Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PP isn't owned by the government. PP isn't competing with private practice... Isn't that what I said. The government makes it so no one can possibly compete with PP.
PP and private practices are not competing with one another. That's the whole point. PP sees the people that cannot get in to see a private doctor. "The government" has nothing to do with it, except as far as policies in some states leave a large number in the insurance gap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians
It's a nice gesture. but how come they never talk about it? The adoption agencies that I have been to are concerned about saving babies.
How many adoption agencies would tell the pregnant woman to abort her baby? Of course not, their business is adoptions. In the same way, planned parenthood specializes in abortions. They aren't going to mention adoption until after they discuss abortion. Their priorities are backwards.
They do talk about it. They make referrals to adoption agencies. What source do you have that confirms that they only mention adoption after discussing abortion? The fact is that women who choose to place a child for adoption have often made that decision for themselves and never consider abortion at all. Their only contact with PP is perhaps to confirm they are indeed pregnant.
Planned Parenthood "specializes" in preventing pregnancy. That is where the Planned Parenthood name comes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians
I agree. Actually, I am usually a reasonable person who agrees with co-workers and everything.
For conservatives, the problem with planned parenthood is all about abortion. If prevention and education are to be effective then we need results. This ties into my comment about responsibility and consequences. Women (and the baby daddy) need to make better choices BEFORE she gets pregnant.
The consequences (i.e. pregnancy) doesn't go away after an abortion. Especially if there is no change in behavior.
By eliminating PP, you eliminate a major source of prevention and education, which is the focus of PP.
It takes significant effort to change our culture into one where a teenage girl giving up her baby for adoption is viewed as heroic. Presently, the choices seem to be only abortion and keeping the baby, neither of which is a particularly good option.
You seem to think the majority of women who choose abortion are teenagers. They are not. Most are in their twenties.
In 2008, sixty-one percent of the women who had abortions already had children, and thirty four percent had two or more.
" ... between 2008 and 2011, 72 percent of women seeking abortions were already mothers. A study from Guttmacher found that mothers typically have abortions to protect the children they already have; they simply cannot afford to raise another child."
Puts me in mind of a cartoon from a few years ago: Mom and dad are reassuring a little boy who is distressed. The mom is saying "Of course we love you, dear. After all, we didn't kill you like we did your little sister."
Never lose sight of the fact that abortion is about killing, first and foremost. And that's no myth.
Puts me in mind of a cartoon from a few years ago: Mom and dad are reassuring a little boy who is distressed. The mom is saying "Of course we love you, dear. After all, we didn't kill you like we did your little sister."
Never lose sight of the fact that abortion is about killing, first and foremost. And that's no myth.
I have no qualms at all about getting rid of an indistinguishable clump of cells. None.
I do stand by my point though. Fostering is a lot more difficult than raising a newborn baby. It's a scary proposition for any young couple with pretty much zero parenting experience. I don't blame any young couple for being scared of the idea. I'm not saying that a couple in their early 20's can't do it. I'm saying they're likely to be in for a really rough time if they do. I've seen foster children get adopted and thrive and life was great. I've seen foster parents driven nearly insane. Adoption and fostering -- both are things that are drastically under-sold, under-advertised and under-valued. I'm all for changing that!
I might not be a parent, but I'm pretty sure newborns (be they adopted or not) don't come with warrantees. Cerebral palsy, the illness my friend has, happens due to a traumatic birth. Autism develops when children are toddlers. We both know that cancer can strike whenever. Plenty of young couples with zero parenting experience deal with these issues every day, even starting from day one.
While I can understand being reluctant to going into those parenting situations knowing that's going to happen, you should not have children AT ALL if you are unwilling to parent a special needs child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Newborns, the ones that would be aborted instead of being allowed to see their first birthday, don`t go to foster care.
They get adopted.
Kids that parents don`t want or can`t take care of go to foster care.
Apples and oranges.
Your homeless friend would be better off if he were aborted?
