ROFL. What an off the wall thing to add.
That’s a rather cynical outlook. Making adoption illegal would not necessarily cause the rate at which babies and children are orphaned. Orphans pop up for various reasons: parents die, mother can’t keep them, etc. All those children would be parentless for life if adoption were illegal. Of course the country could resort to mandatory children allocation programs where if you are orphaned, you get automatically assigned to a family without yours or their consent.
The God’s Will problem is a tough one. Assuming there is a god, it seems that as long as you are able to accomplish a goal (in any way you see possible) then it really wasn’t against god’s will. If it really were against God’s Will for a woman to have a child, there wouldn’t be any orphan’s at all. How can a mere human be the judge of what is and what is not for or against god’s will? How do you know it’s not god’s will that the mother not be able to get pregnant and that he wants her to adopt a particular child? If you can present the recorded message of God telling you what his will is then I’ll shut up.
Well, I think any child that has me as a father (or would I be mother?) at this point would be pretty much wasted. I am still of the mindset that free-ranged children yield the best meat.
But it would be a lot about me in this case. Even when a woman has a child, it is not only about the child. A lot has to deal with the person having the child. As much as I can say it, I don’t think I want to have children: but my response was should I want to have children and the option was there for me to be them I would be open to the idea… as much as the woman in my life would be at that point.
Maybe it’s God’s will that they be orphans. We keep slowing down the rate at which people become orphans in order to prevent them from becoming a powerful enough faction to overcome their situation. Every time we save one we take away from the strength of their numbers and in a roundabout way kind of actually screw the rest of them over.
Oh I am just going to grab my popcorn, beer and chair and watch this one develop. Knock yourselves out folks. This is a new argument. Have fun. I have an extra chair in case someone else wants to kick back and watch this. 
Ding ding round one begins.
Somehow the topic when from pregnancy ethics, to adoption ethics. Sounds like Mr. Mears is not only opposed to male pregnancy, but also to adoption in general.
How do you expect orphans to overcome their situation. I was under the impression that having parental figures in ones life is slightly more favorable than not having them. Orphanages are set up like perpetual summer camps. A bunch of kids of various ages, with a few adults to watch over them.
The only way the situation can be overcome (aside from doing nothing and gritting you teeth through he whole endeavor of living in an orphanage) is if an outside adult takes personal responsibility for one of the orphans; giving he or she a home, a bed, good food, loving care, etc. I think the street term for this is “adoption”.
I can’t wait for this orphan regime to rise to the top of society and kill off parents left and right.
Is there a benefit to being an orphan?
Unless of course you are trying to say that adopting one orphan will damage the heart and soul of all the other ones; like they would be feel either jealous or very depressed having a huge blow to their self esteem. This is a definite possibility. Maybe a solution to that would be to prevent the parent from having a choice in which child they may adopt. Make it random. Or have a child psychologist determine which child needs a set of parental figures the most.
Or maybe the government could impose a high tax on anyone who gives up their child to an orphanage. Or even a tax break to anyone who adopts an orphan. At first glance I think these options would decrease the parentless child rate.
I appreciate the offer, now crack me open one of those beers, if you would be so kind.
I think you should apologize to all the orphans of the world who you just insulted. Are you saying that because they are less fortunate, that they can’t do anything to help themselves? That’s the kind of attitude that makes it easy for them to persist as social parasites. If you gave them the credit that they deserve as human beings like you and me, then started having some real expectations of them, they’d probably get up off their asses and better themselves.
It sounds like you are mixing up “child orphan” with “middle aged homeless person”.
If you have any examples of orphaned children under the age of 18 who live completely on their own (that is no orphanage, no parents, no legal guardians) and are successful at doing so, then I will change my position. If there is any data showing that children in orphanages are better off mentally, physically, and socially than children who live with parents or some other kind of guardian, then please share with the class. Or perhaps a personal anecdote if you yourself grew up in an orphanage, or know someone who did.
Your argument against adoption is confusing. I’m not trying to be a dick about it, I just haven’t found the page in the book you are on.
All the more reason to keep them caged, throw in a pizza once in a while.
I can’t give you examples of kids like that because they’re off the books man. It’s not like they have addresses or social security numbers or addresses or medical records.
Nah, just have LOTS of kids. They get hungry enough, they will eat eachother.
Actually, I think this would be akin to Nietzsche’s Will to Power. 
Huzzah, another one for Nietzsche’s Law!
Here you go, Dark or light? Round one seems to be going well don’t you think?
Going great, so far. Dark beer, Beamish if you have it.
Thats all you have to say??? Did I win the argument???
Shit! I guess so.