Adoption and abortion

[ngdawg]

Then why doesn't he just look at the statistics for how many children are adopted or need adopting or the waiting lists or something? Well, whatever lol.

Please don't generalize. Myself, I support the death penalty (if the appeal process if shortened),

Because I believe it is murder, that's why. I think you can't kill an innocent person just because the mother doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy.

You are contradictory....and:

In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.

--CECIL ADAMS

exerpted from: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html

Now back to our regular 'debate'....

 

[Hornburger]

Having been in the foster care system, I know first hand there is no such thing as a "wanted" foster child, in most instances. It's an overworked, understaffed beaurocracy in which children are shuffeled around, never really having the stability they need and desire.

As far as adopting, most children wrangled within said system are left to rot because the most adoptions being performed in this country are of babies, in and out of our borders. People praise Angelina Jolie for her adoptions... she could have gotten children right here, in California as a matter of fact. However, MOST adoptive couples don't want to deal with the children who've been put through hell, and then cast aside like a used up quarter.

So yes, it is hard to imagine how someone could be so protective of a fetus in a womb, when everyday children are left to rot in the foster care system. Could you please explain that, Hornberger, and then perhaps I'll understand the justification in "foster kids who? Just don't kill the baby!"

No matter how much instability they may receive, they would still get the opportunity to succeed in life. It is up to them to put aside their past and move forward. I know this is easier said than done, and done very rarely, but I don't think we should just let people do away with kids and mark them off as a loss. I think they still can make something of themselves, there ARE success stories.

Besides, to my understanding there is a huge waiting list for adoptions...

 

[Caine]

I never thought of pro-choice people that way. I portray them as people who don't think the fetus is a human being. And so far, I've found that, on the whole, they are pretty hard to get along with lol and have a civil debate with.

Hmmm... read the above bolded portion.

I will have you know that not everyone who is pro-choice wishes to get all into this question of "Is the Fetus an individual that is protected by the constitution?" discussion.

Most people who in America are not very political.
Many of them support pro-choice, many support pro-life.
Although I have my suspicions on why people support pro-life, I won't get into that.
The people who are not very political and don't really discuss the "deep" issues of the subject all agree that the government has no business FORCING a pregnant woman to have the child if it is not wanted.

So, your assumption of pro-choice is not based on a well rounded American view, but of the more often irrelevant squabble that takes place, on both sides, in a political debate about the issue.

 

[ngdawg]

No matter how much instability they may receive, they would still get the opportunity to succeed in life. It is up to them to put aside their past and move forward. I know this is easier said than done, and done very rarely, but I don't think we should just let people do away with kids and mark them off as a loss. I think they still can make something of themselves, there ARE success stories.

Besides, to my understanding there is a huge waiting list for adoptions...

Then you need to do some research:

http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/profess/admin/stats/index.cfm states, in part:

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is the only national source of data on voluntary relinquishment for adoption. According to the 1995 NSFG, 1 less than 1 percent of children born to never-married women were placed for adoption from 1989 to 1995 (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999).

The percentage is higher for White never-married women (1.7 percent) than for Black never-married women (near 0 percent).


Relinquishment by married and formerly married women is rarer still, and percentages are not available.
About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Over one-third of Americans have ever considered adopting (Harris Interactive, Inc., 2002; Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1997), but no more than 2 percent of Americans have actually adopted (Mosher & Bachrach, 1996). Somewhere between those percentages lies the number of people seeking to adopt-that is, those who have taken concrete steps to adopt a child.

Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) included responses of more than 10,000 women who were interviewed about topics that included adoption. Analysis of the data led researchers to the following conclusions (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999):

In 1995 there were nearly 10 million ever-married American women ages 18 to 44 who had ever considered adoption, and this number amounted to more than one-fourth (26.4 percent) of all ever-married women.

About 16 percent of those who had considered adoption (4 percent of the total of ever-married women), or 1.6 million women, had ever taken concrete steps toward adoption; this percentage may represent those seeking to adopt.

