Canadian Cynic again. Yawn:
In defense of her Handmaid's Tale fantasy world,
Yeah, I'm really advocating that women be forceably impregnated. Yet an another untruth from Canadian Cynic. So what else is new.
Quite right, Suzie, since, as we've already noticed, when Canada's wankers say they're all about the infants, they really mean they're all about the perfect, defect-free ones:
As the mother of an autistic child, I take exception to this. This is more of Canadian Cynic's glib rhetoric.
So, Suzie, where are those "thousands of couples" who can't wait to get their hands on a precious bundle? Oh, right ... they're checking under the hood, and they're not really keen on all those "sub-standard" models, are they?
Canadian Cynic is simply out to lunch on this issue.
It is true that there are large numbers of children waiting to be adopted. And these children are often more difficult to parent than natural children.
But to imply that adoptive parents reject "sub-standard" models because they're necessarily selfish is very insulting for adoptive parents and shows a profound ignorance of the adoption issue.
Adoptive parents must consider what they can take on according to their personal circumstances. It is not necessarily a question of selfishness, but a realistic assessment of what they can take on. If the prospective adoptee has a history of sexual acting out, is it a good idea to bring that child into a family that already has two young children? If the child has serious medical issues, but the parents do not have access to the resources to help this child, is that a good match? If you live in a rural area, but the necessary treatment is in a far away city, is it a good idea to adopt a child that requires that treatment?
The fact of the matter is, there are lots of families waiting to adopt, and the reason that only a fraction of adoptees are adopted has more to do with the process than with the kids or the parents themselves.
From what I understand, there isn't a lot of research about adoption in Canada, but if we look at the US-- a more conservative society-- we can see some reasons why the number of children being adopted is not as great as one would hope.
For instance, one article found that the mindset of some the welfare agencies discourages potential parents from adopting because of the attitudes of the people who took the initial inquiries.
A new baby? That's a gift from God. A new baby with potential problems? Ehhhhh ... not so much, right, Suzie?
Well, as the mother of an unborn child who has a statistical chance of being autistic, I say he's full of crap. (What was that about Canadian Cynic scolding me for taking cheap shots?)
It's okay when he does it.
To suggest that people on the right side of the spectrum only care for "perfect" children is sheer non-sense. Who is leading the fight to make sure disabled babies aren't euthanized (like Tracy Latimer)?
Disability advocates and pro-life groups.
Who advocates that disabled babies be adopted (not killed in the womb)?
Canadian Cynic thinks that women who don't want their disabled children in the womb and they want them terminated, that's just fine and dandy. And they end up like this kid:
By the way, it's amusing to see how the fetus fetishists like Suzie All-Caps are all about the kids until, like a new car, you drive them off the lot. Then, suddenly, they're not so appealing anymore, as Suzie points out here when she makes her point that she's talking only about the new ones:
The original story was about newborns. As if concern for newborns precludes for concern about anyone else.
It's intriguing to notice how the FFs like Suzie absolutely swoon with delight over the youngsters, until those youngsters hit a particular age. Then, suddenly, ehhhh, they're someone else's problem.
More glib rhetoric from someone who loves to smear with fallacies.
Apparently, that "sanctity of life" notion really does have a "Best Before" date. Who would have guessed?
That's rich coming from the crowd that thinks that killing right up to birth should be legal. If the baby doesn't draw oxygen with his lungs, he merits no compassion whatsoever.
Canadian Cynic scolds me for saying that loving one's child is a moral obligation.
Even after Gigi makes it clear that there is no magic "Must love them" elixir, what does Suzanne suggest? Suck it up and love them, 'cuz it's the right thing to do. Jesus, but how do you even begin to have a dialogue with someone that unspeakably detached from reality?
Yes, I am really detached from reality that I advocate that people should grow up and learn to love their children.
Canadian Cynic's alternative: kill them in the womb, or don't love them.
What a wonderful heart-warming sentiment.
Oh and this beauty:
So which is it, Suzie? If that child isn't a wanted child, can the mother unload it on the state, or is that mother stuck with it? Apparently, you really want to have it both ways. Quelle surprise.
Let's examine the logic. If the mother can relinquish her parental rights, does that mean I'm suggesting that she must?
And if she doesn't relinquish her right to parent, how is declaring her moral obligation to love that child contradictory?
It seems pretty straightforward to me: if you do not want the child, then you can terminate parental rights. If you keep the child, it is your moral obligation to love that child.
Canadian Cynic is so agenda-driven, he can't read properly. He seems to be suggesting that a parent who keeps an unwanted child should have some kind of right to not love the child.
The pro-abortion crowd has been crowing "every child a wanted child" since the 1970's. Their solution is to get rid of unwanted children through abortion.
My solution to unwanted children is not to kill them in the womb, but to want them, and to not let parents off the hook for not loving their children. If someone has a child, they are morally obligated to love them. As if we had some kind of moral excuse to not love our own children. What a crock.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca