Subsidize Adoption?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by modernpaladin, Jun 4, 2017.

  1. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    You don't know what's worse?

    You don't know that it's worse to USE living actual born feeling children for social engineering schemes than to save them from the inhumanity completely...

    BORN children suffer, the UNBORN do not....
     
  2. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem here is that the system would need a massive revamp.

    In the state of Maryland...they put up billboards that annoy the living hell out of me. "You don't have to be perfect to be perfect parents." is what they say.

    Reality however says that you may not need to be perfect, but you need to damn near make Mary Poppins look like a meth-addicted pedophile by comparison.

    For example, we wanted to adopt. We looked into it and the adoption agencies pretty much told us that it wasn't happening. Sure...the LAWS in the state of Maryland didn't disqualify us...but the agencies could pick and choose what was a disqualifier. My wife's diabetes (although well controlled and managed) was a disqualifier for a lot of the agencies we talked to and our advanced age was another for the rest.

    Advanced age being "over 40".

    Now, I do agree that encouraging adoption would be a great idea. It solves the problem that a lot of the anti-abortionists overlook. The fact that just because you preserved the child and allowed it to be born...there is a lot more that needs to be done for the child now that he/she exists in this world.

    Adoption would be a solution...if it was made easier for people to do so. Couple that with the new technology that if it works well...can provide an artificial womb that a child can be placed into and allowed to finish growing and developing...and you really have a good start towards a solution.

    Now that said...I still don't think we should eliminate the choice or ban abortions. I have always believed that the best way to reduce abortions is to make alternatives that are better. If there are options...then abortion would naturally drop in number.
     
    btthegreat and modernpaladin like this.
  3. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Here's one way that has cut down on abortions:

    Have clinics where women especially low income women can get accessible, safe, affordable health care.... birth control, pre natal care, cancer screenings, etc.

    HEY WAIT! WE DO!

    But Republicans want these clinics shut down!!! Don't you think that's really stupid?



    As for me, I think there should be the same amount of abortions as women who want one.
     
  4. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Wholeheartedly agree. But even with all of that...stuff happens. Which is why alternatives would be nice.

    Incredibly stupid. And as annoying as [smurf] considering that 1. these are things that people use even when they want children and 2. they leave in support for ED Treatments. If they want "the quicker dicker upper"...they need to leave women's health alone.

    Agreed, but providing alternatives would reduce the number of people who want one more than banning abortions would.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    ""providing alternatives would reduce the number of people who want one more than banning abortions would"""


    That may be true but women already know what the alternatives are....so my priority is, as I stated, making sure every woman who wants an abortion has one.
     
  6. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No they don't...because there are damn few available at the moment. The safe haven laws are one, adoption is another if one is willing to bring the child to term...beyond that...what is there?

    my priority and yours aren't mutually exclusive. I want there to be options available so when a woman looks them over, she can make an informed decision. And if that decision is abortion...that is her right to choose and I will not stand against her decision, nor judge her for it.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .


    Did you read that sentence after you wrote it?

    You're claiming that so few women know about adoption that that is why there aren't enough babies to adopt?

    What!?

    A. There are PLENTY of kids to adopt in the system...so many that some even "age out" because these Pro-"Lifers", who claim to care so much about "life" , only want newborn , white , perfect babies.

    B. No , sorry, women are not as stupid as you indicate. Women know what adoption is.

    C. Most women operate off two things, have a kid or don't have a kid...they do not need to take the needs of others into consideration.

    Is there a law that says women must provide society with children? IS THERE?



    Abortion.....







    So, if a pregnant woman who wishes to keep the kid goes to her doctor , the doctor should provide her with all the options, abortion, safe haven, adoption so SHE can make an informed decision ???



    MY priority is that every woman who wants an abortion can have one.

    I see no reason to cut down the numbers of abortions.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  8. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes I did...not my fault that you're putting your slant on it.

    Never claimed that...those are your words and not mine.

    I know that all too well. If you'd scroll up, you'd see where Maryland has a "Adopt all of the kids" campaign...but the rules of the various adoption agencies are so draconian that it's freaking near impossibly to adopt unless you're damn near on Jesus's level.

    Never [smurf]ing said that they didn't.

    No they don't. That's why I'm all for a woman's right to choose. I'd just like for there to be a few more alternatives to abortion than what there are currently.

    Nope...nor am I saying that there should be. A woman has the right to choose. Cut! Print! Check the gate! Moving on.

    So...your proposed alternative to abortion is...abortion?

    Why in the name of Zeus's butthole are you making these rather silly points and attributing them to me. All that I am saying is that if the woman does not want the child that she is carrying for any reason, it would be nice for there to be options other than abortion (which has all the negative that society gives it) or adoption/Safe haven laws (which means that the woman may have to carry the child to term when she may not want to).

    Medical science is currently testing an artificial womb which may indeed be one of those alternatives.

    And my priority doesn't stand against yours. It doesn't block yours. All I want...is there to be more options other than carry an unwanted child...or be branded by a certain aspect of society as a "Baby Killer". If there are more options and the woman wants to choose abortion...that's her choice and I will not hinder her in any way shape or form nor will I judge her for making that decision.

    I don't see it as any form of hindrance if when a woman asks about options for an unwanted pregnancy for a doctor to hand her some leaflets and say "read them and pick the one you think best".

    The part that flabbergasts me is the fact that I am agreeing with you! I agree that abortion needs to always be an option and that we should not ban it. But what the flying [smurf] is wrong with wanting there to be more options than "carry unwanted child" or "kill it"? What the flying [fornication] is wrong with being excited about the potential of the new artificial womb that they're working on? What in the nine hells is wrong with wanting a revamp of the adoption system so you don't have to be Mary Poppins and Ghandi's wealthy white love child in order to be able to adopt one of the FAR TOO MANY CHILDREN who are just sitting around waiting and hoping that they'll one day have parents until that sad day when they just give up all hope?

    What the flying @#$% is wrong with that?
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's your words : ""No they don't...because there are damn few available at the moment.""

    That is not logical. Women know adoption is an option and obviously choose abortion instead.

    They do NOT choose abortion because they don't know about adoption, and to assume that because there aren't enough babies to fill the need then women must not know about adoption is totally illogical.

    You ARE saying that if women knew about adoption they would have more babies.....and that just isn't true, they KNOW about adoption.



    That may be true so W H Y do you want more children that need to be adopted ?!?!?!?!



    Yet you keep claiming that women must be told about adoption !!!!, you even said their doctors should give them a paper to list that as an option.


    There is ONLY ONE alternative to abortion and that is to give birth.



    YOUR words: ""No they don't...because there are damn few available at the moment""

    ...as if women are obligated to give birth....and have failed to provide enough unwanted children....



    Uh, no, I was responding to your words : ""The safe haven laws are one, adoption is another if one is willing to bring the child to term...beyond that...what is there?"""

    I answered : "abortion"...... so NO I did NOT say my """ proposed alternative to abortion is...abortion"""

    As I clearly stated , it is the alternative to your "The safe haven laws are one, adoption is another if one is willing to bring the child to term...beyond that...what is there?"""


    I didn't attribute it to you, I asked a question.

    Funny how you want women to be shown alternatives but not women who want to keep their baby.......isn't that rather unfair and biased against abortion (so not really Pro-Choice?)

    Ya sure, in a very expensive fairy tale of the future.....not real helpful for women who get pregnant in the next 20-30 years.




    Why don't you address those slimey ones who call women who have abortions as "baby killers" and tell them to just shut up ???WHY should women be held accountable for what those creeps say?
    They should have a kid so no one will call them names!!? Preposterous!


    Oh, how nice of you....but you can't hinder a woman when she wants an abortion and I doubt any of them care what you think of them.


    Oh, NOW it's been changed to ASK the doctor........perfectly all right to ASK.....voluntarily...as long as it isn't forced on her since it isn't forced on women who want to have a kid.



    Those ARE the only two options...........how would one give up a child for adoption without giving birth to it ????????????????????????





    Funny, I never said there was anything wrong with being excited about an artificial womb that will be ungodly expensive and doesn't exist yet...





    Your complaint is with adoption agencies NOT pregnant women......women who put their kid up for adoption do NOT make the rules.

    BUT I can understand adoption agencies wanting what's best for kids and poverty isn't it.


    Now, with all your swearing it seems you're quite upset so before responding please read what I wrote without so much emotion...and you won't make so many mistakes about what I wrote.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Im proposing subsidizing adoption only in the effort of making adoption more available. The financial burden is just one hurdle that I think is set too high- there are many others, like those you exampled.

    In fact, subsidizing it may help promote a reduction in these draconian requirements by openning the whole system up. We already set a precedence of equality in adoption by reducing the industrys ability to descriminate against LGBT, and theres no reason why diabetics or 40+ers should be denied either. The accompanying increased regulation (which I am typically against) would likely promote more equality of adoption availabilty to a more diverse group.
     
  11. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm the one who simply said that I want there to be more options. I never said that I want there to be laws and bans against abortion. You're the one who came in scrapping for a rumble. Two can play at game however I don't feel like it.

    That was my opinion, you have yours and they are not diametrically opposed to each other but you are acting as if they are. Fine. I am agreeing to disagree and I am done with you as well as this thread.

    Good day.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017
    modernpaladin likes this.
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    And I was simply pointing out that people, women, KNOW what the options are.

    When you post here and in other forums you will really have to expect opposition to what you say....that's the way it is....it is not an Agreement forum.

    So if you can't expect/accept criticism, nor reply to what is written, maybe this isn't a good place for you.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, I'm not so sure the "options" are known OR adequate.

    Everyone in the entire USA wants there to be fewer abortions. There aren't any exceptions. Yet, the "right to life" crowd demands that the one method of achieving a reduction is to make laws against women.

    The thing is, there are a LOT of serious concerns that women have when considering this question.

    If "right to life" decided that they could tolerate approaches other than laws against women, my bet is more could come together to work on reducing abortions.


    One might note that the abortion rate in Canada (where there are no legal restrictions on abortion and where the state pays for the procedure since it is medical) is essentially the same as our own.

    Also, other nations have lower abortion rates without using laws against women.

    So, I suspect ALL our laws on abortion today are really accomplishing little. If so, it's unconscionable that we keep them.

    "Right to Life" desperately needs a new direction - one that makes sense, one that others can get behind, one that is more effective, one that recognizes the rights of women.
     
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I agree with your post but in the post of mine you quoted I was referring to women knowing the options when faced with pregnancy.

    The "right to Life' group exists for the purpose of banning abortion so they believe women have no rights so you won't find a compromise there.

    "Right to Life" or "Pro-Life" are repubs...they do NOT believe in helping poor women or children , they do not want poor women to have safe affordable birth control (so that they can vilify them for having kids)....and they want to cut funding to welfare, WIC, SNAP, school lunch programs so they really hate poor children.

    That's a pretty stupid but firm stance that doesn't look too good for "compromise".
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. But, the case as you present it means that this issue will never go away, and that saner minds will continue to find it absolutely necessary to stay involved.

    Today, a LOT of that effort is going into direct opposition to the laws the extremists want to impose. And, that is a never ending sink hole, as those promoting such laws will find a never ending stream of methods to assault the choice that is rightly that of individual women.

    I'd like to see more of the effort going into the left co-opting the issue rather than just being strong opposition to the "laws against women" methodology.

    We should be showing that we actually AGREE with the objective, but that the methodology is wrong.

    The reason is that all Americans do agree that we want fewer abortions and the "laws against women" methodology IS wrong. So, we are right on both counts.

    And, as I pointed out, there are significant examples of alternatives as well as evidence of the ineffectiveness of the current right wing legal assault.
     
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I don't necessarily agree that the objective is less abortions. There should be as many abortions as women who want an abortion.

    There are options such as birth control, but not all birth control is affordable, accessible or safe ....even something as affordable and "safe " as condoms have a failure rate.....and Republicans fight against helping women to have safe, affordable, accessible birth control....

    And NO one is obligated to use birth control.

    Women know adoption is an option. They do not have to be told.

    BUT adoption requires a woman giving up 9 months of her life, suffering the temporary and PERMANENT physical damage of pregnancy, suffering the pain of pregnancy and child birth, suffering financial loss, possible job loss, career and/or educational set backs......all to give someone else a kid.
    And it isn't permanent, I've heard so many stories where adult adopted children have sought out their birth parents..(which I feel they have no right to do)


    The only thing wrong is Repubs trying constantly to implement "laws against women"......and they have to be fought in court..

    Reasoning , logic, facts, science , law do not work with them...
     
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Terrible idea. It would end up like the Foster system. Low life trailer trash taking in kids for the dollars.
     
  18. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually carrying a child is a privilege, not a burden.

    But I agree that those who give up a child for adoption, would probably not want to think of it going to a family who 'needs money'.
     
  19. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if you believe in child support for people that don't want their children, why not make people giving up their child for adoption pay child support regardless if it's one or both parents that do not want the child
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No , carrying a fetus through gestation is what the pregnant woman says it is....she may think it's a "privilege" (???I don't get that at all)) or a burden or a gift or the booby prize,....it's HER decision alone as to what it is.
    Yes, adoption may be expensive but it entails covering the concerns for the child which is the most important thing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with your first paragraph.

    BUT, I do not agree that a woman's choice is unrelated to the options available. That is, I believe there would be fewer abortions if all pregnant women (from teen on up) knew for sure that they had concrete access to all necessary health care for themselves and their family, could continue education and employment, would be able to house, feed and cloth all members of their family, would not be socially ostracized, etc. I agree the vast majority are aware of adoption as an option.

    And, I fully agree with your last paragraph.
     
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it's not a privilege, it's a choice....forcing a rape victim to have their rapists baby would not be a village, that should always be the choice of the women

    we need to make sure the right doesn't take the choice away from the women and have big government make it for them
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
    FoxHastings and WillReadmore like this.
  23. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    """"That is, I believe there would be fewer abortions if all pregnant women (from teen on up) knew for sure that they had concrete access to all necessary health care for themselves and their family, could continue education and employment, would be able to house, feed and cloth all members of their family, would not be socially ostracized, etc."""


    ...in a perfect world.....and the world isn't perfect nor will it ever be.









    Republicans even fight fair wages ,education and health care for all........the very things that may cut down on the need for abortions.

    In another forum they argue that poor children shouldn't even be fed by the government...so good luck getting them to see reason or logical solutions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would hope they would back off on some of those items if it could be shown to them that they would help with the abortion rate.

    We already have a majority on the side of allowing choice. And, I do realize many of the rest are unlikely to change regardless of the argument.
     
  25. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is aborting the would-be child the preferable option, then?
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017

Share This Page