A scenario for those wholeheartedly opposed to abortion

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by anifani821

It is a long drawn out process to adopt. I watched some of my friends go thru/ the process and it involves a lot of red tape - and takes a long time - wh/ is strange - since there are so many children needing placement.

Exactly! Lets get rid of the red tape and bureaucracy in our current broken system and then we would likely see an increase in kids being adopted.

[trmihall01]

Even with the foster care/ adoption system i'm betting you still won't be able to find 800,000 families a yr that would be willing to adopt. While i agree this system is broken, adding more wood to the fire isn't the answer!

[kaykay]

Originally Posted by trmihall01

Even with the foster care/ adoption system i'm betting you still won't be able to find 800,000 families a yr that would be willing to adopt. While i agree this system is broken, adding more wood to the fire isn't the answer!

Actually, most babies aborted would be healthy newborns. There are many more people wanting to adopt newborns than there are newborns to be adopted. This is why all the rush to foreign adoption. Most children in foster care were not relinguished as infants, and many people don't feel qualified to shoulder the unique possible challenges of adopting an older child who has been severely neglected/abused, but they do desire to adopt newborns.

[trmihall01]

Originally Posted by kaykay

Actually, most babies aborted would be healthy newborns. There are many more people wanting to adopt newborns than there are newborns to be adopted. This is why all the rush to foreign adoption. Most children in foster care were not relinguished as infants, and many people don't feel qualified to shoulder the unique possible challenges of adopting an older child who has been severely neglected/abused, but they do desire to adopt newborns.

800,000 families a year who want to adopt? Every year? For eternity? I'm not a mathmatition but even i know that's not a rational possibility!

[hothulamaui]

Originally Posted by msconnie73

I am someone who was adopted and I realize that that giving a baby up for adoption isn't an easy thing to do. It is the most loving and humane thing to carry the baby to term and give it up versus abortion as the baby will be given a chance at life.

adoption is great for people who can do it. but there are manly women who can not give up their children after they are born. so we have a huge number of children who have less of a life than they should because their mother is not capable of giving them the life they deserve. these are the kids you talked about in foster care, the ones their parents won't severe their ties with. giving up your baby may indeed be the right and better thing to do, but in a lot of cases it just doesn't happen

[kaykay]

Originally Posted by trmihall01

800,000 families a year who want to adopt? Every year? For eternity? I'm not a mathmatition but even i know that's not a rational possibility!

You might be surprised. I tried to do some research on this. Apparently, no real precise figures exist on how many couples are desiring to adopt but are waiting for a child to be available. The estimated figures are between one and two million couples. If all those were able to adopt, there would still be many more couples per year as more and more people find themselves struggling with infertility. Also, many couples desire to adopt more than one child. Some would love to adopt several if the babies were available to do so.
Furthermore, some of the figures for the amount of abortions likely represent "repeat" abortions which might not occur if the woman had previously given birth and given the child up for adoption. Of course, I would like to see "zero" abortions, but if even some of the women currently electing abortion would instead choose adoption, it would make a world of difference.

Originally Posted by hothulamaui

adoption is great for people who can do it. but there are manly women who can not give up their children after they are born. so we have a huge number of children who have less of a life than they should because their mother is not capable of giving them the life they deserve. these are the kids you talked about in foster care, the ones their parents won't severe their ties with. giving up your baby may indeed be the right and better thing to do, but in a lot of cases it just doesn't happen

I hear what you are saying here and you have a valid point. I still believe, however, that even possible foster care is preferable to abortion. I do, wish, however, that more women would consider the adoption route. I do realize that this is not an easy choice, but it often is the best one. (I may be biased. We adopted our son as a newborn.)

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by msconnie73

I am someone who was adopted and I realize that that giving a baby up for adoption isn't an easy thing to do. It is the most loving and humane thing to carry the baby to term and give it up versus abortion as the baby will be given a chance at life.

