Abortion: The Real Reason Why States are Passing Laws Against It

[rjs330]

I agree. It is not a priority for you. That was my entire point.

I believe your point was Christians aren't really showing their Christianity unless they did what you thought they should do. Of course you are not the only one who says that. So if I did what you thought and everyone else thought I should do, I wouldn't be able to do anything because I would not be working. I'd be on welfare and you would have to support me.

So, please lay of the judgement of my Christianity. You don't know what I do or how I help people and what I give to or how much I give. What you decide I should do to show my Christianity is irrelevant.

 

[rjs330]

Hi all,

Just mulling over some information here and wondering if the state government of Alabama really cares about the life of the child in its goal of criminalizing abortions.

I found, from a report on a study by the Guttmacher Institute, and I freely accept that some will write this report off as just more pro-abortion propaganda, that in 2014 three fourths of abortion patients were considered low income based on the federal poverty level guidelines. Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008

Then I found this report in Newsweek that claimed that Alabama was refusing to fund mother and child healthcare. Alabama legislators refuse to fund mother and child health care as they ban nearly all abortions

For me, this brings up the question of what all these poverty level and below mothers are supposed to do if they decide not to come up with the $500-800 for an abortion procedure, but choose, or are forced, to accept the thousands of dollars it's going to take to raise a healthy and well cared for child.

I mean yes, ultimately we would desire that young people (60% of abortion patients are in their 20's. The report doesn't provide numbers for adolescents) don't have sexual relations outside of marriage or that at the very least they use control methods. However, with our culture selling sex in so much of its television and movie programming, that's not likely to ever happen. A young couple gets sexually excited and in the heat of the moment nobody even thinks about using protection. Then you have young men who eschew the use of condoms and expect the female partner to take care of the issue since they're the ones who are going to wind up pregnant. I just imagine that in our culture it's going to be a really hard sell to reduce the unwanted pregnancy rate among young people and surely impossible to get it to zero.

So, what are our choices if we can't stop two people from having unprotected sexual relations who wouldn't want a child if that eventuality comes about from their relationship?

1. Adoption. Surely there is a need for adoptable babies right now. However, do we have the capacity to absorb 700,000 babies every year? If adoption were to become the norm, I would think it likely that the number may even be greater. My thinking is that a lot of women don't get abortions because of the stigma attached to the process, but adoption might mean that more women decide to put their child up for adoption that wouldn't have had an abortion. Nevertheless, can our adoption needs absorb 700,000 babies each year?

2. The pregnant mother keeping the child. This, as we have found, especially with the low income recipients, means another child who grows up in need and with often poor parental supervision and often no father figure. A study conducted by Missouri State regarding gang association finds that gang members often come from single parent homes: Into the Abyss: Parents of Gang Members
With some 700,000 unwanted babies now being born each year that may not be adopted, what are the chances that we're going to grow more gangs? Even if some of these now born children don't join gangs, they may well adopt criminal behaviors as they grow up from lack of parental care and supervision.

Bottom line, it's not an easy answer and the only way to find out is to bring about that condition. Let's put 700,000 more babies out there that are unwanted by the parent to either be forced on the parents or offered to adoptive parents and see what happens.

Please don't label me pro-life or pro-choice. I'm just thinking pragmatically here. As I've said in an earlier post, I don't think that trying to get the world to live as God has asked His children to live, has ever been a workable solution. Israel wasn't able to keep up with God's commandments and by the time Jesus arrived he was railing against their leadership for setting aside the commandments of God for the ways of man. So, I'm not expecting any nation or group of people who are not all sold in for God, to establish the laws of God as a workable set of laws in the world today.

I agree that as a believer if we are asked, or if the choice should come up in our life, that we would choose against aborting a child. However, that's only because of the qualifier that one is a believer. Believers are asked to live differently than the world and this is one of those life situations where we are going to make different choices than the unbeliever because we hold to a different set of values. A believer shouldn't even find himself/herself in such a situation in the first place if they also believe that God asks them to be sexually pure.

What I also know is that abortion is not the 'unforgivable sin'. If a young woman has an abortion or a young man encourages a woman to have an abortion, and she does, Jesus' sacrifice for sin is also sufficient for that sin. So for me, whether or not one would personally choose to have an abortion depends on their relationship with God. That single act is not enough to save them if they don't have it done, nor remove them from God's offer of forgiveness if they do.

However, as I started this thread, I believe that the State of Alabama, if they are going to take away the choice of so many low income women from aborting their children, they should be prepared to offer greater financial assistance to those women to try and give the child a fighting chance in this lost and dying world.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

So the death of 700000 babies is okay because we don't have enough people to adopt them? I believe what you would find is that the majority of those babies would be kept by the mother if they could not adopt. Yes yes I know many of them would be in welfare and us rightists don't like welfare. I believe much of this could be delt with. Most of us righties have NO problem with helping when the m is trying to better herself. There is much we could do to assist and we have problem with that.

 

[rjs330]

^^^This is the wisest thing I have seen a Christian opine in many a year and deserves to be a thread of its own elsewhere on this site...even though it would likely be in a verboten to the lost section of CF.

I agree, no sin is unpardonable nor unforgivable. Jesus sacrifice covers all sins. People are not sent to eternal hell for one sin no matter how heineous. They are sent because they don't have a relationship with Christ. They have not given their lives to him.

 

[rjs330]

Same Sex Marriage.



You have got to be kidding me.

Thank you. I should know that.
I still would like citation where Christians are doing what you claim.

 

[Belk]

I believe your point was Christians aren't really showing their Christianity unless they did what you thought they should do. Of course you are not the only one who says that. So if I did what you thought and everyone else thought I should do, I wouldn't be able to do anything because I would not be working. I'd be on welfare and you would have to support me.

So, please lay of the judgement of my Christianity. You don't know what I do or how I help people and what I give to or how much I give. What you decide I should do to show my Christianity is irrelevant.

You believe incorrectly. That was not my point. If you felt I was judging your Christianity then I apologize. That was certainly was not my intent.

 

[tall73]

It is readily apparent you missed the thrust of my post.

Apparently I am not the only one. Colors immediately mentioned rape is not the topic. And you injecting it in the conversation in reply to him in the way you did implied you thought he didn't care about rape.

So I am glad you are back to clarify your statement.

Here was what colors said.

I see it as improving society. If that means “controlling women’s sexuality”, eh, whatever. I can roll with that.

Here is what you replied.

Yes. It is amazing how many men are certain they should control other peoples sex lives instead of their own. If only they had as much concern for the 1 in 5 women who will be raped in their lifetime.

1. Are you indicating that colors is controlling women? It appeared so.

2. Do you think Colors cares about women being raped?

3. Why did you mention rape?

 

[Belk]

Apparently I am not the only one. Colors immediately mentioned rape is not the topic. And you injecting it in the conversation in reply to him in the way you did implied you thought he didn't care about rape.

So I am glad you are back to clarify your statement.

Here was what colors said.



Here is what you replied.



1. Are you indicating that colors is controlling women? It appeared so.

Wishes to control their sexuality, yes.

2. Do you think Colors cares about women being raped?

I have no idea. I have not seen him express himself one way or the other on the topic.

3. Why did you mention rape?

Because it is another method of sexual control. It is a horrific act that affects multiple women and yet there is little to no effort to combat it. It is yet another issue that is not prioritized by men since it only effects women. It ties into the fact that a lot of pro-life people appear to be working less because they believe each embryo is a life and more to keep control of women.

 

[tall73]

Wishes to control their sexuality, yes.



I have no idea. I have not seen him express himself one way or the other on the topic.




Because it is another method of sexual control. It is a horrific act that affects multiple women and yet there is little to no effort to combat it. It is yet another issue that is not prioritized by men since it only effects women. It ties into the fact that a lot of pro-life people appear to be working less because they believe each embryo is a life and more to keep control of women.

By pointing out you think Colors wants to control women's sexuality, and then immediately pointing out how it would be nice if men who want to control men's sexuality would be more concerned about rape, you present Colors as not caring about rape.

If you have no idea how he feels about it, then fine. But that was not the impression your first comment gave to him which is why he had to clarify that rape wasn't the topic.

 

[Belk]

By pointing out you think Colors wants to control women's sexuality, and then immediately pointing out how it would be nice if men who want to control men's sexuality would be more concerned about rape, you present Colors as not caring about rape.

No, I'm pointing out how I wished they cared as much about rape as they do abortion. I wish they would make it more of a priority.

If you have no idea how he feels about it, then fine. But that was not the impression your first comment gave to him which is why he had to clarify that rape wasn't the topic.

I'm done discussing this now. Quite frankly this feels like quibbling over deck chairs.

 

[miamited]

So the death of 700000 babies is okay because we don't have enough people to adopt them? I believe what you would find is that the majority of those babies would be kept by the mother if they could not adopt. Yes yes I know many of them would be in welfare and us rightists don't like welfare. I believe much of this could be delt with. Most of us righties have NO problem with helping when the m is trying to better herself. There is much we could do to assist and we have problem with that.

Hi rjs,

No it's not necessarily ok. However, it could be the reality that we face. According to some recent information that I've found, there are only about 135,000 adoptions in the U.S. each year. If we stop all of the abortions that are happening right now in the U.S., that's going to add nearly 700,000 babies to that system if we assume that all those people who opt for adoption really don't want the responsibility of raising and child and so put the child up for adoption instead. We could even run numbers where only half of the current abortions are then turned into adoptable babies and we have only 350,000 babies added to that adoption system. However, let's not be so naive as to think that all 700,000 of those possible future abortions, because abortions are now illegal, are going to just remain with their delivering parent.

Either way, if abortions are made illegal and people who opt for abortion absolutely don't want to keep the baby no matter what has to be done to rid themselves of the responsibility of their actions, then they're likely going to choose the only other option...put the baby up for adoption. So, the possibility is that we may be adding to that system up to 700,000 babies. A system that currently only places 135,000 babies of which only 26% of those babies come from outside of our borders. So, let's assume that people stop adopting babies outside of our borders since there will now be hundreds of thousands of American citizen babies available for adoption. That's still leaving the possibility of 650,000 babies to be adopted and that number is going to come in each and every year until the sexual habits of people change.

Now, as I said we could run numbers that cut all that in half and allow that with abortions being illegal that, yes, some mothers may opt to go ahead and raise their own child. However, that still adds some 300,000 babies to the system each year. I'm just questioning whether this nation will or can support the annual adoption of now some 400,000 children each year where it was only adopting 135,000. Sure, I've heard some complain that the wait for an adoptable baby can be long, but are there an additional 300,000 such couples? Second consideration might be that now that there are so many available adoptable newborn babies, what's going to happen to foster care adoptions of older children? Are those people that would have adopted a 3-6 year old now going to let them stay in foster care because they can get a brand new baby any time they'd like?

As I said in the opening explanation of my post, I'm trying to consider all the possible issues resulting from making abortions illegal today and looking at those issues with a bit of pragmatism. Leaving aside religious convictions or the debate over when life begins in a zygot, what are the practical considerations that we need to be prepared for if we stop aborting 700,000 babies each year?

No, I absolutely don't support aborting 700,000 babies each year, but I know what human nature is. I know that just because we make abortions illegal, A- they will not stop and B- will we become like Elizabethan England with child housing facilities where we have children such as Oliver Twist asking for more porridge please. Who will fund such facilities? Are states that are already distressed at providing mother and child care going to pony up to house babies until they are adoptable or grown out of the system?

You wrote in that post: Most of us righties have NO problem with helping when the m is trying to better herself.

Really? You'd probably better check with your righty friends before you commit yourself to that position. The 'liberal' Democrats have lately been more inclined to legislating social good. And what exactly do you mean by 'a mother trying to help herself'? We're just talking here about a child getting fed and medically taken care of. You seem to be saying, "Well, if the mother will enroll in college and get a good job and I see that she's really trying to better herself, well, I'd throw in a couple of bucks for her."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Why are people referring to Black people (and other minorities) as Colors? It isn't the 1950s.

