How do you handle this pro-abortion argument?

[Cattitude]

In debating abortion on another forum, I have come across these arguments from the pro-abortion side.

*Ok lets say that women stop having abortions. Where are all these kids going to go? Who is going to provide for them? Especially the ones that will need lifetime care such as the retarded and drug addicted ones. *

---

I find it funny how so few people on the pro-life side push for inexpensive/free post-natal care, day care, head start, school lunch, or food stamps. I also don’t see them adopting retarded children or children born addicted to drugs.

The hypocrisy from the pro-life side is truly stunning.
*

---

*You want to change the way things are and should take responsibility for working on solutions to potential problems caused by the change you want based on your moral/religious beliefs. Just saying there are wait lists for adoptions does not help solve the problem. In fact it exacrabates the situation. There are reasons for those lists and throwing an extra million or so kids annually in the pipeline will only make it worse. Because guess what? Most people do not adopt children they adopt babies. As the kids get older their chances of getting adopted decrease.

So who pays for those kids until they are adopted? The parents keep it until adoption? How is the unwanted child treated? The parents pay for it while some one else fosters the child until the adoption goes through? What if they are broke? The state? Taxes are going up and a lot of your supporters don’t agree with that one. *

---

How do you respond to arguments like these? What will happen to all of these babies? Does anyone have a plan in place to handle this situation if (when) abortion becomes illegal (or even reduced)?

Hopefully, the programs/support will exist to help the mothers themselves to care for/take responsibility for the babies, rather than giving them all up for adoption. But, that takes planning too.

 

[rambo]

This one is easy. The Federal government raises them to be super solders from day 1. We need more troops in our armed forces. So all the kids that are not adopted would be put into a program where they would enter the armed forces at 18 years old.

You can also point out that infertility is at an all time high and scientists expect this only to increase. Thus babies are needed for adoption…

medindia.net/news/healthwatch/Is-Infertility-on-the-Rise-40798-1.htm

 

[kage_ar]

In 1971, were there hoards of unwanted children, abandoned and starving in the streets of America? Were the roadways filled with “retarded” kids who had no homes?

These sound to be arguments of someone very young, who does not realize that society flourished for centuries without legalized abortion.

When the law of the US begins to protect all life, families will care for their children in the same way they always have. The states and private charitable orginizations will help those who are less fortunate, just the way they always have.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I find it stunning that these people act as if unwanted children ‘only’ exist if women ‘would stop’ having abortions.

The fact of the matter is that child abuse and ‘unwanted children’ have increased staggeringly SINCE Roe. . .the decision that, we were told, would stop the problem of an ‘unwanted child’.

But making children so expendable not only made the unborn vulnerable to the horrifiic slaughter of the last 3 decades–it made the born children ‘expendable’ too. As many point out, what IS the difference between the unborn and say an infant? A toddler? Even a young teen? Infants, toddlers, even teens cannot care for themselves ‘by themselves’. They need help.

These arguers seem to imply that there will be a huge increase of ‘diseased’ children to care for–as though abortion ‘solved’ this problem by ‘weeding out’ the ‘difficult to care for’ child. So what of the children who are injured in accidents at age, say, 7? The ones who appear perfectly normal at birth but are found to have mental illness at 3, 10, even 35?

The simplistic and WRONG ‘scenarios’ of these people basically require a BOOK to address all the ways in which they ARE wrong. It’s so easy to throw out charges and ‘statements’ as though they were Holy Writ, even if they’re total dreck. . .it is far more difficult to wade through the muck and the garbage of this dreck and point out the myriad errors!

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would respond by “abortion is murder”. Do we agree on that? We don’t justify murder if we cannot “forsee” what will become of these children. Of course, many will be adopted, many will unfortunately grow up orphans, but murder is wrong. They are avoiding the issue and trying to justify it on grounds of a separate issue.

 

[survive]

I’d handle it by pointing out that it is composed entirely of misstatements. There is nothing true in it at all except that there are reasons to regulate adoption. That in itself doesn’t change the nature of abortion.
Thousands of American would-be parents wait in line, crying in frustration, year upon year, willing to give anything they can for the chance to adopt a child, regardless of age, disability or race.
Many thousands of pro-life activists provide funds for health care and personally help strangers with unexpected children; millions more advocate for maternal and childhood health care funding. Others advocate other ways to gain health care for poor children, such as employer incentive programs and interest-free health insurance loans, and cooperative insurance programs.
And a majority of parents who seek abortion but don’t get it done within the time limits end up wanting their children after all and refuse to give them up for adoption. Wanting an unexpected child is a lot like wanting to go to your parents’ house in the hills for Christmas break; the way you feel when you’re in bed, cozy and dry, and it’s four a.m., and you need to pack and drive through the sleet, isn’t always the way you feel when you get there and see everyone. Some parts of growing up and being alive involve deferred gratification, and it takes a little faith and courage at times. But it’s not a public disaster. Rather, it’s a mixed blessing that gets less mixed and more blessed as it goes on. The life cycle is full of surprises, that’s all.
Another point is that adoption regs refuse children to any family that seems imperfect. Though birth parents generally do a good job even if they’re a tad under the poverty level, widowed, or only averagely educated e.g., adoptive parents are screened for such things immediately. If a person has no serious criminal record, a fairly average psychiatric history, a home and fuel and clothes and food for the kids, takes a parenting class such as they give pregnant teenagers in school, and a hygeine and food safety class, and gets a few surprise inspections easch year, there is no real reason to presume he or she is incapable of childrearing and they should be allowed to adopt. The regs should screen out those who have a violent or dangerous record, no home, a known serious drug problem (hard drugs, heavy use of light drugs or something along those lines, or a history of dealing etc.), refuse to take parent ed, or are shown to have abused children; the typical adult should be able to adopt.

 

[pentecostbaby]

The leading reason that women get abortions is because of a) a lack of money to care for the child, including a lack of paid maternity leave and health insurance, and b) because their relationship is in trouble.

What the pro-choice movement fails to see is the “seamless garment of life” - the ways that all life issues, and issues that support the family, are connected.

Many women, if given enough help (yes, welfare included!!) would keep their children. This includes maternity leave - especially for traditionally blue-color jobs, such as waitressing - health care for ALL mothers and children, and free marital counseling.

The ones that don’t want to keep their children? Many, many people want to adopt. More people would adopt if opportunities were more prevalent and more publicized. At various points in their lives, over 10% (at least) of Americans considered adopting a child. Keep in mind that many of these parents (myself included) would love to adopt more than one.

 

[kage_ar]

The leading reason that women get abortions is because of a) a lack of money to care for the child, including a lack of paid maternity leave and health insurance, and b) because their relationship is in trouble.

Planned Parenthood’s own study (women can choose more than one reason) shows the reasons for abortion are topped by:

Having a baby would dramatically change my life because of the baby would interfere wtih education, job or caring for other children. 74%

Second reason is cannot afford a baby because they are unmarried. 42 %

32% say relationship is in trouble.

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:zMk-mlKIZjsJ:www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf+guttmacher+reasons+for+abortion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

 

[siamesecat]

Planned Parenthood’s own study (women can choose more than one reason) shows the reasons for abortion are topped by:

Having a baby would dramatically change my life because of the baby would interfere wtih education, job or caring for other children. 74%

Second reason is cannot afford a baby because they are unmarried. 42 %

32% say relationship is in trouble.

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:zMk-mlKIZjsJ:www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf+guttmacher+reasons+for+abortion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

It does seem that the women who have their lives together and would be good parents are the ones who have more abortions because they’re more concerned with “doing it right” - having the career in place, a husband, being able to manage it all. Just generalizing, of course…but it seems those who don’t consider it are often the ones who have 10 kids they don’t care for. It’s just odd to me. All the girls my age who got unexpectedly pregnant and kept the babies are complete messes who party all the time and have kids by different guys. The ones who have abortions are the ones who love kids, are great with them, and are generally responsible people who want to finish college and get married and be able to provide. It’s sad how it works out. Of course…I’m generalizing, that’s clearly not always the case.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Could this pro-choicers solution be applied to other scenarios? Let’s see…
There are too many homeless people. We should kill them. If you do NOT support killing them, you should support having them live with you.

See, the argument doesn’t work.
Besides, I don’t know where this person is getting their information that suddenly once the baby is born, people in the pro-life community stop caring. Puh-leez. That’s simply an unsupported falsehood.
I really take issue with this person suggesting that people in the pro-life community don’t support programs which help children. It’s the people in the pro-life community that I know who also volunteer and donate to food shelters, women’s shelters, all sorts of programs for the benefit of children and their families.
Has this pro-choicer looked at other countries around the globe with varying policies on abortion? Countries with high rates of abortion also have high rates of child abandonment. So, it doesn’t follow that lessening the number of abortions would increase rates of child abandonment. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[survive]

Always remember that every argument for abortion works exactly the same way when applied to serial killing and other murders.
Remember to name the victims from time to time, and call the procedure what it is.
Try, “So are you suggesting anyone who greets Emily’s mother outside the abortionist’s office and proposes to adopt Emily should have the right to prevent the abortionist form tearing Emily limb from limb? Would a group home work?” Calling a murder what it is puts everything in a clearer light sometimes.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I would respond by “abortion is murder”. Do we agree on that? We don’t justify murder if we cannot “forsee” what will become of these children. Of course, many will be adopted, many will unfortunately grow up orphans, but murder is wrong. They are avoiding the issue and trying to justify it on grounds of a separate issue.

