According to Freakonomics after Roe v Wade was decided conceptions rose by 30% and births fell by 6%. Most people who currently have abortions would switch to other types of birth control. If the percentages stay similar to what occured before and after Roe v Wade then 16% of what would otherwise have been abortions would result in live births. That would mean an extra 200,000 babies then there would be under current law. Currently 1.4% of single mothers give their babies up for adoption. The percentage would have to increase 10 fold to match the approximately 20,000 foreign adoptions that take place each year. This does not take into account the people who want to adopt but don’t do foreign adoptions because of the hassles involved.
It seems to me unlikely that single mothers will suddenly start giving their babies for adoption at 10 times the current rate, so if abortion were totally outlawed the number of babies available for adoption would still be less than the demand.
People who seriously propose ‘adoption’ to women with unwanted pregnancies should be reminded that the decision to surrender a child of your own takes an enormous toll on those who do so. To recommend it to a pregnant woman is as crass and base as ‘suggesting’ an abortion to one. And I don’t hesitate to point it out, to those doing so.
A decision to surrender a child is the very height of personal and life altering. Some women crumble under the weight of such a choice. There is hardly a more wrenching decision in life.
Unless the person proposing such a solution could do such a thing themselves, they should probably shut the Hell up.
People who blurt out such tripe need to be called on that shit, in my opinion. Every time.
People who don’t understand that many pro-life people really and truly believe that abortion is murder need to be called on that. Every time.
When one thinks something is murder, one doesn’t worry about being “crass” to try and prevent it.
Why the emphasis on the “white” part? If people only wanted to adopt white babies, they wouldn’t go overseas to adopt.
FWIW, my experience is the same as RTFirefly’s friend - parents want a baby and care a good deal less about race or ethnicity.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=elbows]
People who seriously propose ‘adoption’ to women with unwanted pregnancies should be reminded that the decision to surrender a child of your own takes an enormous toll on those who do so.
[/QUOTE]
Could you provide a cite that placing a child for adoption is more stressful to the mother than aborting it, or raising it alone? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
In such a case it makes a woman a brood mare for some one else. If she chooses to have a child then it is a different story. How many people would want to adopt a child with a disability; Few? Life began eons ago and those who use religion as an excuse to run a woman’s life would have one believe a fertile egg is a Chicken or child in the human female. It is strictly a religious idea that it is a child, we do have separation of Church and state!
How many Pro-(so called) Life people would gladly pay the experiences, from conception 'till the once fertile egg becomes a child through adult hood? It seems the same people don’t want to pay taxes even to pay their schooling. No one should be forced to have an abortion, nor should the state force a woman to follow another’s religious beliefs. There is already a Law that limits the time for a woman to abort if she chooses unless it means to save her life after that, and some even would not allow that!
.
And if she has an abortion, she is just a cash cow for her OB/GYN.
Regards,
Shodan
I take it, the,n that you are in favor of abortion on demand regardless of the age of the fetus, right? Abort at 8 1/2 months is A-OK? Because if you’re not, you’re guilty of pretty much everything you’re lambasting pro-life people for.
Look, I’m as pro-Choice as the next guy or gal, but your arguments are pretty silly. There is simply no objective, scientific way to determine when a fetus really becomes a “baby” except maybe at the point of birth. Even the concept of viability is problematic because it’s still not a specific date and it doesn’t tell us what quality of life the baby might have if born at that time.
The Girls Who Went Away is a start. Women who are forced to give their children up suffer greatly.
Surrogate mothers agree to give up their child before conception, and yet there have been court cases where the mother found out, after birth, that she could not give her baby up.
As opposed to being just a cash cow for an adoption agency. Actually she’s more of a cash cow for her OB/GYN if she gives birth. The adopters will usually be billed for the cost of her delivery.
Abortion doctors enriching themselves is a meme I’ve often heard from the right.
Example:
http://jezebel.com/5325700/who-is-enriching-himself-in-the-abortion-debate
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_louisiana_how_much_are_abortions
To come to $200,000 before expenses, at $500 per, 400 abortions would have to be performed.
I have no idea what the marginal and fixed expenses would be, but I’d guess, because of security needs, they are very high.
I’ll throw some wild guesses at the numbers for a small one doctor, two employee operation in a downtown, off main drag, storefront operation.
Marginal costs of anesthesia, gowns, waste disposal, etc. $200 per abortion. Making marginal “profits” $300.
Annual fixed costs:
Nurse at $81,000, a receptionist at $24,000, a security guard company $60,000, utilities $12,000 and rent is $120,000.
(Those annual costs, I suspect, are on the low side.)
That means to just break even, this doctor would need to perform 990 abortions per year. To earn $200,000 the doctor would need to perform another 700, or so.
Working 250 days per year, this doctor would need to perform more than six and a half abortions per day, on average. In a one doctor one nurse environment, that sounds like about the daily limit.
Obviously a larger clinic could perform more, probably with a smaller cost structure.
I just realized that I did not factor in the onerous requirements for ultra-sounds and counselling that, no doubt, add significant costs.
All that said, if I were in the abortion field strictly for the money, I’d prefer to be on the anti side. Those guys make hundreds of thousands.
And, as a kicker, they can go to work without protesters outside their offices and can go home at night without fears of being shot.
Don’t forget $85,00 to $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance. Blog - Latest News in Medical Malpractice Insurance | eQuoteMD
Right. It’s a null argument either way.
Do the desires of a couple wanting to adopt a child trump the rights of a woman who doesn’t want to bear one? If abortion is murder, this is beside the point. If it’s not murder, then why should the desires of some trump the rights of others to make choices about their own lives and bodies?
And yet, many of those making this argument also scream about protecting individual rights.
Less safe for the murderer, dude. Unless you don’t think it’s murder, then it’s “less safe for the pregnant woman.”
They also showed that it caused the decrease in the violent crime rate in the early 90’s, when the unwanted children would be old enough to cause trouble.
I was surprised to learn that there’s not even a “moment of conception.” Instead, there’s a complex process of many steps that takes hours. I wonder which step is the one that takes it from “sperm and egg” to “human”.
We all agree that human life is valued and that all humans have rights. As a nation with a secular government, we have to reach an agreement on when that designation as “human” begins. Those who believe there is a spritual difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one will want to make that point as fertilization. That’s reasonable, but it’s based on beliefs that are not shared.
Those who don’t believe there’s a spiritual difference have the more difficult task of picking some relatively arbitrary point. Currently, that point is the end of the first trimester (if I’m not mistaken). Those who would change this have to convince the rest of us to agree, or have to have a big enough majority to make a radical change in US jurisprudence (with or without a Constitutional amendment).
I’ll be among those voting “no”, even though if abortion were legal 56 years ago I probably wouldn’t be here.
Then anyone who has an operation to save, or better their life is a cash cow for the OB GYN? Or any surgeon?
\
When one can see it is a baby it is a baby. Just like when a chicken egg that is fertile can be seen to be a chicken or a pollinated apple blossom an apple. Biologically it is the same.
Instead of abortions one should have the right to take a morning after pill that would avoid many abortions and a Woman should have the right to have her tubes tied if she chooses not to have more children or a man a vasectomy. even that is frowned on because of religious reasons.
If one can see it is a child then it is a child and the law already protects it. Later if it means the woman’s life would be lost, it is her choice and should be.
Do you have a real cite? Otherwise it is too much like a pro-lifer citing this.
Regards,
Shodan
No, the point right now is “viability”, not the 1st trimester. Dividing a pregnancy up into thirds is obviously arbitrary in the first place.
Wow, that’s real “scientific”. And it would limit abortions to a very early stage in pregnancy-- certainly before 3 months.
Saying you believe abortion is murder proves nothing to anyone and is the height of disingenuous, I think.
Should vegetarians, who believe meat is murder, be able to dictate your diet? Of course not!
If you think meat is murder don’t eat any. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one. But you don’t get to dictate to everybody else just because you have a book.
It’s a polarizing issue, choice is the clear solution. Personally I feel this is self evidently the only reasonable solution. I don’t think I’m alone either.
Doesn’t change that advocating others just surrender their children, is beyond crass and ignorant to my mind.
I don’t see the book as having an agenda at all. There is a huge difference between voluntarily giving up your baby for adoption and being forced to. The book seems to cover the pre-Roe era when women were forced to go into homes for unwed mothers to give up their baby. Adoption is much different today (though there are certainly some issues). I totally support adoption as long as it is free of coercion and other choices are available (abortion or keeping the baby). No choice - including abortion - should be mandatory or coerced. I think any trauma women may feel later is directly related to how much autonomy they had in making their choice. Which is why I am rabidly pro-choice - which includes choosing NOT to abort.
Are you denying that un-married women pre-Roe were frequently coerced into giving up their babies for adoption?
Let’s not forget infections and other complications, pain and sterility stemming from illegal abortions (well, we can ignore everything but sterility, since this is a thread about adoption, and being sterile cuts down on the number of children you can have to adopt out to eager couples).
Hell, we should just ban contraception - that’ll kick-start the adoption market like nothing else.