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.
I don't need to bother with the article. As someone who has adopted, and thus has followed it over the years, infants and under 2 years of age are adopted quickly, like in a flash! Thousands of couples/singles are waiting to adopt in both the US and Europe.
Most of the kids in foster care have serious mental health issues, which is the reason they are hard to place. We tried to adopt children that had been in the system, but they don't even return a call if you call for information. If they answer, they try to talk you out of doing it because of all the issues involved with older children. Children with physical disabilities are highly adoptable also.
We adopted a 4 week old infant with Down syndrome after trying to pry 3 or 4 children out of the Kansas Foster Care System. We had signed up with sort of a matchmaker between people seeking a baby/child with Down syndrome, and within a couple of months, we had a placement from our state.
Anyone wishing to consider placing a baby/child or adopting a baby/child with Down syndrome should check out this website, but there is a waiting list if you are interested in adopting as the demand is much higher than many would think: https://www.ndsan.org/ Our son is 35 years old, and last we checked years ago when we were considering adopting another child with DS, there were 100 couples/singles on the waiting list, homestudies completed, and just waiting for the call that their baby/child was ready to come "home".
Because of supply and demand, domestic adoptions cost between $20,000 to $40,000+ with a private agency, less for a baby with special needs. State agency fees are very reasonable, BUT rarely do they have any infants or young children, so one can expect a child at least 7 to 10 years old the last time I checked as over the years, the age keeps increasing with the demand for children being so high. And, no, race is not that important to many of those desiring to adopt.
"There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption."
And, my guess is with the state, rather than private agencies, had these babies, with the fees so small in that case, even more couples/singles would be interested in adopting. Many that adopt go on to adopt more children.
So, we really don't need to sentence pre-born babies to death, as there are parents out there waiting for a call to bring their baby "home". I remember that call almost 36 years ago like it just yesterday.
Sadly, in the case of abortion, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". Give the baby the choice, the chance to live with a couple/single that truly desires him/her.
As we are seeing more and more same sex couples getting married, i think we'll start seeing demand for adoption go up which may offset the potential increase in unwanted births in this country.
Will the red no-abortion states allow same sex married couples to adopt? Hmmmmm.
Maybe this has a bright side.
1) Women strive harder to take more positive control of their lives.
2) More selective of who they sleep with.
3) Focus more on a career and control of their future.
4) prevent themselves from STD.
Are you trying to appear heartless? Because that is how you are coming across.
You must have misunderstood as it did sound heartless. Heartless are those promoting aborting babies in order to save a buck on foster care, because they are so uninformed about adoption of babies and young children, which are in demand by millions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90
We have had many righties on this forum categorically state they do not want to pay more taxes to care for the extra babies who will be born in no-abortion states.
They won't be paying taxes, the babies will be adopted within days by couples waiting right now to get a call to say a baby is available.
People should not post on subject that they are ignorant about!
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
Private charities can be set up to do that if they choose.
Catholic Charities usually does this. They could probably place all the babies they could get their hands on. Other faiths also have agencies. A woman can also go to a private attorney to arrange an adoption. So many choices besides death to the fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JenaS62
As a country, we could save a ton of money by killing poor people too. The welfare roles will be reduced. Medicaid will be reduced. Put the resources for the poor to better use like schools.
Oh, let's do that with the prisons too! Imagine the savings! At least in the case of the babies, they are innocent, so prisoners really should be put down first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Nanny
There is no such thing as "pro-abortion".
It's pro-choice. I wouldn't have one, but I don't make decisions for other women.
The foster care system is already overwhelmed, and many kids age out without ever being adopted. Conservative states will soon be complaining about the
huge increase in spending for all types of public assistance. They already complained before this ruling, it's going to get much worse.
"Abortion approving" vs "Pro-Life". If you believe in "choice" you approve of abortion. The foster care system has NO BABIES. Even babies born drug addicted are quickly adopted after withdrawal as I have a friend who takes them in as fosters. The older kids are hard to place as many of them are flat out dangerous, it isn't like they come from a normal home or have normal problems, and the states like the work count. It is called "The Adoption Maze", and there is a book on it, if you would like to be informed about the subject.
Stop trying to kill off babies with false information. Average age of a foster child is 8 years old. Race is not a major player when it comes to placement, and neither is developmental or physical disabilities in babies and young children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JenaS62
I swear they don't see babies as humans. I guess it's because if you can't see them or hear them, they are not real.
Hey, if when they start moving in the womb, they still want to believe it is just a "clump of cells" like a tumor, it is a waste of time to try to teach them biology!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox 15
Maybe all of the protesters holding "Adoption is the answer" signs will step up and adopt.
(I'm betting no on that)
Millions of couples/singles are waiting to adopt babies in our country, and with lower fees available with a state adoption, even more would step up to adopt. Most cannot afford adoption from private agencies which runs between $20,000 to $40,000+.
Please do some research on adoption because commenting like you are an expert!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocknyc
As we are seeing more and more same sex couples getting married, i think we'll start seeing demand for adoption go up which may offset the potential increase in unwanted births in this country.
True, that will increase the number, and in the past, some same sex couples actually were stepping up to adopt HIV positive babies/children, and children with other disabilities. There "call" to be a parent can be answered! At the present time, heterosexual couples are often favored, and with the "supply and demand" it is harder for them to adopt. I read an article that said if it were not so difficult that many other same sex couples would likely be interested in adopting.
Also, Kansas, a red state, has allowed same sex couples to adopt since they were allowed to marry.
Yeah, I know some oppose this, but nothing says they can't parent as good, sometimes better than any other couple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Ma
We are taking a lot of undocumented minors and place them in foster care system.
Yet, we can’t do that to American-born children who need foster home?
Something is wrong here
No, no, no, no, no! That is not part of the liberal agenda, you can't mention all the money being spent on illegal aliens as they feel that is "votes in the bank" for the future. Sadly, even a decade ago, when I looked at the photo listings of children available for adoption in KS, there were siblings groups of 4 or 5 (sometimes more) of Hispanic children waiting for adoption, and they had to be adopted by someone Hispanic, so we certainly don't need to import more! Plus, children of unknown backgrounds probably sent here so they could get citizenship and eventually bring in the rest of the family. I would never, ever have considered adopting an illegal alien.
Ever notice how the liberal agenda is all over the place, and it is like a puzzle where the pieces could never possibly be put together to make any sense.
We have had many righties on this forum categorically state they do not want to pay more taxes to care for the extra babies who will be born in no-abortion states.
You walk a tightrope when you go down that path. On one hand you say there will be a tidal wave of millions of babies that get to live that will overwhelm our natural and financial resources and on the other you say abortions are rare, last resort and mostly for medical emergencies (so those wouldn't survive anyway) and it is definitely not used as a form of birth control. Which is it?
No matter how much you improve the foster care system you will not improve the outcomes. Money will improve facilities and add beds. Dedicated staff is around now and I’m sure they would appreciate being paid more- many come from the foster care system themselves.
Adoption is hard and not likely for many children with medical and mental disabilities.
This I say being very involved with quality foster care agencies over many years.
It is what it is.
Let's work on turning off the spigot of unwanted babies instead of killing the surplus.
I swear they don't see babies as humans. I guess it's because if you can't see them or hear them, they are not real.
That was much easier when Roe v Wade was decided since there were no sonograms. I’m sure that’s the reason we all decided 20 weeks was the limit most people accept. Women don’t really start feeling the babies until then. But I saw my babies moving around and heard their heartbeats much earlier than that. By the time I was 20 weeks pregnant we already knew their sex and had a name.
You walk a tightrope when you go down that path. On one hand you say there will be a tidal wave of millions of babies that get to live that will overwhelm our natural and financial resources and on the other you say abortions are rare, last resort and mostly for medical emergencies (so those wouldn't survive anyway) and it is definitely not used as a form of birth control. Which is it?
Righties have won the Roe v Wade fight. Their red states are fighting to out-do each other in how restrictive they can make their anti-abortion laws.
Now, deal with the aftermath... more unwanted babies and more babies whose parents are not capable of caring for them.
I am not walking any tightrope. Your people, however have just caught the car. Now deal with it.
Will the red no-abortion states allow same sex married couples to adopt? Hmmmmm.
Same sex couples can adopt in all 50 states.
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.