Only 31 percent of those who had taken concrete steps (1.3 percent of the total of ever-married women), or 487,000 women, had ever completed an adoption.2

The graph below uses the responses of women in the NSFG to show the breakdown from those who considered adoption to those who took concrete steps to those who actually adopted.

 

[Hornburger]

Then you need to do some research:

http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/profess/admin/stats/index.cfm states, in part:

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is the only national source of data on voluntary relinquishment for adoption. According to the 1995 NSFG, 1 less than 1 percent of children born to never-married women were placed for adoption from 1989 to 1995 (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999).

The percentage is higher for White never-married women (1.7 percent) than for Black never-married women (near 0 percent).


Relinquishment by married and formerly married women is rarer still, and percentages are not available.
About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Over one-third of Americans have ever considered adopting (Harris Interactive, Inc., 2002; Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1997), but no more than 2 percent of Americans have actually adopted (Mosher & Bachrach, 1996). Somewhere between those percentages lies the number of people seeking to adopt-that is, those who have taken concrete steps to adopt a child.

Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) included responses of more than 10,000 women who were interviewed about topics that included adoption. Analysis of the data led researchers to the following conclusions (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999):

In 1995 there were nearly 10 million ever-married American women ages 18 to 44 who had ever considered adoption, and this number amounted to more than one-fourth (26.4 percent) of all ever-married women.

About 16 percent of those who had considered adoption (4 percent of the total of ever-married women), or 1.6 million women, had ever taken concrete steps toward adoption; this percentage may represent those seeking to adopt.

Only 31 percent of those who had taken concrete steps (1.3 percent of the total of ever-married women), or 487,000 women, had ever completed an adoption.2

The graph below uses the responses of women in the NSFG to show the breakdown from those who considered adoption to those who took concrete steps to those who actually adopted.

Well, since I haven't found the lists myself, I'll go and do some research on how many children don't have families to adopt them. I don't see that on your stats, and I can't go to your site seeing as how my security thingy blocked it lol. But, if there is this great abundance of children who don't have homes as you say, you would have a point and I would agree with you. But I need to see those particular stats first...so I'll keep searching. I think that makes sense? lol

And if those stats were on stace's site...that site was blocked too, haha.

Oh yeah...and about my positions being contradictory...I mentioned this in another thread too. I'm closer to "pro-fault" than "pro-life". Like the parents should have used protected sex, and since they didn't, they need to protect that innocent life. They were at fault and now need to take responsibility for their actions. As for murdering criminals, they were at fault for killing people, so the state also has the right to kill them. (I just think it would be cheaper if we do this if we shorten the appeals process). For killing those people, the murderers must pay the consequences, and that may be death.

 

[Hornburger]

Hmmm... read the above bolded portion.

I will have you know that not everyone who is pro-choice wishes to get all into this question of "Is the Fetus an individual that is protected by the constitution?" discussion.

Most people who in America are not very political.
Many of them support pro-choice, many support pro-life.
Although I have my suspicions on why people support pro-life, I won't get into that.
The people who are not very political and don't really discuss the "deep" issues of the subject all agree that the government has no business FORCING a pregnant woman to have the child if it is not wanted.

So, your assumption of pro-choice is not based on a well rounded American view, but of the more often irrelevant squabble that takes place, on both sides, in a political debate about the issue.

I wasn't talking about ALL pro-choicers...I was referring to INFORMED pro-choicers.

 

[Stace]

Well, since I haven't found the lists myself, I'll go and do some research on how many children don't have families to adopt them. I don't see that on your stats, and I can't go to your site seeing as how my security thingy blocked it lol. But, if there is this great abundance of children who don't have homes as you say, you would have a point and I would agree with you. But I need to see those particular stats first...so I'll keep searching. I think that makes sense? lol

And if those stats were on stace's site...that site was blocked too, haha.

Oh yeah...and about my positions being contradictory...I mentioned this in another thread too. I'm closer to "pro-fault" than "pro-life". Like the parents should have used protected sex, and since they didn't, they need to protect that innocent life. They were at fault and now need to take responsibility for their actions. As for murdering criminals, they were at fault for killing people, so the state also has the right to kill them. (I just think it would be cheaper if we do this if we shorten the appeals process). For killing those people, the murderers must pay the consequences, and that may be death.

