Yes. I think there are several problems, but one of them is that most people adopting want young babies. An overly careful bureaucracy often takes too long and, of course, that six-week old cherub is now 3 or 7YO and it gets harder to place them. I know two families who have recently adopted and they went to Chna, Viet Nam, and Bulgaria to adopt babies.
How big a list would you like of all the organizations doing this, working their hearts out to make this happen. There are a lot of adoption efforts by "pro-life" Google for yourself
I'm sorry but even organizations numbering in the thousands is a minority compared to the MILLIONS of "pro-life" people out there. Anyway, since there are MILLIONS of "pro-life" people out there, why aren't all the children adopted? You don't need to answer because I doubt you can.
Actually Giddy, that's my point. MaritanMan seems to suggest there are warehouses of babies just waiting to be adopted. There aren't. I don't know why abortion and adoption are so often linked. THere are a zillion other factors that play on whether abortion is right. I happen to support abortion on demand in the early stages of pregnancy. I could go into the reasons here...but then we're back to the baby-killer, womans-body, when does life begin discussion we've had a million times before. It's crazy that this so important issue is so feuled with partisanship. And misinformation. I can't begin to imagine the conflict a young woman must go through without adding the additional crap that's thrown on her from both sides. In the end though...the US, with its 'hard line' anti abortion groups has a substantially higher teen pregnancy and abortion rate than those godless socialists in Europe. So perhaps the scaremongering and hardline approach is not working. The prochoice groups can be guilty of dismissing concerns about abortions such as those in the original article. The prolifers are overtly judgemental, confrontational and sensationalist. And to what end?
Whoaaaa, give me a chance I would like to answer- 1. Many pro-lifers aren't committed enough to children to be that committed to a solution. Many are that committed though. Fact is many pro-lifers limit the size family they have just like pro-choicers do. This is sad, but it shouldn't diminish the strong efforts many pro-lifers are making for adoptions. 2. Adoption has been made very expensive. I know several families who have a great desire to adopt but can't afford to. There are several great programs going now to help with costs. 3. The adoption/ govt. systems are complicated and they make adoption difficult. Some for good reason (not to act too quickly) and some just make it hard to happen. Lots of families look overseas where the process is easier. Because of this many children get older and due to foster care and other issues become more difficult to adopt. It is one thing if a baby could be adopted and loved by parents before that same baby is 5 yrs old with multiple psychological problems. (I have witnessed this experience often) 4. The millions of pro-lifers can't be condemned as a whole for the murder of babies. As if providing adoption opportunity for every unwanted baby would eliminate the murder of babies. Most abortions are occuring as a matter of convenience, the mothers do not want to carry to term. 5. Pro-lifers realize that the responsibility for the babies born are primarily birth parent responsibilities and most efforts are focused to educate and inform parents of how to get it right, instead of murdering a baby. Everybody gets to debate these issues except the 7 month or 4 month or 8 month old babies that are put to death in a clinic. They are too young to defend themselves. I have always marvelled when I ask a woman what would you think of a man who kicked you in your abdomen while you are carrying a child. They all say- Murderer, gutless abuser! That would be a horrible thing to do to a baby. These same women will get a nice clean abortion at a clinic all the while being duped to think they are doing themselves a favor.
I never said babies, I said children, which I assume you'll agree that there are more children in orphanages than there should be. The rest of your post had excellent points though.
How are you determining which is the reaction? Are you trying to tell me that that little cell of The Lambs of God caused all these teens to act out and get pregnant OR Did The Lambs of God rise up because of the staggering number of casual abortions that were going on?
Agreed. (although they're generally in foster care, rather than orphanages). Finding homes for these kids is tough (many have developmental issues, or have been subject to abuse). Not everyone is up to these kinds of parenting challenges. I have a couple of friends who've been trying to adopt a kid of about 5 yrs old and have been waiting over 2 years. I just think the 'why don't you adopt 'em then' line is overplayed in the abortion debate. If finding an adoptive parent for 'unwanted' kids were the condition for banning abortion, I think the pro-lifers would be all over that.
This is assuming a lot. So because someone is pro-life they should adopt a child. What if they dont want a child? I just dont get this argument.
You don't get the argument because the argument is a load of crap. Women aren't getting abortions because they don't want to see another kid end up in foster care, they are getting them so they don't have to be bothered carrying the baby to term, dealing with the reprecussions of people finding out that they are pregnant, etc. The "why don't the pro-lifers care about ..." argument is a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the other side is the one murduring children.
That's it, huh? That's the reason right there. Every woman that has an abortion does so because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced for 9 months. C'mon man!!!! Have you ever met a woman?!? Every woman has 1,000 things to say about any given topic. I'm sure every woman has their own reasons why they chose to have an abortion. Another fine example of Republican oversimplification.
Hey! I'm still a Republican! Please refrain from critiquing us until I leave the GOP. I'll notify you when the time comes. May be soon..
That's what it would look like to somebody who didn't read my entire post. If you have kids or have ever been a kid yourself, then you'll know kids rarely make sound and comprehensive judgements. In fact, many adults don't either. Anyway, there are studies of the brain that suggest kids are, in fact, incapable of making sound decision because the part of the brain that processes risk is one of the last to develop. So no, generally speaking, their is a notable part of our society that IS NOT 100% CAPABLE of controlling themselves. If you honestly beleive that, then why do we bother with drunk driving laws? In short, you can't control everybody but you CAN equip them with better tools to make sound decisions. Since I have now established that people don't always make good decisions, lets educate them BEFORE THEY GET PREGNANT so we don't have to resort to abortion. Lets pre-empt abortion and take it out of the picture...if you are serious. Simply outlawing somethings doesn't make it so. Look at prohibition...people still would drink only then drank sludge made in the basement of some Joe's house that was unregulated so safety couldn't be controlled.
Just because people are educated in something does not prevent them from making mistakes. More and more abortions are done because of said mistakes. This is going to highly over simplify things but some personal responsibility would be nice.
If pro-lifers would be willing to adopt all unwanted children, I would side with them. I use the "why don't you adopt them" line because I see a lot of people saying things but very few people doing anything. Example, people are willing to vote to "send the army to Iraq" but very few are actually willing to go (please don't respond to this Iraq part). But I agree the "adopt them" line is overplayed, but it's only because it illustrates the pro-life's mentality so well.
