and choosing their "science".

did you add that part about it being another species?

i looked at oxford and webster and it didn't say that. just because cells are alive and multiplying doesn't constitute a human being with full protection of the law.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm reading both posts, and I can't understand why you're arguing with Thumb about it.

seems like you're doing your "moving the goalposts" thing now.

of course, according to you, every time I directly address an argument head on, I'm "moving the goalposts"

 

[Gulo Blue]

This parasite thing sounds like propaganda, like Agent Smith using a definition to determine the human race is a virus. It sounds like science to some people, but it's not.

 

[Michchamp]

of course, according to you, every time I directly address an argument head on, I'm "moving the goalposts"

no you're not.

you said this:

... The idea that you use poverty to justify abortion is downright appalling particularly in this dayand age when you have couples searching the world over because there aren't enough babies to adopt here in this country.

to which he replied:

Um, no.

That is not why people adopted from outside the US. They did it because the adoption process in the US is painstakingly long and difficult, where as countries like China and several East African nations the paperwork was expedited assuming you had the money to pay the fees and grease the wheels.

I understand you're trying to make your point on the issue, but you're dead wrong, there are plenty of babies/children awaiting adoption in the US, don't try to get stupid and use abortion as the reason it does not happen often, blame the bureaucracy.

A good friend of mine and his wife adopted 1 child (started process at 2 months old, 8 1/2 months old when adoption finalized) already and considered going through China to adopt a girl, but recently that has become extremely difficult as well.

you said there's a lack of babies to adopt in this country, which is why people go to China or Africa. he said that's not true, it's not a lack of babies, but the length of time it takes to adopt an American baby that leads them abroad. This refutes your point. maybe not with statistical evidence, but it's not like you posted that either.

post #46 is just arguing semantics & moving the goal posts. go with volume, throw enough BS out there, and hope everyone else gets annoyed enough to wander away. It's actually a thing: it's called the Gish Gallop. I wonder if you knew that, or if it's just common for BS artists to adopt the method? birds of a feather as they say...

I would not be surprised if you print threads and post them on your refrigerator: "See family?!? I won an argument on the internet today. suck it."

 

[Spartanmack]

did you add that part about it being another species?

i looked at oxford and webster and it didn't say that. just because cells are alive and multiplying doesn't constitute a human being with full protection of the law.

no, it's in both cambridge and dictionary.com. But if that's not good enough for you, it's also in the first line on parasitism from the Encyclopedia Britannica as well as a text book on parasitology. And if you read more on the biology of parasites, you'll also learn that by definition, parasites are an invading organism coming from outside the host, whereas the zygote is formed inside the womb from the egg supplied by the host. You'll also learn that a parasite will remain a parasite it's entire life, they don't develop, morph or evolve into other beings that can live without a host.

Oh boy, I can't wait for chump to chime in and blast you for moving the goalpost with that second bit. But, even if what you say is true, which of course it's not as it has it's own clearly human DNA, by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the fetus is unmistakably human. Just because you don't want to give it any rights, doesn't mean it's not human.

 

[tinselwolverine]

This parasite thing sounds like propaganda, like Agent Smith using a definition to determine the human race is a virus. It sounds like science to some people, but it's not.

It sure sounded like science to me, the way he said it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

Judge for yourselves.

 

[Spartanmack]

no you're not.

you said this:


to which he replied:


you said there's a lack of babies to adopt in this country, which is why people go to China or Africa. he said that's not true, it's not a lack of babies, but the length of time it takes to adopt an American baby that leads them abroad. This refutes your point. maybe not with statistical evidence, but it's not like you posted that either.

You were doing ok up to here but this is where you go off the rails, because my subsequent response to him was that no, I was not wrong - it is in fact extremely difficult to adopt babies in the US and I cited 5 instances of folks who attest to that. I never once said adopting kids was difficult - there are hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care and homes awaiting adoption. I specifically said babies because that is what's relevant to the abortion argument and it is extremely difficult to adopt a baby in the US, unless you think everyone who wants to adopt a baby in the US can easily cut checks for $50k, then I guess it's just difficult and not extremely difficult.

I would not be surprised if you print threads and post them on your refrigerator: "See family?!? I won an argument on the internet today. suck it."

Funny how you're always accusing others of changing the subject then you use that smoke and mirrors bullshit about the Gish Gallop as if that somehow invalidates the preponderance of evidence in my argument vs. Thumb's. It's so painfully clear that I'm right about adopting babies and have stayed on point in this argument yet you're such a partisan hack that you once again make a fool of yourself taking the other side. You are so weak. And If I did that refrigerator thing, my refrigerator would have been full less than a week after coming across you...

 

[Michchamp]

...

Oh boy, I can't wait for chump to chime in and blast you for moving the goalpost with that second bit. But, even if what you say is true, which of course it's not as it has it's own clearly human DNA, by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the fetus is unmistakably human. Just because you don't want to give it any rights, doesn't mean it's not human.

I don't think he's moving the goalposts... he got bogged down by his own clumsy use of language. He shouldn't have pointed to the dictionary when the definition doesn't actually say what he's trying to claim.

I think this is more an example of the limitations of his MSU education... which he has made great strides in overcoming, but is still not there consistently.

it's all relative though... here I sit on my high horse, but you should've seen what happened to me when I tried to post on the Cambridge Sports Forum. Those Harvard creeps could make their heads pulsate and destroy every point I tried to make. they didn't even have to touch the keyboard.

 

[Gulo Blue]

To my knowledge, it's incorrect to assert that this is a question answered through science. The criteria of viability is used out of convenience. It doesn't have scientific significance regarding the existence of a human being, it's just scientifically identifiable (approximately.)

 

[Gulo Blue]

It sure sounded like science to me, the way he said it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

Judge for yourselves.

The 1st Matrix was such a great movie. Particularly the 1st time you see it when you don't know why things are happening the way they are (like the mouth sealing over..."WTF!!! Are these FBI guys wizards?"...then he wakes up "Ah. He was just dreaming."...NOPE! ...then there's that robotic parasite.) Definitely a movie I wish I could wipe from my memory and experience for the 1st time again.

 

[Sbee]

To my knowledge, it's incorrect to assert that this is a question answered through science. The criteria of viability is used out of convenience. It doesn't have scientific significance regarding the existence of a human being, it's just scientifically identifiable (approximately.)

viability is a medical term, not sure if you have kids or have gone through the process but it's something that the doctors go over with you. it's generally 24 weeks 0 days, doctors are unlikely to do a cesarean section prior to that time and they won't resuscitate a fetus before 23 weeks.

there are cases that defy this though, like an ectopic pregnancy, which can go past 24 weeks but not be viable in that there is no chance for survival outside of the womb. those are usually caught at the 20 week period and have to laparotomy