Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Pro-Lifer's Can you answer this?

Posted by   + Show Post

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/

by on Mar. 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Replies (21-30):
Kelseyciarah
by Bronze Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:23 PM
2 moms liked this

 Well, firstly, I am all for social welfare, even being the conservative that I am.

Secondly, just because a child has the possibility of being brought into a cruel world, does NOT justify taking another human life to "save money" or "spare feelings" or "kill them before they are born so they don't get beaten by their parents". How irrational is that? KILL them, just because there is a POSSIBILTY that things could go badly when they are out in the world. Yeah, nonsense in my book.

I am for human rights, and every human being, should have the most basic of rights, the right to life.

 

Furthermore, I am ALSO just as passionate about orphans, and adoption REFORM to make things easier on these kids, and to place more incentive in adopting kids to families.

We are not all cut from the same cloth.


proprolife.gif picture by piink-lem0nade

 

Happily married Mama to one angelbaby, a son born 10-19-10, and a daughter born 3-20-12

lazycervix
by Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:23 PM
1 mom liked this

Get back on topic y'all have never said how we would support these unwanted children as a country when we can not support the unwanted children we have now in the foster care system.

Woodbabe
by Woodie on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:24 PM
1 mom liked this

Well you clearly said no method is 100% and if a couple 100% knows they can't afford more children, then no sex. That seems pretty harsh. Would your husband go without sex for the rest of your marriage?

Quoting 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.




 Sexy If its unladylike, fattening or fun, I'm in!
  

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:29 PM

 

 

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 think you're right - they do.  But that's no different than anything else.  We all want to manage the consequences of our choices, and mitigate the risks of our decisions, whether they be using safety belts, buying insurance, having surgery, or having divorce available as a legal option to a failed marriage, as just a few more obvious examples.

purplerobin
by Bronze Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:29 PM



Quoting 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.




I'm not talking about parents who should be reunited with kids. I'm talking about people who are neglectful abusive or both and should never have kept their kids to begin with. THOSE parents should've figured it out beforehand. What I SAID though was parents like that shuld be responsible for cost of foster care, because like I said, they should've figured out whether they wanted to be parents from the get-go.

And I never said that's why they're removed. I said they should pay because you shouldn't  screw up and be a bad parent for years and then all of absolved of responsibility.


a lot of people disagree that the goal is reunification btw...cps doesn't have a bad reputation for no reason.

purplerobin
by Bronze Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:30 PM



Quoting lazycervix:

Get back on topic y'all have never said how we would support these unwanted children as a country when we can not support the unwanted children we have now in the foster care system.


Go after the bioparents.

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:31 PM

 


Quoting 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.

The problem is human error.  The most effective types of birth control (like IUDs) minimize human error.  There are some studies that suggest that increased use of IUDs is why the teen pregnancy rate has dropped.

 

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:33 PM
1 mom liked this

 


Quoting lazycervix:

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.


 

 I'm not pro-life, but I think I can comfortably say that for them, abortion is a moral issue, not a fiscal one.

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:35 PM
1 mom liked this

I haven't noticed your posts much in here before but I think I might love you.

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.



Neon Washable Paint

LindaClement
by Linda on Mar. 20, 2013 at 12:37 PM

That's hilarious.

My mom had 4 miscarriages on an IUD and my aunt delivered the IUD after my cousin and before the placenta.

Quoting MsDenuninani:



Quoting 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.

The problem is human error.  The most effective types of birth control (like IUDs) minimize human error.  There are some studies that suggest that increased use of IUDs is why the teen pregnancy rate has dropped.



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured