President Obama reverses abortion-funds policy

[Reba]

And, if one's desire is to have a child, it should not be an issue whether that child is an infant or an older child. The simple fact of the matter is, there are children who need homes that are already on this earth. Take care of them first.

You don't understand. There ARE couples who are willing to adopt older children but even they are tied up in legalities. The problem is NOT a lack of adoptive families; the problem is on legal restrictions to adoption.

Also, the fact that couples are willing to make financial sacrifices, and are willing to travel to other countries to get babies proves that your excuse that there wouldn't be enough homes for babies that would have been aborted is totally baseless.

 

[jillio]

You don't understand. There ARE couples who are willing to adopt older children but even they are tied up in legalities. The problem is NOT a lack of adoptive families; the problem is on legal restrictions to adoption.

Also, the fact that couples are willing to make financial sacrifices, and are willing to travel to other countries to get babies proves that your excuse that there wouldn't be enough homes for babies that would have been aborted is totally baseless.

Yes, I do understand. I am not talking about the ones for whom adoption is imminent as soon as the legal requirements are fulfilled. I am talking about the ones that remain wards of the state for their entire life because adoption has never even been a remote possibility.

So, the life and well being of a baby is more important than that of an older child? If homes are available, use them to take in the homeless children, no matter the age, that exist in this country. To travel to a foreign country to adopt an infant when there are so many children in need in this country already is nothing more than a selfish fulfillment of desire. Want to appear noble...adopt a handicapped 8 year old that has been in the system for the last six years.

 

[Reba]

2 reasons - long red tape is good because it weeds out twisted people and people with wishy-washy decision. and another reason is simply because they're very understaffed to handle these caseloads.

It's not just red tape involved in investigating the adoptive parents. It's other kinds of bureaucracy. Some examples:

* Birth parents either can't be found to sign the papers, or refuse to cooperate with the adoption process. This includes incarcerated birth parents.

* Restrictions on cross ethnic adoptions, such as sometimes white couples aren't allowed to adopt black or Native American children.

* Age, occupation, and health restrictions on adoptive parents.

* High fees for the adoption process. I know couples who get second mortgages on their houses, get second jobs, etc., just to be able to adopt.

* Birth mothers who change their minds after the baby has been placed for adoption; legal tug-of-war ensues.

 

[shel90]

Yep, we'll just round up all the women who are considering abortion, force them to carry to term and give birth, and then confiscate the kid and raise it in the military to do our fighting for us!

That would go against everyone's consitutional rights big time ..not the morals nor the principles that this country was founded on!

 

[Reba]

Yes, I do understand. I am not talking about the ones for whom adoption is imminent as soon as the legal requirements are fulfilled. I am talking about the ones that remain wards of the state for their entire life because adoption has never even been a remote possibility.

Why wasn't adoption a "remote possibility?"

So, the life and well being of a baby is more important than that of an older child?

I never said that. Do you say, the life and well being of an older child is more important that a baby?

If homes are available, use them to take in the homeless children, no matter the age, that exist in this country.

You still don't understand, even though you say you do. I explained it in my previous posts. Either that or you are ignoring the facts to suit your premise.

To travel to a foreign country to adopt an infant when there are so many children in need in this country already is nothing more than a selfish fulfillment of desire.

You have some nerve judging people who provide homes for children who need them.

Want to appear noble...adopt a handicapped 8 year old that has been in the system for the last six years.

People don't adopt children to "appear noble." That certainly would be the wrong motive. And yes, they DO adopt handicapped 8-year-old children, too. It's often that very "system" that is to blame for lack of adoption.

The people who I know who have either adopted or want to adopt babies and children, do it because they love the children, not because they want to "appear noble".

One family I know, the father is a wood shop teacher in a high school. They have fostered dozens of children, and adopted a teenager, and four other children, none of them under four years old, and some from abusive situations. They wanted to adopt others but the birth parents refused to cooperate.

 

[jillio]

It's not just red tape involved in investigating the adoptive parents. It's other kinds of bureaucracy. Some examples:

* Birth parents either can't be found to sign the papers, or refuse to cooperate with the adoption process. This includes incarcerated birth parents.

After a certain period of time, children can also be declared as abandoned and parental rights terminated in a court of law.

* Restrictions on cross ethnic adoptions, such as sometimes white couples aren't allowed to adopt black or Native American children.

Then what about those babies that are born and surrendered for adoption by ethnic minorities rather than aborting them? Who is going to adopt them, since you seem to think that adoption is the sole solution?
* Age, occupation, and health restrictions on adoptive parents.
They are not as strict as you might think. And, if those restrictions exist, they will exist for the babies born and surrendered for adoption. There you go, if we can't provide homes for the children that already exist, then adoption clearly is not the solution to abortion.
* High fees for the adoption process. I know couples who get second mortgages on their houses, get second jobs, etc., just to be able to adopt.

Yep, and that will continue to occur with those children who are born and surrendered in leiu of abortion. Like I said, you cannot guarantee a loving home to all babies born. Therefore, adoption is not a viable solution to abortion.
* Birth mothers who change their minds after the baby has been placed for adoption; legal tug-of-war ensues.

And,that as well, will continue to occur. You have managed to give a number of reasons exactly why adoption is not a solution to stopping abortion.

 

[jillio]

That would go against everyone's consitutional rights big time ..not the morals nor the principles that this country was founded on!

But that is what Maria recommended. Raise all the babies that would be aborted to serve as soldiers in the military. That is why I said her remark was dehumanizing.

 

[shel90]

But that is what Maria recommended. Raise all the babies that would be aborted to serve as soldiers in the military. That is why I said her remark was dehumanizing.

Yea, I dont condone that at all. What if the babies grow up to people who dont want to be soldiers? What kind of life is that to be forced to fight wars? Might as well bring the draft back while we are at it!

 

[jillio]

Why wasn't adoption a "remote possibility?"

Because the concern over the rights of a child seem to end, for the pro-lifers, with that cute and cuddly neonate stage. The majority do not have the courage of their convictions.
I never said that. Do you say, the life and well being of an older child is more important that a baby?
That is what you implied when you referenced people going to foreign countries to get that cute and cuddly neonate while older children suffer from lack of a loving home.


You still don't understand, even though you say you do. I explained it in my previous posts. Either that or you are ignoring the facts to suit your premise.

I'm ignoring nothing. You however, seem to be ignoring the fact that adoption is not the answer to abortion when it can't even be a soloution for the number of children already in existence.
You have some nerve judging people who provide homes for children who need them.
I don't know where you are getting that, but perhaps you should read the thread Banjo started yesterday. I'm not judging the ones that do provide homes. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of those that propose to force all women to carry all pregnancies to term, yet fail to stand up and do what is necessary to insure that those lives they insist are precious are maintained.


People don't adopt children to "appear noble." That certainly would be the wrong motive. And yes, they DO adopt handicapped 8-year-old children, too. It's often that very "system" that is to blame for lack of adoption.

No, most often, they adopt to become parents. If that is the issue, one can parent an older child as well as an infant. That is my whole point. If your concern is in becoming a parent, and giving a better exisitence to a child, an older child is just as deserving as an infant.
The people who I know who have either adopted or want to adopt babies and children, do it because they love the children, not because they want to "appear noble".

Then give that love to the ones that need it the most.

One family I know, the father is a wood shop teacher in a high school. They have fostered dozens of children, and adopted a teenager, and four other children, none of them under four years old, and some from abusive situations. They wanted to adopt others but the birth parents refused to cooperate.

And I have family members who have adopted older children, 4 of them with special needs, and one of them seriously mentally disturbed. They have the courage of their convictions. And all are pro-choice, because they see the need for the children who are already on this earth to be loved and cared for.

 

[jillio]

Yea, I dont condone that at all. What if the babies grow up to people who dont want to be soldiers? What kind of life is that to be forced to fight wars? Might as well bring the draft back while we are at it!

Or what if they are determined not to be fit for military duty? What then?

 

[Jiro]

Or what if they are determined not to be fit for military duty? What then?

living a life of invalid is no way to live. like gattaca

 

[shel90]

Or what if they are determined not to be fit for military duty? What then?

Guess the answer would be is to put them in the state wards...

 

[jillio]

Guess the answer would be is to put them in the state wards...

There you go. More children that no one wants being dumped as wards of the state because abortion has been outlawed and women's choice taken away.

 

[Reba]

And,that as well, will continue to occur. You have managed to give a number of reasons exactly why adoption is not a solution to stopping abortion.

No. The reasons I gave prove that the adoption system needs an overhaul so that more children can be placed in loving families. Adoption can be a solution to "unwanted" babies if the hindrances are removed.

Your excuse was that there wouldn't be enough adoptive homes. I'm telling you that the homes are there.

Why not solve the problems of the adoption system?

Why kill off the babies just because the system isn't functioning? Fix the system, don't get rid of the babies.

 

[jillio]

No. The reasons I gave prove that the adoption system needs an overhaul so that more children can be placed in loving families. Adoption can be a solution to "unwanted" babies if the hindrances are removed.

Then spend time in getting the system overhauled before you advocate the use of a system that cannot even serve the needs of the children already here.
Your excuse was that there wouldn't be enough adoptive homes. I'm telling you that the homes are there.

Then why are children going unadopted? The homes are not there. You have shown that already in your above statements.
Why not solve the problems of the adoption system?

Why not? I work with the social service agencies on a daily basis. I don't see many anti-abortionists out there campaigning for the cause. They are all focused on adding to the crisis by attempting to have Roe v Wade overturned.

Why kill off the babies just because the system isn't functioning? Fix the system, don't get rid of the babies.

Exactly. Fix the system. Why is it that the anti-abortionists drop the ball at this stage?

 

[Reba]

Because the concern over the rights of a child seem to end, for the pro-lifers, with that cute and cuddly neonate stage. The majority do not have the courage of their convictions.

Do you have statistics to back up your statement?

Do you know that many couples tried to adopt older handicapped children, and even those couples are on waiting lists?

You have no right to judge pro-life people by saying "the majority do not have the courage of their convictions." You have no idea how many of them have adopted children, tried to adopt, or are still waiting.

That is what you implied when you referenced people going to foreign countries to get that cute and cuddly neonate while older children suffer from lack of a loving home.

I explained why older children are lacking loving homes. It has nothing to do with couples not wanting them.

Also, what do you have against foreign babies? Don't they also deserve loving parents? Also, they are not all "perfect." Many Americans adopt "handicapped" foreign infants, and mixed-race infants who would suffer persecution in their home countries. Those babies are rescued from their situations. Do you want to deny them their families?

I'm ignoring nothing. You however, seem to be ignoring the fact that adoption is not the answer to abortion when it can't even be a soloution for the number of children already in existence.

It could be if legal entanglements were remedied. The couples and families are waiting.

I don't know where you are getting that, but perhaps you should read the thread Banjo started yesterday. I'm not judging the ones that do provide homes. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of those that propose to force all women to carry all pregnancies to term, yet fail to stand up and do what is necessary to insure that those lives they insist are precious are maintained.

Please stay on track.

The point I was addressing was your original statement:

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - President Obama reverses abortion-funds policy

No, most often, they adopt to become parents.

I guess you know a different group of adoptive parents than the ones I know.

If that is the issue, one can parent an older child as well as an infant.

Many people can be wonderful parents without being wonderful parents to every child. There are some people who specifically want to become parents to older or special needs children, and some who are better suited to becoming parents of babies. That doesn't make them any more or less "noble." They are just different.

That is my whole point. If your concern is in becoming a parent, and giving a better exisitence to a child, an older child is just as deserving as an infant.

I never said that older children weren't deserving. There ARE couples wanting them; they just can't get them.

Then give that love to the ones that need it the most.

Who should judge which children need love the most? Don't they all need love?

 

[jillio]

Do you have statistics to back up your statement?

Did you see the word "seem" in my statement? Do you have statistics to back up your claim that all babies that are not aborted will be guaranteed a loving adoptive home? The fact that you advocate the use of a system that cannot serve the needs of the children here as a solution to abortion shows that you are not concerned about the welfare of the children, but only about removing women's rights.

Do you know that many couples tried to adopt older handicapped children, and even those couples are on waiting lists?

Just more proof that the adoption system cannot handle any more children being brought into the system, which makes your solution completely unviable.
You have no right to judge pro-life people by saying "the majority do not have the courage of their convictions." You have no idea how many of them have adopted children, tried to adopt, or are still waiting.

Then, tell me, Reba, how many have? Have you? I am not judging pro-life people. I am judging the anti-abortionists who advocate the use of a broken system as a solution when they won't even make the effort to put as much action into getting the system changed as they do into removing women's rights.


I explained why older children are lacking loving homes. It has nothing to do with couples not wanting them.

It has to do with the fact that the homes are not available, no matter the reason. And you propose adding to that overload.

Also, what do you have against foreign babies? Don't they also deserve loving parents? Also, they are not all "perfect." Many Americans adopt "handicapped" foreign infants, and mixed-race infants who would suffer persecution in their home countries. Those babies are rescued from their situations. Do you want to deny them their families?

Who said I had anything against foreign babies? I'm saying what about the children that need homes in this country? Put your efforts into that, instead of using untold amounts of money and legal resources to go overseas to adopt. Walk the walk.


It could be if legal entanglements were remedied. The couples and families are waiting.

Then put the efforts into rectifying those legal entanglements instead of working sohard to have federal law guaranteeing women the right to privacy in medical decisions overturned.

Please stay on track.