Hmm, don't know why the site would be blocked, it's a .gov domain.....

Regardless.....not EVERY unwanted pregnancy is the result of unprotected sex. Birth control (including condoms) do fail. I've known several people that have become pregnant even though they were on the Pill or Depo Provera....

I know those cases are only a small portion of the total, but they're there nonetheless.

As far as the death penalty stuff....I've already said my piece about that a number of times, don't really care to go into it again right now :2razz:

 

[Hornburger]

Hmm, don't know why the site would be blocked, it's a .gov domain.....

Norton Internet Security has blocked access to this restricted site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Site: http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/profess/admin/stats/index.cfm

Blocked categories: Sex Education/Advanced

If you think this web site is incorrectly categorized, visit the Symantec Internet Security Center to report it.

Yeah, I know it's pretty annoying, but whatever lol.

Regardless.....not EVERY unwanted pregnancy is the result of unprotected sex. Birth control (including condoms) do fail. I've known several people that have become pregnant even though they were on the Pill or Depo Provera....

I know those cases are only a small portion of the total, but they're there nonetheless.

Yeah I know, and you know my position on this too, about how we can't be concerned with the rare cases. What can I say, I'm just evil lol.

As far as the death penalty stuff....I've already said my piece about that a number of times, don't really care to go into it again right now :2razz:

I know, I just replied to that just because I didn't want to be portrayed as a walking contradiction.

 

[Navy Pride]

I am pro life and my wife has has 4 children.....If I was young and my wife could not have children I would definitely adopt a new born......

 

[Stace]

I am pro life and my wife has has 4 children.....If I was young and my wife could not have children I would definitely adopt a new born......

Only a newborn? Why not an older child that's been sitting in the system, forgotten?

 

[Navy Pride]

Only a newborn? Why not an older child that's been sitting in the system, forgotten?

This thread is about adoption and abortion ........I don't want to see any more murders in the womb..........A child in the system does not have to worry about being aborted.......

 

[Stace]

This thread is about adoption and abortion ........I don't want to see any more murders in the womb..........A child in the system does not have to worry about being aborted.......

Uh.....neither does a newborn.

 

[Navy Pride]

Uh.....neither does a newborn.

The difference is there are long waiting lists to adopt newborns so you should not use that as and excuse to have and abortion........

 

[vergiss]

I am pro life and my wife has has 4 children.....If I was young and my wife could not have children I would definitely adopt a new born......

Of course most people would adopt as a last resort. The importance of the question is whether you'd adopt even if you could have biological children - or if you'd bring another child into this world, even when there are unwanted children waiting for a home.

It's about practising what you preach.

 

[Stace]

The difference is there are long waiting lists to adopt newborns so you should not use that as and excuse to have and abortion........

I can't think of a single instance where someone HAS used the adoption waiting list as an excuse to have an abortion.

And what does that matter? Still doesn't explain why you'd rather adopt a newborn than an older child......then again, you are in the majority there.

 

[Navy Pride]

Of course most people would adopt as a last resort. The importance of the question is whether you'd adopt even if you could have biological children - or if you'd bring another child into this world, even when there are unwanted children waiting for a home.

It's about practising what you preach.

What a laught that is.......Here is a 17 year old kid lecturing me on adoption........Go to your room young lady........:lol:

 

[Navy Pride]

I can't think of a single instance where someone HAS used the adoption waiting list as an excuse to have an abortion.

And what does that matter? Still doesn't explain why you'd rather adopt a newborn than an older child......then again, you are in the majority there.

Neither can I but you liberals are always saying abortions are ok because nobody wants to adopt newborns.........

 

[Stace]

Neither can I but you liberals are always saying abortions are ok because nobody wants to adopt newborns.........

There you go again with the generalizations.......

Never said that no one wants to adopt newborns. Most people that DO adopt want newborns.