My problem with that so called "pro life" stance is: why should a woman be forced to carry the pregnancy to its full term when the fetus is unhealthy and/or unwanted? I'm not saying that abortion should be the first option all the time since there are certainly much better methods of avoiding pregnancy in the first place ... however, in a case like the one I described where the "mother" is drug addicted and stands a very likely chance of giving birth to a drug addicted infant with many health problems, I think abortion would be the most humane solution.

Sorry to break it to you, but giving a drug addicted baby "a chance at life" and having our tax money likely subsidize its medical care, rehabilitation, education, etc. isn't something that many of us are too crazy about. Just because a life is being brought into the world doesn't mean it's going to be a QUALITY life.

I suggest those of you who are adamantly opposed to abortion should be the ones who fully finance all the medical care, food, clothing, shelter, and education these kids need ... because you know very well that a good share of these parents (even those who adopt) cannot and will not pay for every aspect of the children's upbringing on their own. The scenario I brought up is a good example. The sperm donor and the egg supplier are not capable (mentally, physically, or financially) of bringing a baby into the world ... whether they keep it or put it up for adoption!

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

My problem with that so called "pro life" stance is: why should a woman be forced to carry the pregnancy to its full term when the fetus is unhealthy and/or unwanted? I'm not saying that abortion should be the first option all the time since there are certainly much better methods of avoiding pregnancy in the first place ... however, in a case like the one I described where the "mother" is drug addicted and stands a very likely chance of giving birth to a drug addicted infant with many health problems, I think abortion would be the most humane solution.

Sorry to break it to you, but giving a drug addicted baby "a chance at life" and having our tax money likely subsidize its medical care, rehabilitation, education, etc. isn't something that many of us are too crazy about. Just because a life is being brought into the world doesn't mean it's going to be a QUALITY life.

Who are you to determine what constitute a "quality life"? If my biological mother would have heeded your advise, I probably would have been aborted because of all the genetic issues I had. I'm grateful that she did not give me up or listen to naysayers such as you. I have sinced been adopted by a loving family and despite odds, I now possess a masters degree in my chosen field. Again ... Who are you to determine what constitutes a quality life?

As I stated earlier in this thread, I have several relatives in my family whose biological mothers abused drugs prior to giving birth to them. These children were adopted by a family member and not burdening the welfare system. They have since grown up to be healthy adults who have brought joy to many lives.

I suggest those of you who are adamantly opposed to abortion should be the ones who fully finance all the medical care, food, clothing, shelter, and education these kids need ... because you know very well that a good share of these parents (even those who adopt) cannot and will not pay for every aspect of the children's upbringing on their own. The scenario I brought up is a good example. The sperm donor and the egg supplier are not capable (mentally, physically, or financially) of bringing a baby into the world ... whether they keep it or put it up for adoption!

Better option is to streamline the adoption system so that babies can be placed up for adoption early on. There are numerous folks willing to adopt these children and taxpayers would no longer be burdened with the cost of that child's care. Ideally speaking, people would be more responsible in terms of their sexual behavior. Now that a child has been conceived, the most humane thing to do is to give it a chance at life. This is coming from someone who has multiple birth defects and was placed up for adoption.

What is really your concern Valley Native? Is it what's in the best interest of the unborn child who may or may not suffer birth defects (we don't know with certainty that this child would have defects)? Or are you more concerned with the cost to tax payers such as yourself? I've read some of your posts in other threads and I distinctly recall your resentment about having your tax dollars going towards public schools because you do not have children.

You know ... there is a thread in the Politics and Other Controversies forum where several posters indicated that they were moved to tears about pets being abandoned by their owners to shelters where they are put to sleep. So many of us in America are so upset if any harm befalls an animal but barely blink an eyelash about the brutality of an abortion procedure where no concessions are even made to ease the pain of the hapless baby. And we call THIS humane? We have trully become a heartless society and our priorities are definitely warped in this country!

My comments are in bold.

