Well, if you want people to put children up for adoption, we need to actually start adopting children in greater numbers. You have to be more logical than just say lets put the child for adoption. Second we need to figure out how to take care of the children with disabilities and how to pay for the long term care. How are we going to pay for it, how long, how much is it going to cost for each child, WHO is going to take care of the children. It’s not going to be easy, but when you think of all the resources that we are going to have to pull together, you will be able to figure out that it’s clearly beyond our current capacity. We need more people to get into these areas, or if abortion becomes illegal, we are going to have yet another mess to deal with. It, annoys me when people just say let the baby be adopted. If the mother keeps the baby, the people who stopped her should be helping support the children. It’s not easy, its easy to be idealistic, but being pratical is going to be really problamatic.
The entire premise is absurd. We do not kill people for convenience sake. The issue is not about the logistics of helping others. The issue is why is killing even an option.
These are all very good points, but is murder the answer or finding a lasting solution to each of these issues that you raise.
There are many people who care for these children, but perhaps not enough.Many of these children die in counties who’s goverments prevent the basic aid to reach them.
In this country there is help, we have programs that provide for health care, housing and education. There are thousands of couples who would be happy to adopt and are looking to adopt and the same is true in all developed counties.
Abortion then comes down to person choice, which in truth is personal selfishness.
The children who die from hunger and lack of basic sanitation do so in countries where a corrupt government/political system permits this to happen. This is not a valid argumemt, those govt’s would rather food sit and rot than to feed their own people.
Another reason is places where there is NO working gov’t, only corruption.
Murder of another person is never a way to make life better.
Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood did not adopt a starving child from haiti for every one they abort.
I think some people make the decision to have an abortion very quickly and looking back sometimes have regrets and would have kept the baby. A person may not expect to get pregnant and then they have very little time to make the decision during a period where there may already be emotionally upheaval and also suffering from hormonal changes in the body, morning sickness etc. Sometimes a person can be influenced by doctor, partner or parents to have an abortion. I have friends that have had abortions. I personally believe if abortion was illegal (or not) that a woman could be assessed for mental illness and some women may need special care during pregnancy just so that the baby is born and in certain cases put up for adoption. I’ve got a friend who said she would have committed suicide, although I don’t believe that, but in any case should she have not been assessed for mental illness? That’s my opinion.
I think this IS a valid arguement. These kids may not be aborted, but they are still being condemned to die from starvation or some easily preventable disease. If we have the means to stop those governments from allowing that, but we don’t, how is that different from being upset that babies are aborted in those same countries?
Of course, abortion is wrong because it is the choice to kill innocents, but how is allowing the preventable deaths of millions of born children not comparable? By not being more proactive on this issue, are we not contributing to their deaths?
I probably should be wary of jumping into such a potentially explosive issue just after joining, but I have genuinely wondered about this question.
We’d love to adopt these children. We are the parents of 7 (biological) children who have been trying to adopt through the State Foster Care system for four years. We’ve been told our homestudy was very good and we’d make a good adoptive home but we never actually get selected in the final decisions. We believe it’s because they feel our family is already two large. So, if abortion were illegal, I can say we’d definitely adopt at least three of the children, including those with disabilities.
There is very little we in the USA can do more than we already are by contributing to established charities to change this situation, except perhaps to encourage the Church to send missionaries to these places, which would involve raising our children with a clear idea of searching for their vocation to see if God wants them to be one of those missionaries. And of course, praying… for those in charge of those nations, for more vocations, and for the people themselves.
Because of the idea of sovreignty of nations (the reason everyone is so upset that we went into Iraq after 9/11), we cannot do much more than that.
Another point is that there is a difference between the direct and intentional killing of a person, which is what abortion is, and the inability to do more to help others who are dying of starvation.
I don’t know where I read it - I will have to look it up - but a few articles I read state that about 25% of women intentionally get pregnant right after having an abortion. So there’s 25% of babies that would already be taken care of.
First, let me ask if it would be all right to kill the children for whom we cannot care? Then abortion cannot be the answer to any perceived lack of ability to care for children…
We don’t actually know that…
So who is going to take care of these kids? Who is going to pay for it?
What about mixed race kids and children of color - I understand the adoption rates are much lower for them.
