Yeah. I ALMOST attempted a drive from Texas to Costa Rica once. But my wife and her family talked me out of it. I've probably just been running good when it comes to traveling and crime, and perhaps got a little overconfident I mean, I look back now and think I must have been nuts. I'd have to go through Mexico, Nicaragua and Honduras.

It's not an advisable trip to do without being in a caravan. If you were to do it alone, you will run into problems. I've toyed around with the idea myself, but even though I'm fluent in spanish, it's a dangerous proposition. I'm always shocked when I hear people have done it without major incidents, I think it's a combination of good fortune and planning.

Yeah. When I started to do some real research, it just looked like too much trouble. I read that I could be stopped by the police up to ten times and expected to hand over cash at every stop, especially driving a new-ish car with American plates. Being hassled by the police over and over is what finally convinced me not to attempt it.

That goes without saying, and is the least of the problems you will encounter. Most of them just want a few bucks and are relatively harmless, I've dealt with them before in Nicaragua and Argentina, and I never minded, since you can exchange some pleasantries and ask them anything you want, since you've paid them. Plus, their general presence is a good indication that you won't be mugged, outside of the few bad cops that will demand a lot of money or they will plant drugs on you, but that is mostly Mexico, and a rarity.

I'm sure you know "Yankees" are not that popular, I wouldn't drive with US plates if you paid for my trip.

As point of fact, I brought up the personal anecdote both after and because you had brought up several person anecdotes ITT. You opened the door, not me.

However, I'm glad you did. So my question is the same I asked earlier: do you accept the existence of anecdotes on the other side? Such as my success stories? Or those of millions of others?

The problem here is you are making an outrageous claim: "[adopted parents] can't fake care and compassionate attention". Thus far the only evidence you have brought up is 80 adopted serial killers...and now two stories of ****ed up adopted people in your personal life. What else do you have?

So one upscale quarters and a whole lot vagabond living. I'm not knocking it. I did it too. But you seem to have been exposed to far more degen lifestyles.

I honestly don't know how anyone can make the comment that a child is worse off with good, loving, and financially stable adoptive parents than with uncaring real parents. Again, there is a level of ignorance inherent in that view that is incomprehensibly mind boggling. And I'm not sure if it comes from religious brainwashing or a complete lack of social empathy (an inability to put yourself in other people's situations).

There's some degree of truth in the point you're trying to make. I'm just saying it's not totally black and white. Yes, the majority of people tend to love their own kids more than ones that are not their own. But it doesn't always apply and it certainly doesn't apply to bad parents vs. people that want kids and are willing to provide a loving and nurturing environment that some real parent either cannot or are unwilling to provide.

veteran! It's not just an issue of having "good" parents. We have to assume that they are going to be above the mean, being vetted and so on. It is much more complicated than that. Adopted kids don't or won't at times accept their new parents, or show respect to them, no matter how well-meaning and loving they are. They may refuse to eat at the kitchen table with the rest of the family, for example. It's not just about "great parents" equals great children. My claim is that there are more kids that you wish to know who are in foster homes, or in the process of adoption, and are doomed, and wish above all else to be with their biological mother and father.

I have already clarified this, but I will do it one more time: when I said that you can't fake it, I am talking about the emotional and instinctual relationship between parent and child. I look at my daughter and see me, my father, my grandmother, my mother, my wife, her parents, their nose, our hair.

Even biological mothers sometimes suffer from depression after giving birth. It can be tough. They are demanding, and it is almost abusive how demanding an infant can be. Hours of crying. A whole year straight of "no!" In these periods of depression, even good mothers have entertained thoughts of strangling their own child.

It's far from ideal, is all that I am saying, to place children with non-biological parents. But I know why I have met so much resistance. There are some here with outlandish political agendas and schemes that they are trying to subvert society with. They are against the traditional family.

I have no clue what you are talking about. I, at least, am resisting you because your position is nonsensical. I personally know members of my own family with none of the problems you keep trying to attribute. Please don't mistake this for some attempted subversion of society.

That might be true in a few cases, but your blanket statement is demonstrably wrong. If you're going to close your eyes to facts, then there's nothing more to say to you.

Hence my comment that you need to get out more. Or at least open your eyes when you do. Do you even realize this isn't always the case? There are countless 'real' parents who do not have emotional and instinctual relationships with their kids. Many are selfish, self absorbed, or otherwise not mentally capable of putting their kids above themselves.

I've known countless 'real' mothers who routinely abandoned their kids to go out drinking and partying with their friends 7 nights a week. While I've known adoptive mothers who have put their careers, vacations, and lives on hold to tend to their adopted child.

So once again, you are just demonstrably wrong and ignorant to make such blanket statements. Unfortunately, you're obviously not someone who lets facts get in the way of your wrong-headed views.

I'm not at all against traditional family. It's not about some here having a political agenda. It's that they are able to form opinions based upon facts, while you demonstrate with every post that you're incapable of doing so.

I think you have your answer.

