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'm not here to ponder the morality of abortion or birth control use - too each his or her own. But I simply can not understand why so many people see nothing wrong with demanding someone else pay for what they want. Condoms and birth control pills are not expensive. If you can afford your iPhones and iPads and your satellite radio and Netflix subscriptions, you can afford your birth control, and if you're old enough to be engaging in adult activities, then you're old enough to make adult decisions about paying for your birth control.
Did you read the article linked in the OP before you typed this up? The study's focus was on implants and IUDs. The article actually listed the price range, which many young women cannot afford. Why don't you check it out?
But the ones that are being born even now are not adopted. There are a lot in foster care. If there is an overabundance of unwanted children now, spilling over into the foster care system, there would be even a more horrendous situation if adoption were not an option.
Link please?
According to this report, pp.23 "Conclusion", which is the most current I could find while doing a brief search:
"...nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."
There was great shame, years back, in being unmarried and pregnant.
Because of that there were a lot of back alley abortions.
Mothers sometimes took the child of their child, pretending it was their own.
Families kicked their young daughters from the home.
Young girls even would commit suicide, not wanting to face the disgrace or get jobs, having no where to turn.
Adoption homes were a much bigger business, I would suspect. There are stories of how they would abuse the children in them, turning the facilities into work camps.
I understand where you're coming from, but we are a society who has chosen to take on the cost of raising children who's own parents cannot, or will not bear that burden. It is an order of magnitude cheaper to prevent the pregnancy than pay for a child for 18 years... Or longer.
Please see my previous post above. There is a shortage of babies waiting to be adopted.
America disagrees with you, but you are welcome to your opinions and your fantasies.
America disagrees with me? Really? There are nearly 315 million Americans in this country and they all or most disagree with me? Sure liberal Americas does. That's no surprise.
Um, weren't you the one who asked why "things worked" in the 1960s-70s? Well, this post is a direct response explaining how things did NOT work back then. Follow the line of conversation, LOL.
Edit: Actually, it wasn't you who asked that... but the question was clearly quoted with the post to which you're responding, so you need to try reading those quotes next time.
America disagrees with me? Really? There are nearly 315 million Americans in this country and they all or most disagree with me? Sure liberal Americas does. That's no surprise.
No, much of conservative America disagrees with you too... even some of the MOST conservative posters on here would disagree, as they've said quite clearly that free BC is a logical and less expensive option. Read the thread again, if you don't believe me.
Haven't you figured out yet that abstinence doesn't work?
LOL!
Care to cite an example when a baby has been conceived during a period of abstinence from sexual activity - and was not conceived through artificial means - nor as a result of a rape?
There's a whole lot of horn tooting in this post alone, so don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back... either that, or you're just blowing smoke to make a point.
I see - I am damned if I do and damned if I don't - right?
I was accused of having "compassion that ended at my pocketbook".
So I can let that go and allow that falsehood to be in the forum's minds - damned, or I can state that I do help children with my own money - stopping short of giing details so i am not accused of "patting myself on the back" - and I will still be damned - by you.
Once again Gizmo - I am dissapointed in you. I was attacked presumptively and I addressed the presumption - yet you went for the low blow.
Pathetic.
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.