Both my friend and my ex (who ended up in the system with his younger siblings when he was 6, all 3 never found permanent homes, and all 3 faced sexual, emotional, and physical abuse) are pro-choice due to their experiences. As suzy_q pointed out, 61% of abortions occur when women already have children. That was the situation in my friend's case - his parents were married, low-middle income, with 3 children already. They could have taken care of a healthy baby, but found that their income was not enough to adequately care for a child with disabilities (CP occurs at birth). They were counseled into adoption and promised that their son would find a home. It didn't happen. Where were the pro-lifers then?
Many kids in the foster care system were born to mothers who should have either aborted or given their child up for adoption. I absolutely agree we should do more counseling to encourage adoption for women who choose to continue a pregnancy. We should also not shame women who consider abortion, considering the relatively small number of women who carry a pregnancy to term and then choose to give the baby up despite not being fit to care for the child.
Foster children are not as disconnected from the abortion debate as you would like to believe.
In 2008, sixty-one percent of the women who had abortions already had children, and thirty four percent had two or more.
" ... between 2008 and 2011, 72 percent of women seeking abortions were already mothers. A study from Guttmacher found that mothers typically have abortions to protect the children they already have; they simply cannot afford to raise another child."
No such generalization was intended and I have seen those stats before. I was just using it as a one hypothetical case in point.
But since you brought it up, would it be so terrible to strongly encourage women who already have children to go through with the pregnancy and then put the child up for adoption rather than killing it? The same thing applies: Girls and women are conditioned by society to believe that abortion or keeping the baby are their only options. The case for adoption needs to be made loud and clear. We need to stop shaming girls and women who get pregnant. We need to teaching everyone to see adoption as a heroic choice, both by the mother and the adoptive parents. We could really use a big media push to change people's views on these things. It would be a lot more productive than the never-ending pro-abortion vs pro-life debate.
If we're talking about women whose lives or health are in jeopardy, then by all means get an abortion. If it's the result of rape or incest, same thing goes. But all of those cases make up only 3-4% of all abortions annually. The remaining 96% of abortions are done because the baby was an inconvenience. I'd like to see a lot more of that 96% opt for adoption instead.
No such generalization was intended and I have seen those stats before. I was just using it as a one hypothetical case in point.
But since you brought it up, would it be so terrible to strongly encourage women who already have children to go through with the pregnancy and then put the child up for adoption rather than killing it? The same thing applies: Girls and women are conditioned by society to believe that abortion or keeping the baby are their only options. The case for adoption needs to be made loud and clear. We need to stop shaming girls and women who get pregnant. We need to teaching everyone to see adoption as a heroic choice, both by the mother and the adoptive parents. We could really use a big media push to change people's views on these things. It would be a lot more productive than the never-ending pro-abortion vs pro-life debate.
If we're talking about women whose lives or health are in jeopardy, then by all means get an abortion. If it's the result of rape or incest, same thing goes. But all of those cases make up only 3-4% of all abortions annually. The remaining 96% of abortions are done because the baby was an inconvenience. I'd like to see a lot more of that 96% opt for adoption instead.
adoption is encouraged. not many women want to go through an unwanted pregnancy and then give a child up for adoption, no amount of "encouragement" will change that. women are not stupid we know there are three choices.
I might not be a parent, but I'm pretty sure newborns (be they adopted or not) don't come with warranties. Cerebral palsy, the illness my friend has, happens due to a traumatic birth. Autism develops when children are toddlers. We both know that cancer can strike whenever. Plenty of young couples with zero parenting experience deal with these issues every day, even starting from day one.
While I can understand being reluctant to going into those parenting situations knowing that's going to happen, you should not have children AT ALL if you are unwilling to parent a special needs child.
Obviously, I'm not speaking for myself. I'm pointing what a daunting proposition fostering would be for some. If you're getting a newborn baby, you're not getting a kid who is emotionally traumatized before they set foot in your house. You are at least starting with a blank slate. That is why there's more demand than supply for adopting babies, but the reverse is true for adopting 10 year olds. No, it's not a good excuse but it is the reality driving the statistics.
One possible solution might be requiring adoptive parents to become a foster parent for one child for every child they adopt within 5 years of the adoption. Whether that's a useful solution or not, we really need greater public pressure for solving these problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