There was once a greater overall point that was being argued, in which adopted vs biological parenting was directly related to. Not being snide, genuinely curious where all this was going, before this one point took on a life of its own.

It began when Doggg made a comment about the alleged irony between a discussion of the evils of God killing babies and the like, and us evil prochoicers. He then made a ridiculous comparison about the dependency of fetuses and one month old babies so I pointed out how the former is dependent upon the mother, but the latter, while dependent, is not dependent upon the mother as they can be raised by father/family/adoption/etc. This led Doggg to make a serious of ridiculous claims such as "as nobody really wants somebody else's one month old" and the like that launch many challenges. And hence the new conversation was born. It is kind of like this thread adopted it, which perhaps explains why it is such a trainwreck

In a scenario where a pair of twins, of which one sterile and both living unaware of each others existence but having grown up under the exact same circumstances. I'd actually feel more more confident stating that if they were both to receive a child on October 4th, one by biological birth, one by adoption, that the risk of the biological kid turning out to do bad stuff (relating to parents/upbringing obv) will be higher than the one raised adopted. Giving birth and having children should not be a right. Adopting parents don't get "forced" with having a baby, taking care of responsibility or having any trouble doing what's best for the kid before their own interests come to mind.

If we're going to say that adopted people are more likely to turn out to be serial killers because they had 'fake' parents, incapable of loving 'some other child' [I]that's not even theirs' is just kinda meh-ish. If any, it are the orphanages where they often have to stay for too long that messes them up. In general the people there do take care of them, they do feed them, they do cloth them but at the end of the day it's just a job for those people. One they love very much and mostly anything that comes with it but they are not the ones that can give you real parental love as an adoptive parent can. You're not someone else's child, you become their child.

And no I'm not adopted nor adopting or having any plans to do so, however it's just ridiculous stating such

(And no, I wouldn't mind going back OT to what this topic was originally about)

Nicely done.

The point was that they are completely dependent upon somebody else.

You refuse to see the point. You hold society liable to support, feed and take care of someone else's one-month-old baby, but not the baby's own mother. You feel because it is only 20 weeks old (in the womb), it is an overall moral good to kill it, and I know this because of the "lifestyle" justifications you use that you believe outweigh any moral discomfort.

There is a better way, and we used to have it down pat. But the trend away from that particular way has caused the decline of the family, the rise in divorce, the rise of the single parent, the rise in crime overall, etc etc.

And I prefer "pro-death." Let's just call it what it is- when a human fetus's heart stops, it is a death, not a choice it made, in any way.

This thread could also take another turn...

Presumably you believe in hell? You've done your best (though unconvincing to me), to justify why it's okay for God to kill innocent children, because they are going to heaven. But what about those who were not baptized and do not get to go to heaven? What of them?

Also, what do you make of a god that sends his children (regardless of age) to eternal torture for finite mistakes. Perhaps too far off topic for this thread, but I'd be interested to get your thoughts on this. I think it does pertain insofar as evil is in the title to describe the OT god, which is exactly what he is if he sends people to eternal torture. Thanks.

i would have preferred you respond to my post about adoption, opposed to cycle back to the abortion bit. Both a fetus and a baby are dependent, but they are not both dependent upon the mother. This is a critical difference. In the womb the "wishes" of the mother and baby may well be at odds. Outside of the womb, if the interests of the mother and baby are at odds, there are many ways to ameliorate the situation, such as through adoption.

I would strongly suggest you stop guessing at what my view point is. You are consistently wrong. I do NOT claim it is an overall moral good to kill a fetus. That just isn't my position.

Crime is declining.

The choice in prochoice refers to the mother, not the fetus. Nobody denies or hides that the fetus dies. But sure, if you call yourself anti-choice I will call myself pro-death for funsies.

My goal was not so much to prove that it was morally justifiable for God to kill people, but that God is not *necessarily* immoral as a result.

I think you missed a few threads earlier this year, we went into all of these topics in good detail.

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation, and is only evidence of salvation. The thief on the cross was never baptized, and Jesus told him he would go to heaven.

I'm not sure you can plainly conclude that age is not a factor, but this is a completely separate topic, and we can discuss your questions and sidestep this, at least for now.

Hell is as troubling a concept as possible, but there are a few things that you are assuming, which may not be correct. For starters, you are implying that God directly sends someone to hell. Biblically, God does not want "anyone to perish" and does "not take pleasure in the death of the wicked", but since he is just, he cannot simply forgive without restitution. He cannot simply let everyone into heaven who have not accepted the atonement, that would make him imperfect. I've alluded to this earlier, in that God *has* to punish people, even though he doesn't enjoy it. Hell can be thought of as the absence of God, which is what results from rejecting God. There are a few metaphors of God as a bridegroom courting his bride, but he does not force himself on her. If she (people) reject him, he won't force her, even though he continually attempts to lead her to him. The eventual conclusion of rejecting God is hell.