The problem with that? They're forgetting about the children that have been sitting in the system, lots of them the result of an unwanted pregnancy, but the mother decided to keep them anyway, and then neglected/abused them until they were taken away by child services, so now they feel even MORE unwanted. Whereas, newborns don't know the difference.

 

[Stace]

What a laught that is.......Here is a 17 year old kid lecturing me on adoption........Go to your room young lady........:lol:

Her age has nothing to do with this. Knowlege about a subject is not resticted by age. I think she's damn smart compared to a lot of 17 year olds these days.

 

[Navy Pride]

There you go again with the generalizations.......

Never said that no one wants to adopt newborns. Most people that DO adopt want newborns.

The problem with that? They're forgetting about the children that have been sitting in the system, lots of them the result of an unwanted pregnancy, but the mother decided to keep them anyway, and then neglected/abused them until they were taken away by child services, so now they feel even MORE unwanted. Whereas, newborns don't know the difference.

Its tragic that there are children sitting in orphanages not being adopted but I bet if you asked them they would rather be there then been abortet and I bet if you could ask the babies in the womb they would say they just want the same chance to life that you got even if it meant they had to live in and orphanage..........

 

[vergiss]

Her age has nothing to do with this. Knowlege about a subject is not resticted by age. I think she's damn smart compared to a lot of 17 year olds these days.

Not to mention certain "adults" here. Funny how he would rather make lame comments about my age than actually reply to my post. Can anyone say "defeated"?

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Society should give parents the right to adopt children, or abort unwanted babies.

If you kill a fetus, it will never become aware that it is unwanted or unloved.

I support abortion on the reason that life on this planet is not black and white but rather grey. People should have choices, and preferably abortion is done sooner rather than later.

For me late term abortions are abhorent, because you no longer have an embryo, or fetus, but actually a well defined infant in the womb.

That's why I support the morning after pill, and early term abortions, but I don't support late term abortions.

Give people choice.

 

[Stace]

Its tragic that there are children sitting in orphanages not being adopted but I bet if you asked them they would rather be there then been abortet and I bet if you could ask the babies in the womb they would say they just want the same chance to life that you got even if it meant they had to live in and orphanage..........

Hmmmm.....let's think about this......sit around unwanted, or be aborted and not know the difference either way?

I certainly didn't sit in a foster system, but I was abused by my stepfather from the time I was 7 (when he married my mother) until I was 17 and moved out on my own.....my mom was never around when the actual abuse happened (she worked two jobs), and she attempted to take me and my brother and leave on a number of occasions, but he always suckered us back in. Mom finally got smart and wisened up once I moved out on my own, my brother was already long gone, and without needing to at least attempt to provide a semi-normal family for us anymore, she finally left the bastard.

Moral of the story? There were many times when I was being beat that I wished I had never been born at all. Because if I hadn't been born, I never would have had to know that kind of pain. It's made me a stronger person, but other children aren't so lucky.

Anyway, asking children, or even being able to ask a fetus in the womb, is irrelevant, because if they're aborted, they don't know the freaking difference.

 

[Stace]

Not to mention certain "adults" here. Funny how he would rather make lame comments about my age than actually reply to my post. Can anyone say "defeated"?

Now if only he'd just admit to it.....

 

[Stace]

Society should give parents the right to adopt children, or abort unwanted babies.

If you kill a fetus, it will never become aware that it is unwanted or unloved.

I support abortion on the reason that life on this planet is not black and white but rather grey. People should have choices, and preferably abortion is done sooner rather than later.

For me late term abortions are abhorent, because you no longer have an embryo, or fetus, but actually a well defined infant in the womb.

That's why I support the morning after pill, and early term abortions, but I don't support late term abortions.

Give people choice.

:clap:

Very well said.

I agree with everything you said, except for the late term abortions. I support those for the most part....the only reason I can really think of to where the woman shouldn't have that right to choose anymore would be in a case where she just up and decides she doesn't want the baby after all.....she should have made that decision a long time ago, and at that stage in the pregnancy, she'd be better off just having the child and placing it for adoption.