Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

Welcome, LittleAcorn, to PCF. :-D

LittleAcorn wrote: Honestly, I'm pretty sick of all these "pro-lifers" not just on this forum, but everywhere, saying that women should put unwanted children up for adoption, instead of having them aborted. However, there's a problem with that: Adoption isn't for everyone. I could go on and on about why it isn't, but I won't.

The fact is, would you adopt that unwanted child? I don't think a person should be able to argue that adoption is the answer until they are willing to adopt a child themselves. Therefore, the government should be working on making abortions unnecessary, not illeagl. For instance: more people should adopt children, help a single parent, and be a mentor to a child. Now, "pro-lifers", if this happened, you wouldn't have to argue anymore about "rights of the unborn".
There are less than 100,000 adoptions made annually in the US. There are about 1,000,000 abortions done annually.

Realistically, if using adoption alone is not going to make up for abortion; there simply aren't that many parents looking to adopt. In fact, right now, the only kids who are actually in demand (as in parents are actively looking to adopt them) are those that are both young and healthy; if a child has a mental or physical disorder, or is more than a few years old, (and maybe if there are a member of a racial minority, though I am unsure about this one), then the chances are against them getting adopted.

In Fat, Dumb and Ugly: The Decline of the Average American, I believe I read that something like at the current rate, it would take 40 years to adopt all the kids in foster homes in America, and that's conditional upon no new kids arriving. Imagine what dumping another million kids annually would do to the current situation with foster homes.

Of course, there are tons of of other ways to reduce abortion; comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptive provision in schools, better education in general, reducing the huge (and growing) wealth gap that exists between the rich and poor, etc. Ironically enough, it is primarily right-wingers who oppose abortion as a legal choice who stand in the way of such measures.

I understand that they have varying views about these things, but anti-choicers are going to have to accept that pouring more resources into schools and opportunities for the poor in general (the two being largely synonymous) are a necessary evil if abortion rates are to fall.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Of course, there are tons of of other ways to reduce abortion; comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptive provision in schools, better education in general, reducing the huge (and growing) wealth gap that exists between the rich and poor, etc. Ironically enough, it is primarily right-wingers who oppose abortion as a legal choice who stand in the way of such measures.

I agree 100% and am extremely pro life. It makes me so sad that we do not do so much more of this.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Of course, there are tons of of other ways to reduce abortion; comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptive provision in schools, better education in general, reducing the huge (and growing) wealth gap that exists between the rich and poor, etc. Ironically enough, it is primarily right-wingers who oppose abortion as a legal choice who stand in the way of such measures.

I agree 100% and am extremely pro life. It makes me so sad that we do not do so much more of this.

I have no problem with instituting these programs, and I think that the nation would be better off with them. I would also say that if you create such programs, abortion rates would significantly decrease across the nation. I also find it ironic that the Republicans that are primarily pro-life don't support these programs to spread, and seek to destroy the programs that are already in place.

[Plodder]

thats why im not republican