You just blew your "doesn't anyone think about adoption..." argument completely out of the universe. THAT is one of the worst rationalizations I have heard on the subject.
Any old unwanted child? That is bilaterally opposed to your previous descriptions of children.
Of course it was out of line - so was Shane's assertion that you can inflict whatever pain you want on any other living thing as long as it can't feel or remember it. Barbaric.
You suggest, no DEMAND that women NOT have an abortion, choose the alternatives of keeping the child or putting it up for adopting and then denigrate the mother by suggesting dubious intent on that woman's part.
WOW. That is the heigth of hypocrisy.
It was a hypothetical situation, posed based on taking Shane's suggestion - everyone should be in the adoption market if they want a voice about abortion - to it's logical end.
The question was very valid. You only have one child. You have plenty of room for more. Why have you not opened your doors to children who need homes? It solidifies your position and solves part of the problem at the same time. The only reason not to would be if you felt that you required YOUR DNA in the children you raised. Most folks who adopt find that to not be a very good excuse.
If someone wants to show me either the decision support checklist for how many children it's acceptable or required to have, I'm all game. Didn't know there was one. Of course, you know, that little knife cuts both ways. Perhaps people who don't have kids feel as if they've no choice but to argue for
abortion, for fear of answering this ridiculous and irrelevant question.
I've got plenty of reasons that we have only one child, and don't need to answer that to anyone. I find the entire question over the line. It's a perverse attempt to distract from the issue at hand. WE have exercised careful judgement with regard to procreation...and now I'm to be thrown on the fire for acting responsibly? Whatever.