Pro-Lifer's Can you answer this?

lets just say there are about 500,000 abortions a year about half of those are aferican american, disabled, addicted to drugs, etc. children like that rarely get adopted if you don't believe me go look at the kids currently in foster care that are able to be adopted http://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children/search

so that is 250000 kids extra a year into the foster care system how do we afford to take care of these children when states can not even take care of the ones they have now. Recently the  Hitting the MARC: Establishing Foster Care Minimum Adequate Rates for Children revealed that 49 states were falling short of adequate reimbursement rates for foster families at the time of the study — and that states across the nation would need to raise the rates by which they reimburse foster parents by an average of 36 percent to cover the actual costs of supporting a child in foster care. 

So someone explain to me how getting rid of abortion would be fiscaly responsible since most of the pro-lifers are the republicans who are all about fiscal conservitisim.

To fact check me look here http://www.childrensrights.org/policy-projects/foster-care/hitting-the-marc-foster-care-reimbursement-rates/foster-care-rates-by-state/

[purplerobin]

Quoting lazycervix:

I am estimating based on the race of people getting abortions, the medical reasons women get abortions, the fact that when a women doesn't want to be pregnant she may continue to drink and do drugs just like she was before, and so on

Quoting jwaren:

Just curious as to where you get your #s on half of all abortions being classified as "unwanted" if they were born.  Not arguing, just curious.   But I have a hard time believing that 1/2 of all abortions would fall into that category

And women like THAT ought to be prosecuted harshly as well. Betcha dollars to donuts they'd get help in a hurry rather than face jail time or fines!!

[jwaren]

BACKGROUND: I am more of a moderate Pro-lifer.  I do think that when extreme health issues are present (like hydrocephal), the health of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, that abortion is something than could be considered.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that in all cases (except for rape, which I feel could be an acceptable reason for abortion, COULD be) there was a choice.  It all comes down to that.  A woman chooses to have sex, the condom breaks (or bc fails) and she ends up pregnant. She still made that choice.  There are always risks.  No BC options are 100% other than abstinance. IF a child isn't wanted at that point in time, then sex shouldn't be happening.  Pro-choicers want to have a choice in what goes on with their bod, but they fail to recognize that the choice they are making. They want the ability to choose the consequence to their choice.

[purplerobin]

Quoting jwaren:

BACKGROUND: I am more of a moderate Pro-lifer.  I do think that when extreme health issues are present (like hydrocephal), the health of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, that abortion is something than could be considered.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that in all cases (except for rape, which I feel could be an acceptable reason for abortion, COULD be) there was a choice.  It all comes down to that.  A woman chooses to have sex, the condom breaks (or bc fails) and she ends up pregnant. She still made that choice.  There are always risks.  No BC options are 100% other than abstinance. IF a child isn't wanted at that point in time, then sex shouldn't be happening.  Pro-choicers want to have a choice in what goes on with their bod, but they fail to recognize that the choice they are making. They want the ability to choose the consequence to their choice.

I agree with you to a point. Women should not have to forgo sex if they do t want to be mothers. That's what bc is all about. What I don't get is bc is as effective as claimed, the abortion rate should not be so high. Seems either people aren't using bc when they should, or not at all.

im pro-life too btw.

[Woodbabe]

Quoting jwaren:

BACKGROUND: I am more of a moderate Pro-lifer.  I do think that when extreme health issues are present (like hydrocephal), the health of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, that abortion is something than could be considered.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that in all cases (except for rape, which I feel could be an acceptable reason for abortion, COULD be) there was a choice.  It all comes down to that.  A woman chooses to have sex, the condom breaks (or bc fails) and she ends up pregnant. She still made that choice.  There are always risks.  No BC options are 100% other than abstinance. IF a child isn't wanted at that point in time, then sex shouldn't be happening.  Pro-choicers want to have a choice in what goes on with their bod, but they fail to recognize that the choice they are making. They want the ability to choose the consequence to their choice.

So...a couple married 10 years and done having children shouldn't ever have recreation sex again if they really don't want any more kids?

Yeah for single motherhood!

My man would be GONE.

[lazycervix]

and what if that baby still doesn't get adopted? I can tell you it happens a lot. Adoptive parents also back out if the child is born with issues you can not detect via ultrasound.

Quoting purplerobin:

Quoting lazycervix:

so you are going to force a women to have a baby she doesn't want then throw her in jail if she can't support it wow that is harsh.

Quoting purplerobin:

People who don't want to be parents or who can't be need to figure that out BEFORE the child is born or within a month afterwards. If a kid gets taken sequel and placed in foster care after that,they should go after the bioparent for the funds. Short of funds? Oh well, either figure it out or do jail time.

Read the reply more carefully. I said she should have to pay IF she doesn't put the child up for adoption within a mon after he/ she is born. Harsh? Maybe but women ( and biodads ) should figure out whether they can be or want to be parents from the get-go. You'd probably see a LOT less kids in foster care.

