Is it hypocritical to be pro-life and anti-gay adoption?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote yes. Pro-lifers say women should put the babies up for adoption instead, but then by opposing adoption by gay couples they just fill up the foster homes and make things worse for those born.

[Alcon]

Not really.

It would help fix the problem of too few foster homes, but in their eyes, it is not worth it. It's not really a paradox.

[Gabu]

I wouldn't say it's hypocritical, since they do justify that position by saying that gay people can't raise children effectively.

Now, the truth behind that assertion can certainly be debated, but they do have their reasons.

[John Dibble]

I wouldn't say it's hypocritical, since they do justify that position by saying that gay people can't raise children effectively.

Now, the truth behind that assertion can certainly be debated, but they do have their reasons.

Ditto.

[The Duke]

Not hypocritical.  One is largely unrelated to the other.

[Redefeatbush04]

Option 2. If the woman can force a man to pay for a child for 18 years. He should have a say on whether the child will be born or not.

Unless she somehow raped him didn't he have a say as to whether or not they were going to have sex (and therefore whether or not he wanted to risk having a child)?

Someone has to pay for this child and IMHO it should be the shared responsibility of both parents.

Unless she was raped, SHE had that exact same choice, and she's the one who got pregnant.

They should get rid of the child support laws.

Even if she was raped she should still have the baby. If she feels that she cannot raise it, the baby should be adopted. Their are so many people out their who are infertile and unable to reproduce, who instead adopt babies from overseas. Yet their are babies in this country who are slaughtered because their mother doesn't feel like raising them, or claims that she can't. That's f**cked up. Their is also a growing trend of gay couples who have been in a steady relationship for a long period of time adopting babies. This is probablly not a good thing if the baby they are adopting is from their gender (for obvious reasons), but in general gay adoption is good. The baby will at least have a better life than it would have if it had been aborted. What really bothers me is that people who oppose abortion oppose gay adoption and vice-versa. Why? They go hand in hand. Quite honestly I don't see how you can allow the murder of the infant. I also don't see how you could disallow the murder of the infant, while making it more difficult for it to find a home.

[Nym90]

It's not hypocritical. They are seperate issues.

[Ben.]

It's not hypocritical. They are seperate issues.

Agreed... being a Democrat and a pro-lifer, that said i don't really have an opinion on gay adoption, that said every same sex couple who have adopted who I have met have been decent and attentive parents and I would also argue that gay marriage in of its self was a good thing because it promotes monogamy and permanent relationships, that said I understand and respect those who out of conviction do not support gay marriage or adoption.

[opebo]

No, its not hypocritrical.  Both positions are stupid, but neither is mutually exclusive.