Thats not MY position. I was trying to ascertain what the poster's point was, as thats the only way (that I can think of) that their comment has anything to do with the topic.
that would likely serve to increase abortion rates. Im hoping to decrease them. it would also decrease adoption rates, incentivising unexpecting parents to keep children they dont want, increasing rates of childhood abuse, neglect and poverty and leading to increased rates of mental illness, crime, violence... You're never going to stop humans from having irresponsible sex. You might as well accept that now. The question is what to do with the unwanted children that result from the irresponsible sex. Some people say abort them... While I dont advocate removing that option, I say we can find a place for them with families who will love them, and we can do it more with a little subsidy.
I just don't understand why having less abortions means so much to you?? Whether there's a million a year or 20 a year how does it affect you? Why would anyone want children born to face """ increasing rates of childhood abuse, neglect and poverty and leading to increased rates of mental illness, crime, violence...""" HMMMMM?
I think there is no need to subsidize, there is a need for babies. They are ending up aborted or the mother changes her mind when the child is born. So Americans head to China.
Why indeed? Has someone here advocated for that? I havn't. I merely want fetuses to be given the chance to become children instead of medical waste. I want baren/sterile parents to have easier access to the children who are rejected by their biological parents. Why? Because humans are special, not a disease to be cured. Families are the cornerstone of civilization and human advancement, and everyone deserves a chance at one.
It seems to me that making the adoption process more affordable/easier would incentivize more women away from abortion. If adoptive parents are looking to China for adoptions, then that means the demand has outpaced the supply here in the US. Women cite many reasons for getting an abortion, and between 20-25% cite financial difficulty as the primary reason according to guttmacher.org. Given that its fairly common for the adoptive parents to not only cover the medical bills of the mother but even pay her for her troubles, it stands to reason that finances are a factor for both the adoptive parents and the pregnant mother. As such, it stands to reason that providing aid to one or both will increase the frequency of adoption and necessarily decrease the frequency of abortion. Less fetuses killed, more children being born and raised by a family that wants them. I dont get why this is such a hard sell...
How much of a subsidy do you propose? And how is it structured... a one time payment? Or an ongoing payment? Over all, it does not seem likely that someone would suddenly become inclined to adopt based upon a subsidy. Otoh... I can imagine how thrilled an adopted child would be to learn that not only are they adopted.... but they were adopted to collect a government subsidy. Then they could easily figure their value... always good to know in a market economy
I honestly don't see how. Its the financial difficulty of bringing up a child alone that is one of the reasons some women choose abortion, not the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Because you aren't making sense. I, personally, believe the lack of newborns available for adoption is a good thing. It means the bad old days when women had no choice but to give up their baby are well and truly over. It means children are brought up by their own family, which is a right everybody should have unless it isn't possible because of neglect or bereavement.
YES, you HAVE , right here, post 152: modernpaladinWell-Known Member Joined: Apr 23, 2017 that would likely serve to increase abortion rates. Im hoping to decrease them."""" And I still don't understand how you can be so concerned about : """I merely want fetuses to be given the chance to become children instead of medical waste. I want baren/sterile parents to have easier access to the children who are rejected by their biological parents. Why? Because humans are special, not a disease to be cured. Families are the cornerstone of civilization and human advancement, and everyone deserves a chance at one""" What difference in your life could it possibly make? How does any of that affect you? It would be a great political speech to sway the gullible but it really has no meaning... For instance, people aren't "special", there's BILLIONS of them, much more than we need....overpopulating the earth is not "human advancement."" I just don't understand why having less abortions means so much to you?? Whether there's a million a year or 20 a year how does it affect you?
It's a hard sell because not everyone thinks more people on earth is such a great thing. Some people don't think a baby market is such a good thing. Some people know that children in the system are NEVER adopted by any of these "caring" people and they "age out" of the system never having a family and YOU want to continue putting MORE kids into that system...that is simply BIZARRE!
I would propose the state fund the background checks on the parents, legal fees, administrative costs, medical costs, home inspection...basically make the process free. I DO NOT support paying people any sort of reward or stipend for adopting, for precisely the reason you mentioned, and the BGCs should include a financial stability check to insure the parent(s) are financially capable of providing for a child. Additionally, I would explore the possibility of subsidizing a payment to the birthmother for her troubles, and as further incentive to adopt out instead of abort, though there are likely ethical complications here as well; this would require further evaluation.
It is a common practice in my state to give adoptive parents of foster kids a check every month ranging from $650 to over a thousand. The kids also get health insurance until age 18
I dont really see a genetic link being all that important to a family. Maybe its because my kids are not biologically 'mine' and they are no less my own family. I wish I could see it that way too... but given that there are less newborns to adopt because they are instead being aborted is, imo, tragic.
How would you "promote" adoption?...and again, WHY? And you didn't address a word of the post of mine you quoted. What about: It's a hard sell because not everyone thinks more people on earth is such a great thing. Some people don't think a baby market is such a good thing. Some people know that children in the system are NEVER adopted by any of these "caring" people and they "age out" of the system never having a family and YOU want to continue putting MORE kids into that system...that is simply BIZARRE!
Where is the money going to come from to pay for this boondoggle? In 2013 there were recorded by the CDC 664.435 abortions in the USA; multiply that by 10 years and you'll find the costs go up ten-fold and that's if there is no increase in abortions in this country. How much subsidizing are you proposing we give out??? 20k per year per child? It gets rather expensive don't you think?
WHY is it "tragic" ? I think being born to someone who doesn't want you and/or can't afford you is also tragic.....but it's been happening since day one of human existence and although abortion can't stop it , it does save some lives from being very tragic.
The abortion rate has fallen dramatically over the past decade along with out of wedlock pregnancies.
The foster which is more like farming out permanent daycare, is completely broken. We would be better off going back to state run orphanages imo. At least then the children and their paid handlers could be more effectively kept track of by regulating bodies, and the money could more easily be tracked to make sure its actually being spent on the children. But this discussion is not about the foster system, its about infant adoption.