[trippyhippy]

All that's going to do is force women to give up their kids right away instead of giving it a chance.

Quoting purplerobin:

Quoting lazycervix:

so you are going to force a women to have a baby she doesn't want then throw her in jail if she can't support it wow that is harsh.

Quoting purplerobin:

People who don't want to be parents or who can't be need to figure that out BEFORE the child is born or within a month afterwards. If a kid gets taken sequel and placed in foster care after that,they should go after the bioparent for the funds. Short of funds? Oh well, either figure it out or do jail time.

Read the reply more carefully. I said she should have to pay IF she doesn't put the child up for adoption within a mon after he/ she is born. Harsh? Maybe but women ( and biodads ) should figure out whether they can be or want to be parents from the get-go. You'd probably see a LOT less kids in foster care.

[purplerobin]

Quoting lazycervix:

and what if that baby still doesn't get adopted? I can tell you it happens a lot. Adoptive parents also back out if the child is born with issues you can not detect via ultrasound.

Quoting purplerobin:

Quoting lazycervix:

so you are going to force a women to have a baby she doesn't want then throw her in jail if she can't support it wow that is harsh.

Quoting purplerobin:

People who don't want to be parents or who can't be need to figure that out BEFORE the child is born or within a month afterwards. If a kid gets taken sequel and placed in foster care after that,they should go after the bioparent for the funds. Short of funds? Oh well, either figure it out or do jail time.

Read the reply more carefully. I said she should have to pay IF she doesn't put the child up for adoption within a mon after he/ she is born. Harsh? Maybe but women ( and biodads ) should figure out whether they can be or want to be parents from the get-go. You'd probably see a LOT less kids in foster care.

Then that's sad but its better than an irresponsible parent having her kids taken away years later. I don't doubt that the situation you are describing happens but I doubt it's typical.

[jaxTheMomm]

Children are not removed from their parents and placed in Foster Care because they can't afford to care for them.

And when children are placed in Foster Care, the #1 goal is to reuinite the family.  Kind of hard to do if you've imprisoned the parents.

Quoting purplerobin:

People who don't want to be parents or who can't be need to figure that out BEFORE the child is born or within a month afterwards. If a kid gets taken sequel and placed in foster care after that,they should go after the bioparent for the funds. Short of funds? Oh well, either figure it out or do jail time.

[purplerobin]

Quoting trippyhippy:

All that's going to do is force women to give up their kids right away instead of giving it a chance.

Quoting purplerobin:

Quoting lazycervix:

so you are going to force a women to have a baby she doesn't want then throw her in jail if she can't support it wow that is harsh.

Quoting purplerobin:

People who don't want to be parents or who can't be need to figure that out BEFORE the child is born or within a month afterwards. If a kid gets taken sequel and placed in foster care after that,they should go after the bioparent for the funds. Short of funds? Oh well, either figure it out or do jail time.

Read the reply more carefully. I said she should have to pay IF she doesn't put the child up for adoption within a mon after he/ she is born. Harsh? Maybe but women ( and biodads ) should figure out whether they can be or want to be parents from the get-go. You'd probably see a LOT less kids in foster care.

The woman has 40 weeks (more if you think about it before you choose to be irresponsible and get pregnant- and yes I know bc fails but it seems more unwanted pregnancies are due to irresponsibility than bc failing...otherwise abortion wouldn't be nearly as common) to figure out whether she's ready for motherhood or not. Quite frankly a month after should be plenty of time to figure it out too. You don't play Russian Roulette with a child's well- being while you "try it out" and see if parenthood is for you. You put on your big girl/ big boy panties, and decide what needs to be decided.

[jwaren]

Recreational sex is fine, but you have to accept the risk of pregnancy. If an unplanned pregnancy is not a risk you are willing to take, then yes you should abstain.  There are SOOOOO many ways to prevent pregnancy and abortion isn't one of them.

Quoting Woodbabe:

Quoting jwaren:

BACKGROUND: I am more of a moderate Pro-lifer.  I do think that when extreme health issues are present (like hydrocephal), the health of the mother is in danger, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape, that abortion is something than could be considered.

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that in all cases (except for rape, which I feel could be an acceptable reason for abortion, COULD be) there was a choice.  It all comes down to that.  A woman chooses to have sex, the condom breaks (or bc fails) and she ends up pregnant. She still made that choice.  There are always risks.  No BC options are 100% other than abstinance. IF a child isn't wanted at that point in time, then sex shouldn't be happening.  Pro-choicers want to have a choice in what goes on with their bod, but they fail to recognize that the choice they are making. They want the ability to choose the consequence to their choice.

So...a couple married 10 years and done having children shouldn't ever have recreation sex again if they really don't want any more kids?

Yeah for single motherhood!

My man would be GONE.