[TANaples]

I think some of you should go out and research what birth defects exist. I think you are looking at this through rose colored glasses if you think these babies will be adopted. Have you ever seen the results of very close incest pregnancies? Have you ever seen people who are so totally mentally and physically handicapped they require countless surgeries and round the clock care for the rest of their lives. Yes, most don't survive to adulthood but many do. How many people looking to adopt will adopt them? I have seen people like this in their 40s and 50s back when abortion was still illegal. Their parents abandoned them and they became wards of the state. Nobody adopted them. If you outlaw abortion for severe congential defects which amniocentisis detects now, what will you do with all these babies that nobody wants? Are you as taxpapers willing to foot the bill for their life long care?

What we also had in the past were state run orphanages. There were more babies born than people willing to adopt them back then. There are more people willing to adopt now? With modern fertility treatments making it capable for more couples to have their own instead of adoption? How many people today want 4, 5, or 6 kids whether their own or from adoption?

This has the potential to be far far worse than it ever was in those times before abortion was made legal.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by msconnie73

Better option is to streamline the adoption system so that babies can be placed up for adoption early on. There are numerous folks willing to adopt these children and taxpayers would no longer be burdened with the cost of that child's care.

Honestly, I don't know of too many people who would be more willing to adopt babies with defects, drug addictions, mental disorders, or health problems than normal, healthy babies. It's survival of the fittest even in the adoption world: the cutest and the healthiest ones usually get chosen first.

Even if and when these infants with disorders are adopted, what makes you think that taxpayers are no longer burdened with the costs??? Most people who raise children (whether through procreation or adoption) rely on at least SOME government funding for the kids' upbringing ... whether it's medical, public schooling, or the $1,000 child tax credit. All those things are subsidized through our tax money in some form!

Originally Posted by msconnie73

Ideally speaking, people would be more responsible in terms of their sexual behavior.

Ideally, yes. I agree wholeheartedly that people should be more responsible, especially in the reproductive area. I've said repeatedly that if people don't want to have children, they should either abstain or use contraception. The problem with that, however, is that human nature often over rules, and birth control isn't 100% effective. In other words, those methods aren't fool proof. In a case where unprotected sex results in a pregnancy that likely will produce drug addicted, unhealthy offspring, I'd much rather keep the option of abortion safe & legal (as long as it's not funded via government money).

Originally Posted by msconnie73

What is really your concern Valley Native? Is it what's in the best interest of the unborn child who may or may not suffer birth defects (we don't know with certainty that this child would have defects)? Or are you more concerned with the cost to tax payers such as yourself? I've read some of your posts in other threads and I distinctly recall your resentment about having your tax dollars going towards public schools because you do not have children.

You're correct that I resent having tax dollars thrown at public education ... but the fact that I'm childless is only one reason. There are many other valid reasons why I'm against public education. I'm not certain what your stance is on that issue ... but judging from your rhetoric on this topic, you apparently don't have a problem with your tax money being used to help irresponsible breeders and their offspring. Some of us are stronger conservatives on the fiscal side vs. the social side, and believe that forcing everyone to contribute through their taxes is purely socialism which has no business in a capitalist society.

Originally Posted by msconnie73

You know ... there is a thread in the Politics and Other Controversies forum where several posters indicated that they were moved to tears about pets being abandoned by their owners to shelters where they are put to sleep. So many of us in America are so upset if any harm befalls an animal but barely blink an eyelash about the brutality of an abortion procedure where no concessions are even made to ease the pain of the hapless baby. And we call THIS humane? We have trully become a heartless society and our priorities are definitely warped in this country!

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion about people who take their pregnant dogs and cats to a veterinarian to have their pre natal litters terminated? Since you believe abortion is bad and should be outlawed, shouldn't that extend to pets/animals as well? After all, shouldn't they be given a chance at life?

Just so you know, I am saddened (and maddened for that matter) whenever somebody does harm to children OR animals. My question is: why do you believe pets/animals are less deserving of compassion or life than humans? Aren't they God's creatures too ... or does your so called pro life stance only apply to humanity?