an After abortion

3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

"The product of anti-abortion"...?

Equals... between 2 million and 5.6+ million people wanting to adopt "the product of anti-abortion", i.e. "unwanted babies."

A letter appeared this week in my paper's letters to the editor, by a Ph.D., that touched upon some points we've been discussing this month. It again reminded me of how many things pro-choice folks still do not know.

The letter-writer admitted his astonishment upon learning—recently—that 1.37 million babies per year are aborted in the U.S.

Citing Connecticut statistics that "more than one in ten kids live in poverty," he challenged "anti-abortion people" to "take on the children who are unwanted and existing at a poverty level" since it is the pro-life folks who want to "add another 1.37 million to the poverty in the U.S. if we outlaw abortion." He wrote that if we add these "unwanted children" to those already at poverty levels, "it seems to me that in some way we are torturing and starving these [additional] poor souls."

The letter writer really can't be faulted for not knowing how many women or couples want to adopt babies in this country.

The answer? at least 2+ million American couples want to adopt children each year.

That letter-writer probably doesn't get The Dallas Morning News, which reported this on January 28, 2003, in "Is Adoption Still the Forgotten Option?" by Terry Eastland. And of course, my local liberal paper never reported it:
While the number of people waiting to adopt an infant of any description is unknown, [President of the National Council for Adoption Thomas] Atwood thinks there may be as many as 2 million couples who would be willing to take a newborn into their home--if one were available…Note also that most abortions prevent the birth of what would have been ‘normal’ babies. To the extent pregnant women considering abortion were to choose adoption instead, the number of abortions would decline.
Nor was he apparently aware that the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) publication "Advance Data: Adoption, Adoption Seeking, and Relinquishment for Adoption in the United States (May 11, 1999)" [also linked to by The National Council for Adoption here] stated that:
…5.6 million of women who ever considered adoption are still seeking or planning to adopt or would consider adoption in the future, even if they may not be currently seeking or planning to adopt.
The letter-writer also contends that "the anti-abortion people...say that abortion is illegal and sinful and do nothing regarding the product of anti-abortion" and as such were not "persons of compassion [but] instead zealots caught in their own fundamentalist belief system."

Wow. We here at least have never been deluded into thinking abortion is "illegal," though I suppose there are some pro-life folks who contend it is. Perhaps they're referring to the natural moral law.

And the letter-writer kind of doubly gives himself away with the term "product of anti-abortion" 'though he tries to appear objective:
I am not a proponent of abortion but neither am I a proponent of saving a life and then tossing it to the wolves.
So he recognizes it as a human life at any time in the womb...aannd...
earlier, that this human life has a "soul," but says it's better to kill it first in case the wolves get to it later.

Better that than having society take advantage of solutions that exist right under his nose but which most major media and many politicians won't acknowledge.

I'd ask if people who believe as he does are aware that "the anti-abortion people" have for years run
(38 in Connecticut,
in the US
and 1,400 internationally),
giving free, nonjudgmental services
for all facing unplanned pregnancies including: free pregnancy tests, medical referrals and help obtaining lowcost/free prenatal and family-member medical care,
clothing, food, places to live
(both immediate
and longterm),
postdelivery medical care, job/parenting/home skills, helping fathers obtain jobs, answering questions about abortion, pregnancy tests, STDs and yes, adoption assistance.

They do this all on charitable donations from other "anti-abortion people," unlike Planned Parenthood which, in 2004, received $265 million from taxpayer dollars (i.e., the government) plus $191 million from private donations, totaling 56% of its $810 million income (source: Planned Parenthood’s Annual Reports). Profits over the past 18 years totaled $538 million, or $30 million a year.

If the "pro-abortion people" (as many "anti-abortion people" do) took on even some of "the children who are unwanted and existing at a poverty level," instead of donating $191 million to have them killed, then those children not only wouldn't be in poverty but would be with loving families among those 2—5 million couples. Add our $265.2 million taxpayer dollars to help all out of poverty instead of helping Planned Parenthood abort babies (between 63.3% and 71% of their clinic revenue is from abortions).

It appears he also doesn't know that Planned Parenthood's adoption referrals decreased (for the seventh straight year) by 9.6%, to a mere 0.67% of all pregnancies seen. Why? Because they make between $400 and $1,200 per abortion, and not a dime from adoption referrals.

$456 million, to help those "poor souls" from being "tortured and starved."

I wrote a reply letter to the editor, of course. I doubt they'll print it. But I asked him,
When will you hold the abortion industry's and their supporters' feet to this same fire? They say they’re all about "Compassionate health care for…women, men and teens." Notice they don't include "the babies"?

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME