SpeedFx187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Well, I have to give you props for at least
> trying
> > to understand the situation. But you have some
> > serious misconceptions.
> >
> > First, 'there's not much regulation' on
> abortion
> > because it is LEGAL, despite the best efforts
> of
> > Republicans.
> >
> > Second,the problem with adoption is not that
> > people don't want to adopt (infants at least).
> > Plenty of people want to adopt, but there is
> way
> > more demand than supply. And you can't reduce
> > human life to a cost-benefit ratio. Most women
> are
> > not going to carry a baby to term just for the
> > money.
> >
> > Third, special interests are not important to a
> > pregnant woman. They just expect to be able to
> > have control over their own body.
> >
> > Hope that helps clarify the situation.
>
>
> I give you "props" for your response.. However, I
> feel that it was misunderstood.
>
> I understand adoption is legal.. When I'm talking
> about regulation, I'm talking about the extensive
> paperwork, waiting lines, and hoops people have to
> jump through to adopt a child.. That's part of
> what contributes to the long wait.. Part of the
> long wait is simply waiting for a child to be
> available to adopt.
> (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585954/Advo
> cates-blame-costly-time-consuming-regulations-for-
> adoption-decline.html?pg=all)
Yes, I understand that. Crude as it sounds - supply and demand. But consider this...most prospective adoptive couples want to adopt a healthy white baby. What about a black baby - would you adopt him or her? How about an addicted baby? Or a handicapped baby? The pool of adoptive parents significantly dwindles when presented with what they consider to be a less than perfect child.
> The fact that the demand is greater than the
> supply in adoption is all the more reason to
> promote adoption over abortion. There's plenty of
> people who would be more than happy to parent
> someone's child.
Again, demand is not the problem. And you are assuming that the birth mother has no problem carrying a child to term and then immediately turning the child over to strangers. That prospect is at least equally as distressing as the idea of terminating the pregnancy early on (1st three months), actually more so.
> You said, "special interests are not important to
> pregnant woman".. I think you don't understand
> what I mean by special interests..
>
> Here's a description of special interest group:
> "A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community
> with an interest in advancing a specific area of
> knowledge, learning or technology where members
> cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within
> their particular field, and may communicate, meet,
> and organize conferences. They may at times also
> advocate or lobby on a particular issue or on a
> range of issues but are generally distinct from
> Advocacy groups and pressure groups which are
> normally set up for the specific political aim;
> the distinction is not firm however and some
> organizations can adapt and change their focus
> over time."
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Interest_Gro
> up)
>
> The Family Research Council would be an example of
> a conservative special interest group, or advocacy
> group, that is pro-life.
> (http://www.frc.org/abortion)
>
> NARAL Pro-Choice would be an example of a
> pro-choice special interest group.
>
http://www.naral.org/
The pregnant woman does not care about these distinctions. There are few things more devastating than realizing that you are pregnant and that you cannot bring a child that you could never love into the world. The fact that a stranger may be able to love that same child is not a factor in most women's decisions.
Women are not breeders at the disposal of potential parents who can afford the enormous costs of adopting a child because they can't have one of their own. Please try to understand all sides of this issue.