• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Adoption versus Abortion

Pah

Uber all member
Let's look at the numbers!

According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, on September 30, 1999, 127,000 children in the public child welfare system were waiting to be adopted. The median age of children in this group was 7.7 years, and many had spent more than 36 continuous months in foster care. That same year, 46,000 children were adopted from public child welfare agencies. Some were infants. Some were teenagers. Many were Latino. Many more were white or black. Adoptive parents were equally diverse-31% were single women, 2% were single men, and 1% were unmarried couples. Among these adoptive parents were gay and lesbian individuals and partners.
http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm
What issue has the greatest effect on the capacity of the child welfare system to serve at-risk and vulnerable children and families?

The shortage of a competent, stable child welfare workforce! This shortage affects agencies at every level, including children and youth care staff, social workers, and support and administration staff. A survey by CWLA and other organizations, as well as information from other sources, including the U.S. Department of Labor, confirms the workforce crisis in child welfare. High staff turnover in public and private agencies, the loss of direct service and supervisory staff, and the expected retirement of most experienced administrators over the next 10 years exacerbates this crisis. Between October 2000 and March 2001, average turnover rates in private agencies were 36% for direct staff and 38% for supervisors.
http://www.cwla.org/newsevents/faq.htm

In 1994: Children Adopted 21,306
Children Waiting to be Adopted 38,712
Children in Non-finalized Adoptive Homes 24,538
Source: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/vcis/ii01.htm


Abortions in 1994 677,147
Source: http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race_94.asp

If women were forced to carry a fetus to term to be adopted there would have been 705,859 children in the adoption system in that year alone.

-pah-
 
Of course, it's far more difficult to adopt 705,859 aborted fetuses than it is to adopt 705,859 children in the adoption system.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Mr_Spinkles said:
Of course, it's far more difficult to adopt 705,859 aborted fetuses than it is to adopt 705,859 children in the adoption system.

Of course. But don't you see that the numbers for that year alone make the whole arguement of adoption instead of abortion rather silly?

-pah-
 
If the objective is to decrease the number of children waiting to be adopted regardless of the lives of unborn fetuses, then yes the argument is silly. As it is, I think the argument of adoption is rather compelling because I think it is a far more humane and ethical decision than abortion.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
But Pah, doing something for children already alive would take time and money! Far easier to harass some pregnant teen into giving birth.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Mr_Spinkles said:
If the objective is to decrease the number of children waiting to be adopted regardless of the lives of unborn fetuses, then yes the argument is silly. As it is, I think the argument of adoption is rather compelling because I think it is a far more humane and ethical decision than abortion.

Compelling???? those figures were from 1994. Since then, we would have added a million or so more per year - that's about 10 million babies cared for by the state. Society is not willing (a good bet) to pay taxes (state taxes) for that kind of solution to the abortion question. Adoption as a solution to abortion is just plain silly besides being against constitutional principles. We have a hard enough time funding welfare

-pah-
 

Pah

Uber all member
Sunstone said:
I think a big enough advertising campaign might encourage more adoptions.

You're right in principle. However as the "orphan" ages it becomes more and more difficult to place the child.

-pah-
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I think the numbers show that adoption by itself cannot be a solution to the abortion issue. But that does not mean that adoption cannot be part of the solution. By "solution" I do not mean an idealistic end to all abortions, but a systematic effort to reduce abortions to the fewest possible, while still maintaining their legality.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Sunstone said:
I think the numbers show that adoption by itself cannot be a solution to the abortion issue. But that does not mean that adoption cannot be part of the solution. By "solution" I do not mean an idealistic end to all abortions, but a systematic effort to reduce abortions to the fewest possible, while still maintaining their legality.

I agree it should be encouraged but I will resist a law that requires it.

-pah-
 
pah said:
Compelling???? those figures were from 1994. Since then, we would have added a million or so more per year - that's about 10 million babies cared for by the state. Society is not willing (a good bet) to pay taxes (state taxes) for that kind of solution to the abortion question. Adoption as a solution to abortion is just plain silly besides being against constitutional principles. We have a hard enough time funding welfare

-pah-
For you it's not compelling, because in your opininion 10 million children waiting to be adopted is a greater evil than 10 million dead fetuses lying around. If you don't think a fetus is a human being with an inherent right to be alive, then of course the argument seems ridiculous. To me, killing fetuses to reduce the number of children waiting to be adopted is not only just plain silly--it's inhumane.

Jensa said:
But Pah, doing something for children already alive would take time and money! Far easier to harass some pregnant teen into giving birth.
Was this statement directed at me specifically, or the other side in general?
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
The other side in general, Mr. Spinkles. I have no reason to attack you, and usually try not to attack people who haven't attacked me first. ;)
 

Pah

Uber all member
Mr_Spinkles said:
For you it's not compelling, because in your opininion 10 million children waiting to be adopted is a greater evil than 10 million dead fetuses lying around. If you don't think a fetus is a human being with an inherent right to be alive, then of course the argument seems ridiculous. To me, killing fetuses to reduce the number of children waiting to be adopted is not only just plain silly--it's inhumane.

Was this statement directed at me specifically, or the other side in general?

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. I am saying that the argument for adoption is ludicrous given the cost of the program which will be driven by the number of abortions. I am not saying anything in support of abortion. I'm saying get a better argument than this one.

Instead of arguing for the child, argue against the rights of women - that is the only principle that has created the laws that are constitutional - the rights of women and the limitation placed upon the state. Since this is off-topic here, I'll start another thread in which you can make a case against women.

-pah-
 
I'm not sure I do understand the point you're making, pah. I'm looking at this and saying "on the one hand, we would have larger costs and more children to be adopted....on the other hand, we wouldn't have as many dead fetuses". The real question is, which is worse--more dead fetuses, or more children waiting to be adopted. Where am I going wrong here?
 

Pah

Uber all member
Mr_Spinkles said:
I'm not sure I do understand the point you're making, pah. I'm looking at this and saying "on the one hand, we would have larger costs and more children to be adopted....on the other hand, we wouldn't have as many dead fetuses". The real question is, which is worse--more dead fetuses, or more children waiting to be adopted. Where am I going wrong here?

Perhaps this will help -

I am saying that if you defend an anti-abortion view, this argument for adoption is not a logical argument. Nobody is going to recommend the expansion and cost of the adoption system to accommodate the number of fetus's that would be mandated by accepting that argument.

This thread does not challenge the aim of pro-choice or pro-life but only says that the way to get to pro-life is not with forced labor for an adoption program.

-pah-
 
pah said:
Nobody is going to recommend the expansion and cost of the adoption system to accommodate the number of fetus's that would be mandated by accepting that argument.
Well, pah, it all hinges upon whether or not a fetus is a person or not. Nobody is going to recommend changing anything at all if they do not think a fetus is a person. If one does view a fetus as a person though, as I do, there is no monetary price one would place on their lives. So I just don't see how the adoption argument is any weaker than any other pro-life argument...they all hinge on the premise that a fetus is a life that needs to be protected. Does that make sense?

I'm just confused as to why you and many other pro-choice people, who think abortion is unethical but support a woman's right to choose, do not more emphatically encourage adoption as an alternative choice to abortion.
 
Top