You are the one going off track, here, Reba.
The point I was addressing was your original statement:

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - President Obama reverses abortion-funds policy



I guess you know a different group of adoptive parents than the ones I know.



Many people can be wonderful parents without being wonderful parents to every child. There are some people who specifically want to become parents to older or special needs children, and some who are better suited to becoming parents of babies. That doesn't make them any more or less "noble." They are just different.



I never said that older children weren't deserving. There ARE couples wanting them; they just can't get them.

Then work to rectify that, if you are truly concerned about the rights of children, as the anti-abortionists claim is their primary consideration.

Who should judge which children need love the most? Don't they all need love?

Yes, they do. Why aren't the ones that are here and needing it getting it? Why is so much effort devoted to removing the rights of women instead of fighting for the rights of children already born?

 

[Reba]

Did you see the word "seem" in my statement? Do you have statistics to back up your claim that all babies that are not aborted will be guaranteed a loving adoptive home?

Then your answer is "no?"

I didn't claim that "all" babies will be guaranteed a loving home. There are no guarantees in life.

The fact that you advocate the use of a system that cannot serve the needs of the children here as a solution to abortion shows that you are not concerned about the welfare of the children, but only about removing women's rights.

Did you read the several times that I stated the system must be changed? Maybe the people who support women's "right" to abort should invest some of that energy into supporting changes in the adoption system.

Just more proof that the adoption system cannot handle any more children being brought into the system, which makes your solution completely unviable.

Again, change the system and let those children be adopted.

And that still doesn't refute my original point that the homes are available.

Then, tell me, Reba, how many have? Have you?

I tried--including older special needs children.

I am not judging pro-life people. I am judging the anti-abortionists who advocate the use of a broken system as a solution when they won't even make the effort to put as much action into getting the system changed as they do into removing women's rights.

How do you know they aren't making an effort? I know many people who are involved in both pro-life and pro-adoption movements.

It has to do with the fact that the homes are not available, no matter the reason. And you propose adding to that overload.

The homes ARE available; it's the children who are not.

Who said I had anything against foreign babies? I'm saying what about the children that need homes in this country? Put your efforts into that, instead of using untold amounts of money and legal resources to go overseas to adopt. Walk the walk.

People are putting their efforts into that. In the mean time, should they go childless for political reasons? Should they campaign until they're too old to adopt? What about the babies who are ready now? Why can't they do both?

Then put the efforts into rectifying those legal entanglements instead of working sohard to have federal law guaranteeing women the right to privacy in medical decisions overturned.

Some people can multi-task.

You are the one going off track, here, Reba.

How so? I want to stick with the point that there ARE homes available to babies.

I have made my point (several times, several posts), so I won't repeat myself any further.

 

[jillio]

Then your answer is "no?"

I didn't claim that "all" babies will be guaranteed a loving home. There are no guarantees in life.

Then your argument that adoption is the solution to abortion is moot.


Did you read the several times that I stated the system must be changed? Maybe the people who support women's "right" to abort should invest some of that energy into supporting changes in the adoption system.

I do. Do you?

Again, change the system and let those children be adopted.

And in the meantime, don't overload the system anymore than it already is.

And that still doesn't refute my original point that the homes are available.

They are not available. If they were available, they would be untilized. For whatever reason, they are not available. Just because someone says "Oh, yes...I would adopt!" doesn't make the home available.

I tried--including older special needs children.

Then that would mean that your home, as well, falls into that "unavailable" category.

How do you know they aren't making an effort? I know many people who are involved in both pro-life and pro-adoption movements.

We aren't talking a "pro-adoption movement". We are talking political activism that seeks to change laws that are detrimental to the welfare of children. It takes a bit more than sitting in your comfortable chair saying, "Oh, yes! I support adoption!"

The homes ARE available; it's the children who are not.

Obviously, yours wasn't. But the kids are still out there.


People are putting their efforts into that. In the mean time, should they go childless for political reasons? Should they campaign until they're too old to adopt? What about the babies who are ready now? Why can't they do both?

You tell me, Reba. Why can't they?


Some people can multi-task.

And some can only talk the talk without walking the walk.


How so? I want to stick with the point that there ARE homes available to babies.

Again, yours wasn't. If a child cannot be placed in a home,that home is unavailable.

I have made my point (several times, several posts), so I won't repeat myself any further.

As have I.

 

[naisho]

I think the real show just got started. Our best two candidates, across on their podiums, lashing out!

Popcorn!, Hot dogs!, get your corn dogs for 75 cents!

PS. try to stay out if you can. we can learn a lot quickly. come to me if you want to take bets.