 

[miamited]

Why are people referring to Black people (and other minorities) as Colors? It isn't the 1950s.

Hi SR,

Those references to 'colors' is to the poster 'the colors blend'.

God bless,
in Christ, ted

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Hi SR,

Those references to 'colors' is to the poster 'the colors blend'.

God bless,
in Christ, ted

Oh okay. I'm actually relieved that I misunderstood the reference. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[rjs330]

You believe incorrectly. That was not my point. If you felt I was judging your Christianity then I apologize. That was certainly was not my intent.

Thank you I appreciate that.

 

[rjs330]

Hi rjs,

No it's not necessarily ok. However, it could be the reality that we face. According to some recent information that I've found, there are only about 135,000 adoptions in the U.S. each year. If we stop all of the abortions that are happening right now in the U.S., that's going to add nearly 700,000 babies to that system if we assume that all those people who opt for adoption really don't want the responsibility of raising and child and so put the child up for adoption instead. We could even run numbers where only half of the current abortions are then turned into adoptable babies and we have only 350,000 babies added to that adoption system. However, let's not be so naive as to think that all 700,000 of those possible future abortions, because abortions are now illegal, are going to just remain with their delivering parent.

Either way, if abortions are made illegal and people who opt for abortion absolutely don't want to keep the baby no matter what has to be done to rid themselves of the responsibility of their actions, then they're likely going to choose the only other option...put the baby up for adoption. So, the possibility is that we may be adding to that system up to 700,000 babies. A system that currently only places 135,000 babies of which only 26% of those babies come from outside of our borders. So, let's assume that people stop adopting babies outside of our borders since there will now be hundreds of thousands of American citizen babies available for adoption. That's still leaving the possibility of 650,000 babies to be adopted and that number is going to come in each and every year until the sexual habits of people change.

Now, as I said we could run numbers that cut all that in half and allow that with abortions being illegal that, yes, some mothers may opt to go ahead and raise their own child. However, that still adds some 300,000 babies to the system each year. I'm just questioning whether this nation will or can support the annual adoption of now some 400,000 children each year where it was only adopting 135,000. Sure, I've heard some complain that the wait for an adoptable baby can be long, but are there an additional 300,000 such couples? Second consideration might be that now that there are so many available adoptable newborn babies, what's going to happen to foster care adoptions of older children? Are those people that would have adopted a 3-6 year old now going to let them stay in foster care because they can get a brand new baby any time they'd like?

As I said in the opening explanation of my post, I'm trying to consider all the possible issues resulting from making abortions illegal today and looking at those issues with a bit of pragmatism. Leaving aside religious convictions or the debate over when life begins in a zygot, what are the practical considerations that we need to be prepared for if we stop aborting 700,000 babies each year?

No, I absolutely don't support aborting 700,000 babies each year, but I know what human nature is. I know that just because we make abortions illegal, A- they will not stop and B- will we become like Elizabethan England with child housing facilities where we have children such as Oliver Twist asking for more porridge please. Who will fund such facilities? Are states that are already distressed at providing mother and child care going to pony up to house babies until they are adoptable or grown out of the system?

You wrote in that post: Most of us righties have NO problem with helping when the m is trying to better herself.

Really? You'd probably better check with your righty friends before you commit yourself to that position. The 'liberal' Democrats have lately been more inclined to legislating social good. And what exactly do you mean by 'a mother trying to help herself'? We're just talking here about a child getting fed and medically taken care of. You seem to be saying, "Well, if the mother will enroll in college and get a good job and I see that she's really trying to better herself, well, I'd throw in a couple of bucks for her."

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I am pretty much an absolutist on this issue. I don't find any argument compelling when it starts with abortion is okay because....

I know you are trying to be pragmatic here. But pragmatism is no reason to allow for the killing of babies. One may say it's not okay, but for pragmatic reasons we will allow it. That's not a solid argument for killing.

Without abortion being legal for unwanted babies, you would have fewer abortions. You would also have people being more careful about getting pregnant. More mother's would keep their babies rather than adopt them out.