I don't dispute that eternal separation seems extreme. I would not have it that way it if was my choice, but I can also concede that my understanding is limited and also irrelevant, and that if God says that it is necessary according to his character, then I have no other rebuttal, and even if I did, it still wouldn't matter.

Amen to that POV

Not used to people agreeing with me here, took me a while to realize you were responding to me.

Right. But you've still left me unconvinced. Not sure how others felt.

It's possible and if so, I apologize. I've lost a lot of my patience with such topics. I used to relish reading and responding. Once I realized how many people refuse logic, it just got to be more frustrating than it's worth for me.

Yes, although I realize there are probably almost as many different takes on hell and how one gets there as there are believers.

But he IS all powerful, correct? He presumably has the power to pardon? Or at least the very least, not to inflict suffering?

Who decides what's perfect and imperfect if not god himself? It seems to me, that you're making your god out to be a rather impotent figure.

Once again. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but you're making it very clear that you don't feel your god is omnipotent. Am I misunderstanding you?

Again, lots of different takes among believers on what hell is.

Nah. Not extreme at all. I can live with separation. It's all the torment, burning, brimstone, hell fire, and gnashing of teeth that creeps me out.

Not sure either, I think most people sided with you.

Was only saying that for you to have a look around for your own benefit, not because I'm unwilling to discuss this. The problem with religion is that at a certain point you need faith, and there is the fork in the road. At any point you can ask me to prove that Christ is real in a naturalistic and scientific way, and I cannot. I know some bible scholars do a pretty good job at showing Christ was real, and said implications leading to his divinity, but I'm not educated enough to make those claims, and I also don't believe it's conclusive, since faith is a large portion of Jesus' teachings.

Yes and no. There are a lot of beliefs and denominations, but Christ is predominantly at the centre in some way. Faith in Christ, possibly through works, or some variation of such. The bible describes salvation pretty plainly, at least the hows and whys. What hell or heaven actually "looks" like is debatable, but also somewhat irrelevant.

God has limitations, since he cannot sin. Whether God cannot sin because he won't sin, or simply cannot because he is unable to is irrelevant to the fact that IF he does sin, he is no longer perfect. This turns into a paradox rather quickly, and I think it's the result of examining the nature of an infinite being. God hates sin, but does that mean that since he "hates" he is not perfect? No, just like God being "unable" to sin or let people into heaven who have not accepted Christ, makes him impotent.

If you want to define God as not being all powerful, because he cannot sin, then I will grant you that he is not all powerful.

The bible paints God as grieved at people and their sin, so much so that the flood took place. Whether literal or figurative is irrelevant, since an important point is that God seemingly changed his mind. He made, he regretted, he erased. Why not just eliminate the first step and not grieve yourself, as an omniscient and omnipotent being? because his character dictates that he has to share and love and do the right things, regardless of the consequences. To do the wrong thing because it is easier is a human ideology, not one of perfection.

No arguments here.

I think they are inseparable concepts. Separation from God IS torture, we are just unable to perceive that because we are not yet separated, and God's love and light are still active, even if not evident.

Even I don't like dumb or obvious paradoxes, like: Can god make a stone so heavy he cannot lift? Or can he make a square circle, etc.? But I don't think this is as problematic (nor silly) of a paradox. Either god has the power to pardon, or he does not. Most Christian teachings state that you can be a homicidal child molester and if you accept Jesus Christ on your death bed, you'll be saved. If this is the case, then certainly god can save anyone from hell, no? Oh, and by the way... If god is perfect in the sense you state and completely without sin, then how is it that he is even able to create sinners?

No offense, but it seems that you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to make things jive. To an objective bystander this is nothing more than severely convoluted logic, to make your beliefs fit your own morality. But I'm sure you don't see it that way.

Not sure how you're arriving at this conclusion. Again no offense, but it seems as though you make stuff up in order to fit your points. How do you know separation from god is torture? Have you ever been separated from god? Do you know someone who has? Are you saying that I am not now separated from god? And if I was, I would be in a tortured state?

Im sure you have biblical support for this idea ? although I doubt it would convince me. Punishment is a purely human idea. Im sure god, if there is one, has no concept of punishment, and no need for it. I guess rather than punishment, you could think of it as culling, or throwing away the rubbish, or pulling out the weeds, if you are of the "hell is destruction" rather than "eternity burning in fire" persuasion.

Basically said, isn't it like 'perfection' is living as He does and sinning is living other than in His ways? So if God were to have his reasons to kill (in a scenario which would be straight sinning for any human being with His perfection as we know it today) we'd rather have to adjust our definitions of perfection and sinning than stating He'd be sinning in the first place, as He is the one sets those terms, right? If you meant 'everything he does != sin, so therefor He's 'unable to sin'' to begin with, never mind me.

And many more of those; If you want to hear that he's capable of such, yes he is. He's just setting limits for himself basically when stating He 'can't' do anything. There would be no even greater power that would take His keys if He would've wanted to open up the gates of heaven for Stalin himself.