What percentage of pro-lifers financially support kids through age 18 who were a

1. 78

   Express10posted 9 years ago

   What percentage of pro-lifers financially support kids through age 18 who were at risk of abortion?
   
   I believe that couples should NOT CREATE A CHILD if either of them is uncertain that they want, can afford or financially support a child. I also believe that people should have the right to choose what is best for them and hope that abortion is an absolute LAST resort.
   
   While many pro-lifers understandably want to save lives, many pro-lifers seem to ignore the financial realities and bad judgement of some parents considering abortion. If you or someone you know is a pro-lifer, do you or someone you know financially support a child who was at risk for being aborted through the age of 18?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 72

   Titen-Sxullposted 9 years ago

   This is a good question and I doubt anyone could or has crunched the numbers on this particular statistic.
   
   I find it utterly ironic that we live in a country where the religious-right are at once fighting against abortion and in the same breath decrying Welfare and so-called "entitlements". Well if we get rid of abortion altogether and the government starts coercing women who don't want to have children to carry their pregnancies to term (an Orwellian idea in the extreme) we're going to desperately need some kind of social welfare program to take care of all those unwanted children.
   
   Perhaps they could make caring for a child mandatory for all citizens, sort of like a compulsory military draft. Your name is pulled from a lottery and congratulations you are now the recipient of a child born of a sixteen year old girl who was abused by her Father because even under those conditions people like Mike Huckabee, and other insane religious people, want a person to be FORCED to give birth.
   
   I see abortion, like you said, as a last resort, a sort of lesser of two evils. The pro-life side apparently thinks that aborting the pregnancy while it is still just a bunch of cells, while the embryo is still indistinguishable as human, is worse than bringing a life into this world unloved, un-cared or impoverished. Not to mention the irony of those who claim to be for smaller government being in favor of forcing women to give birth, there's a reason that pro-life is considered anti-woman.
   
   In a way though abortion is also anti-man, because there is no such thing as Legal Paternal Surrender, so if you father a child you are responsible financially for that child until it comes of age and one would assume that if the government starts forcing women to give birth the men will also be forced to pay for children they didn't want in the first place.
   
   So if abortion is outright illegal women who are raped are forced to give birth to the children of their attacker. All women pay a heavy price of having the government force them to give birth (under penalty of law) and the men they had sex with now have to be financially responsible, at least in part, to that child. And then society must pay the rest through some kind of adoption program that puts these unwanted children into homes.
   
   Are those who are pro-life willing to help care for these children? Given that many of them are Conservatives who think that we're already helping the poor too much, I'd say no.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Truly, if all these 'pro-lifers' would put there efforts and money into free contraception for all females capable of getting pregnant, most of the abortions would stop. But I like your idea of forcing the father to pay until child is of age.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You are a very observant and wise man Titen-Sxull .

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There are instances where the father cannot be identified.

      replyreport
   4. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You're right Larry. Also, child support is often not enforced & much more than money is required to raise a healthy & good child. Where the father is dead, evasive or can't be ID'd, the financial burden among other things rest only with the w

      replyreport
3. 59

   Lila Rainesposted 9 years ago

   This is a great question! It seems like pro-lifers get pinned as being against everything. Conservatives in general seem to get blamed for not being for anything, only against everything. I believe that we are misunderstood and that it isn't true.
   
   I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, I do believe that it is morally wrong to abort a baby. I do believe that the baby is a real body and soul who should have rights. Where I tend to question being a militant pro-lifer, is in the government's place in saying what should or shouldn't be done.
   
   I wish the government and policy had nothing to do with it and everyone just respected human life. That's not the case, so it makes the conversation messier than I would like.
   
   For myself, I have put my money where my mouth is. I spent 4 weeks of my vacation time helping to build an orphanage, investing much of my own money into the endeavor. Also, I have volunteered with several organizations that have helped underprivileged and abandoned children find help.
   
   I have invested my time into Safe Families--an organization that temporarily takes in children, with the hope that they can be reunited with their families when their home is stable again.
   
   I did an internship with Giving Children Hope and another internship that involved helping inner-city students with college entrance requirements. It gave at risk youth a chance to make something out of their lives and work towards obtainable goals. When they know that getting pregnant will likely thwart their chances of going to college, after working so hard to get there, they might be a little more careful in the bedroom.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It's good that you have done some philanthropic efforts, but they do not support a child financially from infancy through adulthood. A child needs a hefty amount of financial and other support through a minimum of age 18 if not even longer.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Lila Rainesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree that my efforts have not helped raise a parentless kid from start to finish. I helped build a home for them, have loved on them, and have sent money to them for school supplies, good, clothes, ect.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Your efforts are quite nice but how do they feed, clothe and provide a roof (with utilities, etc.) over each child's head through adulthood? How do these efforts pay for medical care, college tuition, etc.?

      replyreport
   4. 93

      peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am glad you helped build an orphanage BUT those places are HORRIBLE!! Children don't want to be in them, so I'm not sure how investing your time in group homes that make children unhappy is helpful to the situation. Kids should have their own home.

      replyreport
   5. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I could not agree with you anymore than I already do Peeples. It seems no pro-lifers are sponsoring any child from infancy through adulthood. Temporary philanthropy & temp. homes do not sustain a child or help them thrive or become independent.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Larry Wallposted 9 years ago

   If an infant is born, and it was not the intent of the parent or parents, the option of adoption is always open. I do not have the numbers, but there is a waiting list for adopting children. My son is adopted. He is now 31. There was no adoption credit blank on the 1040 income tax return. If the expecting parent seeks help from a reputable adoption agency, she will receive the proper care she needs and the child will be placed in an appropriate home. I do not support private adoptions, unless it is within a family, and then only after it has been cleared by child welfare authorities. Abortion is legal today. I accept that it is, but do not support it. One day, it may not be legal, but enforcing the law will be difficult. I am not a doctor or a scientist. I cannot and will not try to answer therapeutic questions. There will always be questions about when life begins, when sustainable life begins and the well being of the mother. I do not have those answers. I think adoption should be a choice that is offered to all women considering an abortion. If the unplanned child is adopted, the medical expenses will be covered, and the adopted parents will be responsible for the child's care. A child born with a serious illness is immediately covered by Medicare.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, even in adoption, the mother is literally forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term. This will take a physical and emotional toll on her. It should be her choice to have an abortion or adoption. Not the government.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Austinstar, no woman nor girl should ever be compelled to endure an unwanted pregnancy.  To me, that is the ULTIMATE injustice and sin.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Levi Legionposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Great discussion, but why isn't there more effort put into preventing pregnancy in the first place? Seems like ZERO blame is ever put on the women who were foolish enough not to use any contraception.

      replyreport
   4. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I support adoption but many children are never adopted & age out of the system unprepared to & face very difficult futures. The waiting list is typically for the youngest children. I also agree with Austinstar.

      replyreport
   5. 93

      peeplesposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      + 1 Express! Just seems wrong to suggest the solution is adoption when we have so many children already NEVER adopted.

      replyreport
   6. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Grace & Levi made good points as well. I think there needs to be much more emphasis on not creating children that are not planned for, not wanted or who will be brought into poverty and/or abuse. Lack of planning & money for kids is too commo

      replyreport
   7. 78

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "I don't have the numbers, but there is a waiting list for adoption." That is true, but it is also a meat market. There is a shortage of blue-eyed blond baby boys, but a glut of kids who are past 3, are minorities, have siblings or are handicapped.

      replyreport
   8. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed Yoleen. Pro-lifers could make a huge difference, but clearly do not care enough to do so by adopting any & all they can. With their reasonably large numbers, all in need of a family in the US could be adopted overnight by pro-lifers.

      replyreport
   9. 81

      gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Austin, it is barbaric, even heinous for a woman to endure a forced pregnancy.  There is nothing wrong w/abortion.  Every child should be wanted & women should elect to be pregnant, NOT FORCED into it!!!!

      replyreport
5. 81

   gmwilliamsposted 9 years ago

   
   
   Pro-lifers always talk the talk but NEVER, if EVER, walk THAT walk.  They expound on the beauties of life.  Life, life, life.  One even indicated to me so what if the child is abused and born into poverty, h/she is alive isn't h/she.  What inane logic!  All pro-lifers are concerned about is life, never the quality of life.  Pro-lifers either do not care how the baby is born as long as h/she is BORN or condemn the mother for bringing up the child in less than ideal circumstances.  Pro-lifers and conservatives are the ones who criticize disadvantaged children who get into trouble.  However, by their policies and beliefs, condemning children into poverty and other abject policies by their anti-choice stance.
   
   No pro-lifers that I know of stepped up to the plate.  They talk about pro-life but when asked if they would support/adopt and care for thus child, they balk at the suggestion, indicating that h/she ISN'T their child!  There seem to be some hypocrisy there.  I suggest to anyone that the next time a pro-lifer expounds upon the premise that once a woman gets pregnant, she should endure it, tell them that they do not know that woman's circumstances.  Also add if they want every child to be born, tell them to take some of the children into their homes and raise them until 21. In fact, make it mandatory for any pro-lifer to take a child or children into their homes to raise.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Express10posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Amen and preach on! I must agree that it has also been my experience that no pro-lifers have stepped up to the plate to carry the financial, physical and emotional jobs of raising a child or children at risk of abortion to adulthood.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hell if THEY are so "pro-life", that put that money where the mouth IS.  Go out and take every unwanted child and RAISE THEM. If they did that, they'd think twice before being INTRUSIVE, know what I'm sayin'!

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You would be surprised at the number of women who will not released the unplanned child for adoption, only to put them in the foster care system. Where does life begin, do we have the right to end that life in the earliest stages? Who makes that call

      replyreport
6. 83

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   Anyone who adopts a child does this, many of them religious, some of them not.

   replyreport