And yes, I would be willing to support a mother who chose to keep the baby do what is necessary to try and provide for it. That's called being responsible. That's called taking care of what you need to take care of. There is much we could do along those lines. One thing I hear very little of is what we do with the father. It takes two to make a baby, it should take two to support it. Fathers should be required to help support the baby and there are a number of ways to do that. Right now the laws are way to slack for that and too many get away with walking away from their responsibilities.

 

[tall73]

Hi rjs,

No it's not necessarily ok. However, it could be the reality that we face. According to some recent information that I've found, there are only about 135,000 adoptions in the U.S. each year. If we stop all of the abortions that are happening right now in the U.S., that's going to add nearly 700,000 babies to that system if we assume that all those people who opt for adoption really don't want the responsibility of raising and child and so put the child up for adoption instead.

There are about 300,000 women waiting to adopt per CDC data (lags a bit behind).

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf

(Page 40).


I agree this would not cover the perhaps 700,000 demand, but would certainly help. Here is an article detailing how adoption has changed in the US over time, including elements that deal with supply.

The Changing Face of Adoption in the United States

 

[Pommer]

Without abortion being legal for unwanted babies, you would have fewer abortions.

All of the data sez the xact opposite, though.

 

[tall73]

All of the data sez the xact opposite, though.

There were more abortion in the US before Roe than after?

 

[miamited]

There are about 300,000 women waiting to adopt per CDC data (lags a bit behind).

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_025.pdf

(Page 40).


I agree this would not cover the perhaps 700,000 demand, but would certainly help. Here is an article detailing how adoption has changed in the US over time, including elements that deal with supply.

The Changing Face of Adoption in the United States

Hi tall,

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the number, but I do know that I hear accounts of people having to wait. However, the question is how many of those 300,000 have waited for more than a year to adopt and once we fill that initial quota, will there still be 300,000 adoptive parents every year going forward.

I understand that a lot of this is conjecture, however, I was alive, albeit fairly young before the Roe v Wade decision. I do remember the accounts of women found dead in alleyways or who bled to death later in their beds because they went to some hack who might use a coat hanger to wiggle around in a woman's womb to abort a fetus attached to the wall of the womb.

I'm not for abortion, but neither do I wish to put women through the obvious trauma of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I agree that a woman should have the freedom to make that choice for herself. I believe that good God-fearing women won't find themselves needing such services and that for lost women it won't make any difference in their eternal destination if they do or don't. One day, maybe they might come to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior and if that should come to pass, I trust that Jesus' death on that cross will be just as suitable for her sin as it is for mine.

I'm also troubled that in these situations, the male partner seems to get away pretty scott free. My experience has been that a lot of males, certainly not all, but a lot of them get to just walk away from the situation as if there's no harm no foul. So, I weigh this decision with an eye towards fairness also. If we're going to make women keep their babies, perhaps we should encourage much stronger support laws and enforcement of such laws. If a woman decides to keep the baby, then a DNA test might be called for and then once it is definitely determined who the father is, if he doesn't want to marry the girl then perhaps $300/month child support should be ordered and strongly enforced.

This may even cut way down on the unwanted pregnancies. If a man knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that if he gets a woman pregnant that he's going to be forced, without exception, to pay $300/month for the next 17-18 years, and pay for the DNA testing if he is found to be the father, maybe the cost and trouble of a condom won't seem like such a burden.

So, by all means if we want to make abortions illegal, let's go the next step and ensure that both responsible parties carry the burden of 'their' mistake. Let's not lay all the onus on the woman. However, this likely isn't going to have much affect on the wayward wife who winds up pregnant. Trust me or not, making abortions illegal won't get rid of abortions.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[tall73]

Hi tall,

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of the number, but I do know that I hear accounts of people having to wait. However, the question is how many of those 300,000 have waited for more than a year to adopt and once we fill that initial quota, will there still be 300,000 adoptive parents every year going forward.

I am not sure. The number is of those who want to adopt and have taken steps to adopt, so they are fairly serious. What this number does tell me is that at this current time there are people who want to adopt a child, and many of the children they want to adopt will just not make it to that point.