“Abortion is murder”?

I’m all pro-life and all, but even *I *think that’s a weak position. I think you have to elaborate on that because abortion has become a political issue and becoming less of a moral issue, so we’ve come up with more than such an opinion–yes, unfortunately, it is opinion, at this point.

Not that it isn’t a decent position, for starters. We can go at it in a psychological way: “The only reason why pro-choice doesn’t see it as murder is because they don’t see a horrified face in terrible pain or hear an earsplitting scream of a child being hurt within the womb or know the fact that a child absolutely adores the mother and knows her smell and voice while still in the womb.”

See? Now we’re getting somewhere.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Gamera]

(quoting)…*I also don’t see them adopting retarded children or children born addicted to drugs.

The hypocrisy from the pro-life side is truly stunning.
*

---

That’s like saying “If you’re truly pro-choice, you’ll go out and adopt drug-addicted babies in order to facilitate the choice of adoption, otherwise you’re a hypocrite.”

Suppose some nut holds a gun to a toddler’s head and threatens to kill her unless I immediately agree to adopt her, and I cannot adopt her, so the guy kills her. Who is the murderer? Me? Or the actual killer? The actual killer is the murderer. There is no “hypocrisy” in stating that this murder should be illegal, just because some third party bystander (me) can’t or won’t be bullied into complying with terrorism. The murder of babies in the womb is no different — its propriety or impropriety doesn’t depend on whether third parties cave into terrorism.

By your friend’s logic, people cannot oppose the death penalty unless they personally agree to lodge convicted killers in their own homes.

I don’t see “pro-choice” people volunteering to help women keep their babies. Does that make them “hypocrites?”

 

[Gamera]

*Ok lets say that women stop having abortions. Where are all these kids going to go? Who is going to provide for them? Especially the ones that will need lifetime care such as the retarded and drug addicted ones. …So who pays for those kids until they are adopted? *

Abortion is not about “whether to have more children.” Abortion is about children who already exist, alive in the womb. Your friends here are arguing that they should be killed (typically by dismemberment and beheading) because they will need financial support. Does that make any sense?

And why don’t they see a baby as a financial asset to society rather than a liability? Since when does a person remain a baby her whole life – doesn’t every instance of “one more mouth to feed” grow up into two more hands to work? How shortsighted of them.

 

[Bennie_P]

I would respond by “abortion is murder”. Do we agree on that? We don’t justify murder if we cannot “forsee” what will become of these children. Of course, many will be adopted, many will unfortunately grow up orphans, but murder is wrong. They are avoiding the issue and trying to justify it on grounds of a separate issue.

And most as in the majority of them would be raised and loved by the mothers who thought they couldn’t live with them…

Why are pro-aborts so pessimistic?

 

[jmcrae]

In debating abortion on another forum, I have come across these arguments from the pro-abortion side.

*Ok lets say that women stop having abortions. Where are all these kids going to go? Who is going to provide for them? Especially the ones that will need lifetime care such as the retarded and drug addicted ones. *

---

I find it funny how so few people on the pro-life side push for inexpensive/free post-natal care, day care, head start, school lunch, or food stamps. I also don’t see them adopting retarded children or children born addicted to drugs.

I am one Pro-lifer who believes in public medicine and public education.

(I am also anti-war, for the most part, and anti-death penalty, for the most part.)

The hypocrisy from the pro-life side is truly stunning.

The Catholic position is that all human life, without exception is sacred.

As someone else mentioned, before abortion became legal, there were no hordes of homeless kids roaming the streets. (And actually, I think there are more homeless kids today than there were then. Back then, the homeless were mostly drunken old men, and drug addicts.)

 

[Bennie_P]

---

I find it funny how so few people on the pro-life side push for inexpensive/free post-natal care, day care, head start, school lunch, or food stamps. I also don’t see them adopting retarded children or children born addicted to drugs.

*The hypocrisy from the pro-life side is truly stunning. *

.

You need to visit my parish and see all the adopted children, it is where people who talk the talk do the walk.

Most of the head start programs in my city are ran by faith-based organizations, the majortiy of medical clinics ran for the poor are ran by faith-based organzations, the homeless shelters in my city that serve the majority of the homeless are faith-based. And the ones which serve the most meals receive no goverment grants or funding at all… they do more by the donations of people of faith, then the ones which seek out goverment grant monies by leaps and bounds…

Where hypocrisy exist is in the notion that government programs will take care of all the problems of the poor may encounter, but many times those same programs make the problems worse or are the reasons for the problems. The pro-aborts rest all of their arguments on its back up plan, which is the final solution, that is the killing babies while they are in the mothers’ womb, which should be the safest place on earth and where we all got our start.

