Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phate
1) Which of my statistics involve older orphans. If the 1.5 million people who had an abortion last year gave birth instead they would each have an infant on their hands. Considering noe of them want the babies all of these infants would be given up for adoption immediately. Therefore there would be 1.5 million infants available.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/ab...ortionstats.htm |
Okay, if you want to get precise...then be precise. First off...the number was 1.37 million. Second, how do you know? Miscarriages happen all the time. I'm not absolutely sure,so don't quote me on it, but I believe it is 1 out of every 50 pregnancies is a miscarriage. This means that 27,400 of those pregnancies would be miscarriages. Thus, 1,342,600 babies would be a more accurate number. That's only if my estimate(1 in 50) is correct. I'd be willing to bet money the miscarriage rate is much higher. Also, let's look at another point. The reason many people get adoptions so early, is so they don't grow and emotional attachment to the baby. At least not one to the point that if they killed the baby it might possibly throw them into extreme depression. Why did clinics want this enforced? Here's why, 60% of mothers who take their pregnancy past 6 months decide to keep the baby instead of aborting, or giving it up for adoption. So...that leaves us with a little over 500,000 babies after the mother's reach that 6 month period....statistically at least. Oh but wait, there's more! We haven't included the statistics of women who were planning on adoption...and decide to keep it after it is born and they've seen it. Would you like to know the statistics on that one? I tell you what, I'll round down! Statistically, a whopping 70% of mothers decide to keep their baby after it is born! Let's see...what do we have for them Bob? That leaves us with approx. 150,000 babies being put up for adoption..not even close to fulfilling half of the list of waiters. See, these abortion sites just give you their numbers of how many babies are aborted. They conveniently forget to add in other statistics to show you the factual outcome of what the rate of adoption would have been like. Ain't that a bitch?
Quote:
|
How do these numbers not equate.
|
I just showed you.
Quote:
|
Besides, there are plenty of infants available. What the people on the waiting list want are white blue eyed babies. If these people are so desperate to adopt then i'm sure africa could accomodate the demand.
|
This discussion is over the US. You're turning it into a world view. If you have to do that just to prove your point...that alone should be a signal that you might need to recheck your standpoint.
Quote:
|
2) Would having to carry a pregnancy to term be a deterent. Yes, i agree. But I believe education and prevention is a far better alternative than relying on reluctant parents learning their lesson after a few unwanted pregnancies.
|
A FEW? hah. If people don't want the baby, they won't put up with a FEW unwanted pregnancies. That's like saying...well, after I got shot a few times, I realized I shouldn't go down that street anymore.
Quote:
|
Spend the money on programs that reduce unwanted pregnancy by educating and convincing people to use protectiong. We are a rich and smart enough society that we shouldn't have any unwanted pregnancies. That's just my opinion.
|
No argument there.
Quote:
|
3) Yes. Abortion used to be illegal. Family sizes were much larger. Women didn't mind (or weren't allowed) to work therefore stayed home to take care of the kids. And most parents were willing to spend their income on their children before they went out and purchased luxuries.
|
That's a generalization. Times have changed, I understand that. However, your point isn't accurate. I'll see where you're going with it though.
Quote:
|
Can you really say the same of the potential parents who would have to raise their children instead of aborting them. Or are todays reluctant parents interested more on watching tv, buying cars, or doing drugs than spending money on their kids. I wish we could revert certain of societies moral perspective (obviously not forcing women to stay at home) overnight to what they were 50 years ago, but I believe this takes more time.
|
Again I agree. You had the same problems 50 years ago. It was just different types of luxuries....same drugs, but different luxuries. That's why they created the Social Services Department. If people would report people like they are supposed to, this wouldn't be a problem. I myself have reported 2 families in my lifetime. Did I feel good about it? No. However, you've got to do whatever you can to ensure a child's safety and potential for leading a fruitful life. There parents were druggy bastards that used to beat them. Well, now they dont' have that opportunity. You'll get that wherever you go...that happens to babies that were wanted..it's not just isolated to unwanted pregnancies.