One reason for that is that for a long time, social workers thought that these children ought to be placed only with a matching minority family, and because these families tended to be more likely to fall under the income levels needed to adopt, they weren’t placed at all.
What about kids with serious health issues - who’ll pay for their treatment?
It is my understanding that children adopted out of the foster care system have health insurance provided by the government until they are 18. Perhaps something similar could be set up for other adopted children.
Just look at the foster care system in this country. Many are problem kids and guess what? From the low rate of good foster care families, I’d say most folks don’t want them, as horrible as that is.
There are a lot of issues which go into this, but two major issues are the complete lack of parental responsibility fostered by society, in part by abortion itself: when a child becomes a choice, then what happens after the child is born and the mother changes her mind and no longer wants him or her? When society forces early sexual activity down our teenagers’ throats on the basis that they can use abc and have an abortion if that doesn’t work?
And the other is that the foster care system is a bit of a mess itself; one aspect of this is that reunification with the family of origin has taken such a high precedence that children are stuck in the system for much longer, with more effects piling on, than they should be.
We can’t take care of the kids we’ve got now, for pete’s sake. So, please, if anyone has any real, practical solutions, let’s hear them. :shrug:
First of all, you are assuming that if abortion were made illegal, as it should be, that people would continue to act as they are now, and we would have 800,000 or more children born above and beyond those who are born now. I do not think that this would be the case. I think that without the “back-up” of abortion that people would be more careful about what they do, and that this would reduce the levels of illegitimate births as well.
Secondly, people would then be free to do more to help those who are born. Right now, a lot of people are helping those women who find themselves in this situation, but a number of people are involved in making abortion illegal. Those resources could then be put towards helping families in a lot of different ways.
As Christians, we are called to work for justice for all mankind. That is every man woman and child.
The fact that children die from starvation, from disease, from cancer, from car accidents, from crib death, from abuse, from animal attacks - not one of these is reason to kill children in the womb.
In the USA in 2007 there were 130,000 children waiting to be adpoted.
There were 496,000 in foster care.
According to this source premiertourismmarketing.com/fyi/religious.html
there are 450,000 churches in the United States. If one family from each church adoped or fostered one child - that would effectively take care of every child.
Part of the problem with children of color is that our adoption policies discourage white parents from adopting them. Easing some of our adoption policies would make the process better for couples who do want to adopt. I cannot condone children being adopted into gay households and I’m not really thrilled with the idea of single people adopting although I know that can be done sucessfully.
Foster care doesn’t really help children. In some instances it seems like an old-fashioned orphanage (in the best sense of that institution) would be better than constant movement for the children.
The most important thing we can do is help parents keep their own children. Create policies that make being married make financial sense for couples, teach young couples how to be good parents, help young mothers stay home with their very young children instead of having to work.
Finally, it would help if we strongly regulated the IVF industry. For example, by creating very, very strong policies around egg donation (which is very harmful to young women) and also limiting the number of babies that can be created and implanted.
Hmm unwanted babies? If I certain person in my family tree was not adopted My family anf my dad’s family would not exist today. Funny thing adoption is nothing new. It’s been going on since the beginning of humanity.
Unwanted? The babies belong to God. They are not unwanted. They have been created so that they desire to love and serve and join with God, the Creator. It is our duty as a society that they are guided to become the image of He who created them.
A lot of people choose fertility treatment rather than adoption nowadays. Fertility treatment has increased alongside abortion. As there are more people aborting children and less putting them up for adoption, there are less couples also choosing to adopt and instead choosing less pro-life alternatives such as IVF. So a Catholic infertile couple may feel called to adopt instead of choosing fertility treatment. Sometimes people are put off adopting by large waiting lists. I personally would have chosen adoption rather than fertility treatment as my husband is also adopted and it took me five years to have my first baby.
Unwanted Baby is double-speak for Unwanted Responsibility.
Nobody wants responsibility that is a hardship. The thing about responsibility is that it doesn’t matter whether you want or don’t want it, the responsibility for your actions is still your own. If you shoot a gun and inadvertently hit somebody, you are responsible to that person for his well-being as best you can. The same should hold true for sexual relations, whether or not a baby is desired. If the law required that woman keep their babies and that the biological fathers be held accountable for child support, the problem of abortion would mostly subside to pre-1973 levels. A lot of other social ills in our society would probably benefit from the new-found morality in our nation.