As someone who writes blogs, I am always interested in the conversations that appear in the comments section of blogs and news reports. I have to admit to some novice naivete when I first started my blog on a local Cape Cod internet news site over a decade ago as what I thought would engender discussion of the topic actually produced a variety of unanticipated then and just anticipated now as part of the process ways people approach blog topics.
Luckily there are those who do discuss the topic and are informative to all concerned including myself as I have learned more information in some comments beyond what my research had found.
The other categories of comments, often the same approaches used by certain names which over time your become familiar with in both their relevance to the topic, which is usually just not there, and their writing style, their general approach to topics include those who introduce their own topic for discussion, those who question why I have not written about another topic and suggest such topics I should have written about, and those who ignore all known reality to make a point that is unsustainable.
Among the types of commenters that I find interesting and often humorous are those who, in their fanaticism about certain topics and arguing via selected facts while ignoring other more important or even relevant ones, paint themselves into corners.
Recently with all the RoevWade discussion, a friend posted a list of the statistics of the number of unadopted children regardless of age in each state in the country.
The obvious purpose of the post as it was stated in the message that came with the stats was to point out that with the rescinding of Roe, the argument that rather than abort one should put the child up for adoption is rather foolish considering the number of unadopted children that existed while Roe was in affect and how this number will now increase without abortion as an option for those women for whom it is the only one.
The point was clear.
Once the comments got beyond the usual pro-birth platitudes about killing babies with references to what would have happened if Beethoven’s mother had aborted him and a lot about Jesus, the major comeback to the poster was not that the number of adoptable children is very high, but that he had chosen what the commenter considered the incorrect number as if the issue was not that there is a number.
If the answer to abortion is adopting, then there should be fewer kids available for adoption judging from the crowds in mega-churches and pro-birth rallies.
The first point that had to be clarified was the number of children available for adoption as if an incorrect number erases all of them. The fact is that there are a lot of children in a position to either be adopted or enter the foster child system which vastly outnumbers the amount of adoptions per year.
His figures may differ from another figure that used different criteria to determine the raw number by a few hundred one way or the other, but that does not weaken the point that if pro-birthers were serious, there might be fewer babies around waiting perhaps until they reach their majority to get adopted.
If the option for adoption, loudly promulgated by the right to birth crowd, were exercised by it, the number would be closer to zero not 50,000 or 44,000 if you want the other number.
The defense of this reluctance to adopt was instant, amost reflexive and a subject of ironic debate.
The reason offered by a pro-birth person for the lack of adoptions by pro-birthers was that many more people would adopt if it were more affordable, noting that the cost can range from $5,000 to $70,000 with many agencies having a sliding scale based on the prospective adoptive parent’s income.
This person may have also pointed out that the federal adoption tax credit of $14,890 helps reduce the financial burden, however, even with a tax credit the cost is high and the tax credit only comes after all fees have already been paid.
The cost is not covered but reimbursed.
The answer to the surfeit of adoptable children referred to as “Domestic supply of adoptable children” by SCOTUS Justice Alito in the original draft version of the decision to rescind Roe, is that cost slows adoptions.
This person’s assertion , and the agreement expressed by those who wrote in support of it, was that it is wrong to condemn the pro-birth crowd for not adopting babies because it is not their will or lack of it that hampers but the cost of adoption that does.
There are hundreds of “Pro-Life” organizations and 1,300 mega churches, not little wayside or parish churches of which there are thousands, but mega churches. Considering the cost of adoptions as recognized even by pro-life people, considering that the cost limits the amount of adoptions, and considering that now, having won their desire to force women to give birth regardless of the circumstances, these entities should help defray if not totally eliminate the cost of births and adoptions.
You could adopt ten or more children at the going top rate for the cost of a mega church pastor’s automobile, or more babies if the pastor cashed in all cars, planes, and boats.
The people who advocate adoption instead of abortion and then defend the lack of adoptions on the cost, need to give this some thought.
The person promoting the abortion/adoption approach and who disputed the number of adoptable children had opposed free adoptions of babies whose mother would have aborted for whatever reason such a decision had to be made because adoption agencies need a certain amount of money to operate, and almost all of them (if not all) have a charge for birth-mother expenses.
The thing is, that now with Roe gone, there will be more forced birth mothers who might not be able to afford the cost.
That’s where the self-named pro-life crowd needs to step in.
If a woman carrying a baby finds herself in a position that may call for an abortion but can no longer get that abortion because of a state law and must carry the baby full term regardless of realities, this cost should be borne by those responsible for the care needed for that birthing mother and paid by them .
They should also do the same for all costs related to adoptions.
This would benefit all concerned.
The birthing mother could have the baby she was forced to have without going in debt and then being condemned because she is now in a position to have to apply for public assistance to raise the child, the adoptive parent who could just adopt a child without also going into debt, and the pro-birthers who can show they are truly committed to their anti-abortion stance and have stepped up in the name of babies.
It would be shown that there was more to the demand for carrying babies full term than just the demand that promotes a particular religious belief and forcing it on all citizens.`
They are all for demanding responsibility without taking responsibility for what comes from that demand. They prescribe to the notion that women only get pregnant voluntarily and the man is just there because he is needed to create the pregnancy but bears no responsibility, unless he is the spouse.
Rapists and those who engage in forced incest and pedophilia get a pass as the cost of what they helped wrought is borne by the woman. The rapist is rewarded for the impregnation, first by having all related pleasures met, physical and psychological, and then not being held responsible for any costs incurred by a pregnancy.
Poor dear should have just avoided getting raped.
Now that the pro-birth crowd has gotten its way based on the divine source for the stance they claimed, they wash their hands of any responsibility to help in the process they demanded?
No woman who needs an abortion should be forced to carry full term and deliver unless all expenses before, during, and after birth are covered in full by the organizations and churches who forced her onto the birthing bed, and in those cases where the child will need extensive medical care for their whole lives, short or long, the cost should be borne by the same.
It is very convenient to make demands and pass laws that cost others money so that you can proclaim victory in a war of your own creation and praise the lord of your own religion.
It’s another to pay to prove the depth of the principle and take responsibility for what you have brought about.
The rape victims get victimized when their person is assaulted. They are further victimized by those who force them to have the baby and cover all the costs before, during, and after birth ony to be ignored in the raising of the child.
These people are pro-fetus and pro-newborn with little or no consideration of the mother. If they had any, perhaps, in lieu of taxes, churches can use that money for mothers being forced to give birth.
It is horrendous that neither the rapist nor the religious and political entities who forced the birth have any financial responsibility for their success, but mothers and adoptive parents do.
I will move closer to those who want adoption over abortion when churches and pro-birth organizations establish a system where the cost to a woman for whom an abortion is the best choice but has to carry full term by law and the Bible are covered until such time as the children are adopted with any related fees similarly covered and all medical care required is also funded.
Otherwise, they are merely concerned that newer model babies are produced like late model cars because people like the look and smell of a new baby and will be quicker to scoop up and produce the $5,000 to $70,000 fee going by the numbers supplied in her comments by the pro-birth person, but not so much with an older, unsold model that has been sitting around waiting for a buyer for years until they turn18.
The pro birth crowd, secular or religious, do bear some responsibility for the little gift from God, so churches and “pro-life” organizations need to cover all costs of the birthing mother and the prospective adopting parents or make arrangements for perpetual medical care when necessary.
Otherwise, it is all just words, ego, and control.
.
.
.
.
.
.
