Question for people who are pro-life?

I just want to point out that no where in here did you say they should NOT be willing to support these children after birth, but asked if they would.

They then all painted you out to be a Nazi in favor of killing the weak, elderly and poor. But, in fact is that not there own answer to whether or not they plan to help raise the children that they want to badly to be born?

Also, I am a former foster mom. You do not need to be rich to adopt or foster. If that were true, I could not have done it. The truth is people mostly want to adopt perfectly healthy (mentally, physically and emotionally), white children under the age of six. By those preferences, my own child would be unadoptable today. The mere act of being orphaned would scar her enough to cause attachment disorder; she has ADD and is 11 years old. If she were Latina or black on top of that and had siblings her odds of ever finding a home would be nil. Some of these teens are gay, as it is a natural way to be. How do you think the Christian foster and adoptive parents take that? Gays are also unadoptable. In fact, things are so dire that if you are willing to take on an “unadoptable” child, the state will pay you to do so. Many of the kids these wonderful Christian adopt internationally and in the states end up returned to the system. The kids are hard to handle and take more than the average family has in the way of patience. Most pro-lifers never foster or adopt. If they did, there would not be so many kids in need of homes today. The foster care system is in desperate need of help. Many pro-lifers are also against socialized medicine and aid to the poor. They remain willfully ignorant of how many children and families their president has made homeless and fatherless. They also refuse to educate themselves on the lives saved by contraception and abortion. (Now they are confused...) When a mother has unplanned children, she tends to stay poor and uneducated. The father is rarely involved. She and her children have a higher mortality rate than those of mother's with means to support themselves and their children. I am not saying it is bad to chose to have the unplanned child, I did so myself. I regret nothing, but I am not blind to what my choice entailed. I am saying every step of reproduction is mine to choose. Condoms break and the pill only works if you take it correctly and don't take anti-biotics, St. John's Wort etc. with it. Since you are the same folks who won't teach anything other than abstinence, I assume more and more girls will find those things out the hard way...and probably seek abortions.

That is not our problem... just because we disagree with murder, doesn't mean it is our responsibility to care for someone else's mistakes. Murder is not the solution.

The guilt should not be placed on us! That is what you're doing with this question. You are saying that because we disagree with murder, WE should be responsible for finding an alternative. NOT TRUE!

Would I accept a child into my life if I knew he/she was being mistreated or unwanted? Without a doubt! The problem really with the unwanted children scenario is the government and agencies that have those children stuck in the middle. If adoptive parents had more protection and better assistance, and face less costs... there would be many more adopted kids and less in foster homes. But because the government and agencies make it nearly impossible to adopt becuase of costs and hurdles along the way... the poor children are stuck in the middle.

There are far more couples willing, able, and ready to adopt an "unwanted" child (which, all by itself, certainly makes every child "wanted" at least by someone) than there are women who are willing to interrupt their lives by carrying a pregnancy to term, delivering the child, and giving it up for adoption. It takes a very selfless person to do that. And the demand far outstrips the supply.

Visit a crisis pregnancy center sometime if you want to gain some first-hand knowledge of pro-lifers who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk -- doing everything possible for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, including long after they've given birth. That includes materially and substantially helping the women who do ultimately decide to keep their babies. You probably don't hear much about it because they aren't out there tooting their own horns. But if this is a real concern for you, and it appears that it is, you might want to speak to some of these people before you just repeat the pro-choice rhetoric about pro-lifers not caring about the children after they're born.

I understand what you are saying. Pro Life is much more than just opposing abortion. We must give life. I give life in a number of ways: I give considerably to scholarship funds, hospitals, and orphanages. I volunteer a lot ot time to troubled youth. I certainly do what a single, widowed father of two young daughters can do.

All that being said, I disagree with the proposition that it would be better if unwanted, uncared for, poor, homeless children had been aborted in the first place.

I propose that it is the attitude inherent in abortion that encourages the cheapness of life, and the abuse and neglect of children.

.

If that's your impression of us, that we don't care about children after they're born, you haven't talked to enough of us. It's good that you put this sort of question out.

Those of us who are able to, adopt. I've got a few myself, but I'm sure you understand why not everyone is able to adopt.

ADD:

Jenny Kim, you are right. I made the mistake of walking right into the setup without moving anything aside.

This is all part of that disqualification tactic selectively employed by the abortion people that says if you're not going to take care of our babies, you can have no say. Stand aside and let us choose to have abortions. If you're a man, you have can have no say in this issue. If you've professed religious vows of chastity, you have no say. And so on down the line. It's all part of the terms of debate they're trying to set for all to create a narrow, excessively restrictive set of qualifications for their opposition to speak. These gag rules of course don't apply to men, priests and nuns, homosexuals, etc., who speak out in FAVOR of abortions.

Good call, Jenny, and shame on me for sleeping at the wheel.

"Pro-lifers, are you going to take care of all the unwanted children" is one of the tired old "arguments" that the pro-abortion side makes.

You're not presenting anything new here, my friend.

Of course, as with other pro-abortion advocates, you're not REALLY interested in getting the "unwanted children" taken care of.

You're just using that "argument" as a cover with which to defend the act of killing unborn babies.

It's also telling how people on your side speak of "unwanted children" in the same language as unwanted furniture or unwanted food in the fridge.

By the way, the biggest pro-life organization out there -- the Catholic Church -- feeds and clothes and educates and houses more children than anybody else in the world.

Painting the pro-life side as being uncaring toward already-born children (a common tactic by pro-aborts) is simply not based in reality.

So, you can stop looking for solutions that already exist.

