Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby
Really? You're going to attack the adoptive mother of FIVE children for pointing out that not every set of potential parents is ready/able to adopt an emotionally troubled child?
|
So, your definition of "attack" has really gone downhill, huh?
...
Oh no I attacked you.
...
...
...
I'm a horrible, horrible person for ellipsising you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agzg
That's a super defensive post to something that actually just made me giggle.
Should've asked for the CarFax.
|
lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
"And sometimes those children are too physically, mentally or emotionally damaged for even the most caring and loving and financially stable of possible parents to deal with."
I thought of that and I'm not even really awake yet.
If you want to rip on the state for lying about conditions or inflating figures, then do that, but don't make the children sound like 1997 Impalas. It's not their fault.
|
This.
And mostly I think adopting an embryo is value neutral, it's as good or bad as having IVF oneself or having a child in vivo. But it's not at all like adopting an actual child, infant or otherwise. I guess if you see embryo as 'person' you're saving a life.... maybe. There's no guarantee that the embryo would 'take' after all. Which is why IVF parents fertilize so many in the first place, and implant more than one. This shit's expensive and multiple procedures increase the cost significantly.
But 'snowflake' is stupid as is whining about being "PC" when this was nothing of the sort.
Threaded Mode