Most pro-aborts which argue that people of faith do not think of nothing outside of stopping abortions need to spend some time visiting different pro-life Churches and getting to know the people that attend them. Of course to do that they may just find out how wrong they are about people that put their trust in Christ and even may have to admit He really exist as many that claim to follow Him do.

It may not be obvious to the pro-aborts when they see some families together and not realize that Catholic family with seven kids, that two or three of them are adopted, and when they see white parents with black children they shouldn’t think they have all come from third world countries either, like you see with pro-abort celebrities on entertainment news shows, not to be judgemental.

Of course most pro-life families don’t go around tooten their horns for the good they do for they don’t want to bring attention to the children in order for them (the children that is) to be left alone to live as normal lives full of love as possible…

 

[Trinityisgod]

while I am pro life, I seem to contradict everything everyone would think about me. I’m against the war in Iraq, as it contradicts not only the Christian message, but the law of nature. A man should NEVER kill another man, lest that man later be killed. Being against abortion is not only obeying the laws of God, it is obeying the laws of nature. Abortion is not only not natural, it is murder. All scientific evidence points to it. It is not a right. While to some people it might seem odd that a libertarian can be pro life seems to contradict every stereotype people might think politically. We tend to forget that liberty comes from God, not from man. Man can not take away liberty. When we allow abortion, we say that we gave people another right and that abortion is a right. However, it takes away from the rights of the unborn, as they are living and do deserve protection. All scientiffic evidence is there. Argue if you want, but you have no facts.

 

[TamM]

I know more than one person who spent time in foster care and group homes and still grew up without attempting suicide and became a happy member of society. I’m more than happy to have my taxes pay for that kind of thing, but how taxes should be directed is such a complicated issue in itself I don’t want to intertwine it with the real issue - abortion leads to the dismemberment and beheading of babies. As I’ve said before, nine months out of an average lifespan in but a drop of water in an ocean. A sacrifice, yes, but one that benefits the mother in the end as much as the child who gets to live. I don’t know the statistics but I know of a couple of women who have had abortions and never really got over it, and I bet there are lots and lots more.

Besides all that, so many people want to adopt babies. How can anyone end a life in good conscience that they can reasonably expect will be cared for and loved by someone somewhere on earth?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In debating abortion on another forum, I have come across these arguments from the pro-abortion side.

*Ok lets say that women stop having abortions. Where are all these kids going to go? Who is going to provide for them? Especially the ones that will need lifetime care such as the retarded and drug addicted ones. *

---

I find it funny how so few people on the pro-life side push for inexpensive/free post-natal care, day care, head start, school lunch, or food stamps. I also don’t see them adopting retarded children or children born addicted to drugs.

The hypocrisy from the pro-life side is truly stunning.
*

---

*You want to change the way things are and should take responsibility for working on solutions to potential problems caused by the change you want based on your moral/religious beliefs. Just saying there are wait lists for adoptions does not help solve the problem. In fact it exacrabates the situation. There are reasons for those lists and throwing an extra million or so kids annually in the pipeline will only make it worse. Because guess what? Most people do not adopt children they adopt babies. As the kids get older their chances of getting adopted decrease.

So who pays for those kids until they are adopted? The parents keep it until adoption? How is the unwanted child treated? The parents pay for it while some one else fosters the child until the adoption goes through? What if they are broke? The state? Taxes are going up and a lot of your supporters don’t agree with that one. *

---

How do you respond to arguments like these? What will happen to all of these babies? Does anyone have a plan in place to handle this situation if (when) abortion becomes illegal (or even reduced)?

Hopefully, the programs/support will exist to help the mothers themselves to care for/take responsibility for the babies, rather than giving them all up for adoption. But, that takes planning too.

These arguments are exceptionally poor. I suspect a young person. The economics are not an issue. Here in Texas we do not have universal health care so from 0-21 the retarded child has a combination of family care, private insurance, state insurance, and federal insurance. The state and federal insurance are basically through welfare agencies. After 21 it is mostly federal welfare (SSI/Medicare) with state assisted welfare. So the Parents really do not pay the bills as they simply cannot. Part 2: Babies born drug addicted come from drug addicted mother, so the issue is not the baby but the problems associated with drug addiction. Maybe we should lock these mothers up in rehab to reduce the problem? The problem is whether the baby is delivered to good parents or not; these issues do not change. These arguments seem to assume a good family simply drops a few million on the child, without regard the normal family does not have millions.

BTW- it should be noted the child’s bills mostly are derived by the medical professional (or lack thereof). In third world countries the child receives hospice.

In summary the whole argument is the old – I am going to be knotty and do damage so deal with it!