Again, let's face reality -- you're not really concerned about, or interested in, helping kids after they're born.

That's just an argument that you're appealing to, in order to justify the act of ripping unborn babies apart in their mothers' wombs.

If you truly cared about kids, you wouldn't be so willing to have them murdered. You would instead be willing to give them a shot at life.

"Better to kill them if they're unwanted" is a disgusting attitude to take. No offense.

It's borne of a mentality that sees kids as a burden and an inconvenience -- rather than the human beings that they are FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION.

.

Ask the millions of parents that want children but can't have them. But, yes, if I could afford more children, I'd be happy to adopt them.

By the way, it is better to prevent the birth of an unwanted child rather than to abort it. If you're old enough to have sex, you should be responsible enough to use several forms of birth control. Abortions should not be advocated as a form of birth control ever.

I do think that for the cases/people that need an abortion, it should be safe and legal, but I consider it an abuse if a person gets multiple abortions, at least under normal circumstances.

Edit:

There are several if not many reasons that a couple/person would consider abortion and that would make adoption either impossible or hard. This is why abortion has to be both safe and legal. However, considering it to be an acceptable form of birth control is a different matter. Both partners need to approach sex responsibly rather than just gambling on it, i.e. be proactive at prevention rather than reactively aborting.

Why are you asking us on here lol?

This is just going to cause an argument. If a mother can't afford a child and can't afford to feed it, then she should of put a condom of the dick she stuck in her.

And I say that with all the respect in the world, if you aren't ready for a baby, learn some self control. If people would only stop the problem before it happened we wouldn't have this problem right now.

My status on the whole abortion thing, is that it's the mothers choice. Mother knows best lol. I'm only a fifteen year old guy, I have no idea how it would feel to make this sort of a decision so I can't decide for them. This is a free country and it should be there choice. Saying that, we all still need some self control though. Preventing the problem is the best answer.

First of all your assumption that abortion takes care of unwanted children is not supported by statistics.

We have more abused and neglected children today, than we did 30 some years ago when abortion was legalized. So the availability, and acceptance of abortion has not caused child abuse to go down as many pro-choice advocates had hoped. But the popular assumption that it does and that if we stop legal abortion that there would be a significant rise in unwanted children, is just unfounded. http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Increas...

So we have to think that maybe abortion isn't working out as planned, and perhaps it has even caused child abuse and neglect to rise. This would be because it has devalued life, and caused children to be viewed as objects and not human beings. A person who feels they can kill the unwanted baby because it is their body., property and not human can transfer that understanding of the life within to the child they do allow to be born.

If abortion was not legal it is safe to guess that many people would be more careful. Not all people of course, but many. They would think twice about who they allowed themselves to have sex with, if at all. They would think about the consequences of sex, or birth control that failed. They would have to take into account that a child might result. So even though we've had 50 million abortions in this country, had abortion not been legal there would have been significanty less people actually born. This is because abortion is used as birth control or a back up to failed birth control. So it's not like we'd have to find loving homes for 50 million kids.

We are human beings, we are not animals without control over our instincts and desires. We know, or should know, that sex leads to babies. It is the very design of sex. But with the acceptance of contraception, we have come to think of sex as recreation that should not result in children. This really goes against our biololgy, and against logic. Sex and procreation are forever linked together.

So, what to do with the children? There are many programs that help pregnant women, such as the Gabriel Project. That group gives women help with money, daycare, baby furniture and clothing, diapers, rides to school or work, parenting classes etc. The ultimate goal is not to just have the babies born, but to have the mothers care for them.

Also, adoption. There is a long long waiting list of couples who desire to adopt a baby. One might mention the numerous children in foster care of ophanages, but those are not children who were not wanted, they are children who were wanted and for some reason their parents could not keep them. Many times it is that their parents are unfit because of drugs, domestic violence, neglect etc. But that doesn't mean an abortion would have fixed it. Thsese parents had access to abortion and chose to have their children...so the "every child a wanted child" is not the issue nor does it work.

Your impressions and assumptions are typical of pro-choice. I was pro-choice for many many years and would argue just those points. But I have come to realize that what we believe to have been the answer is not. Abortion is nothing more than the "fix" for a society that does not want to practice self-control. We kill the unborn so that two people can have sex when ever they want, without worry or inconvenience. We kill the unborn because they have become a disease, a burden to the carefree lifestyles we prefer. We wonder "why can't we have sex with out the disease of children?" This kind of attitude continues, that sex is for fun, and children are a negetive consequence that could happen, hence the availabilty of abortion. We sure wouldn't want anyone to have to control themselves or think before the fall into bed with someone...because sex has become our false god and we bow down and worship it offering the human sacrifices of the unborn.

ADDED: Mary - "technically" there has been no lab or court that has ever declared a fetus to not be a human being. In Roe v Wade, the court declared that it didn't know if a fetus was a human being, so the abortion ruling falls under a woman's right to privacy. It has nothing to do with the with a decision based on the fetus as a human being.

To decide that it is not life based on your limited knowledge is a grave mistake.

Dear undir,

You are very right. Most pro-lifers ignore or sidestep these issues. To simply say "adoption" is a careless and lazy answer to this question, especially since these people are not willing to put their money where there mouth is.

They had a report (I think it was 20/20 or some other tv-news magazine) on a Romanian orphanage - the way kids were treated was sad.

Once these so-called pro-lifers start caring about the thousands of unwanted children who ALREADY exist in this world, then we'll talk.

Abortion is not a good answer, but neither is forcing these kids to be born and then abandoning them. That actually sounds worse.