This story is archived
The Myth of Adoption vs. Abortion »
Posted by: deathray 2 years, 2 months agoWhy politicians are wrong to trumpet the former as a solution to the latter.
Read Full Story at latimes.com »
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 396
-
deathray
Nov. 1, 2007, 7:50 p.m.Another excellent example of how easily statistics can be manipulated to fit one's political agenda. With a clear difference between relinquished adoptions and adoptions arranged through the foster care system, it's difficult to believe that those who provided Giuliani with these numbers, and in fact the mayor himself, weren't aware of the discrepancies in his representation of the facts.
-
Radiofreeeuropa
Nov. 1, 2007, 8:14 p.m.Seems all we hear is spin on this subject. It's impossible to argue with the raw statistics though.
-
gamahuche
Nov. 1, 2007, 8:17 p.m.FTA
Behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. The sooner politicians accept that the only way to meaningfully achieve fewer abortions is to do better in helping women and their partners prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place, the better.
Unfortunately the people who most need to hear this message are those who most fervently resist offering birth-control options to ANY women and then most strongly condemn those whose only remedy for the unwanted pregnancy is the ensuing abortions. A classic lose/lose situation all round.
-
AtheismIsRealityComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
Amazing1
Nov. 1, 2007, 8:40 p.m.From the article, "And the world's lowest rates of abortion by far are found in Western Europe, where very few legal restrictions are placed on abortion but contraceptive use and comprehensive sex education are widespread."
But then, here in the US, we have the super conservatives who don't want women to have access to birth control and vehemently oppose sex education.
Go figure.
-
not2needy
Nov. 1, 2007, 8:44 p.m.Placing children up for adoption isn't the answer for people who don't want their children.
Many good families have waited for years and years, fallen through the cracks, trying to adopt, all the while too many children are raised in foster homes.
Then....... down the road biological parents decide they want their children BACK, and judges give them back!
NAH Adoption isn't the answer.
-
Francisca
Nov. 1, 2007, 8:46 p.m.I can't help thinking that behind every abortion we have a failure and a woman who suffers ( very often: social distress ). All the rest is number, number and statistic!
-
Spadecaller
Nov. 1, 2007, 9:49 p.m.The self-serving hypothesis that Guiliani presents as fact will not convert anyone from either side. Exploitation of the voters and Guiliani's disengenuous concern about adoption and abortion nauseates me.
Time to stir up middle America. Yes, it's that time again. With too many homophobes and anti-abortionists threatening to vote against the GOP because of War, corporate greed, and a failing government, fear, false propaganda, and prejudice are the Republican's only weapons. I can already hear the lemmings starting to run.
-
catstevensComment has been removed: Retracted by user
-
Spadecaller
Nov. 1, 2007, 11:03 p.m.Yes, let's blame the women for using abortion as a method of birth control and "stop pointing fingers."
That's the funniest post I've read today. Thanks!
-
RedstateLib
Nov. 1, 2007, 11:15 p.m.For most women abortion is a method of las resort! Better to teach young women effective means of avoiding pregnancy. Then abortion would be so rare it would not be a concern.
-
Spadecaller
Nov. 2, 2007, 12:07 a.m.During the 90's a federal grant program was initiated giving states funding for education that was geered to convince young people to avoid premarital sex before marriage. A study by SIECUS found that abstinence... programs are ineffective.
The grant program was supported heavily by right wing Republicans-- the very people who object to sex education and birth control awareness. Lack of respect for our young people and women in this society has caused more suffering than anything else.
But to listen to Guiliani speaking about adoption as a viable solution to abortion is exactly what the flat earthers want to hear. Let's get real! This is just another political ploy for the "liberal" republican to adjust his NY image for the national arena.
-
rogerhelmich
Nov. 2, 2007, 2:13 a.m.Rev 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
Rev 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
Him that hath an ear....
-
ETproductions
Nov. 2, 2007, 2:20 a.m.So many darned inconvenient truths. But the Repugs have the answer. Truthiness. Works every time.
-
geauxbill
Nov. 2, 2007, 6:17 a.m.'Behind every Abortion is an unwanted pregnancy'. To that arguement, I counter with,contraceptives are not;I repeat NOT 100% effective. Having sex that is intended and getting pregnant (which some say is unintended,even though you use freewill to get in the bed with someone,and therefore you risk it each time you do it),is like saying," I'll use a mouse to guard the cheese".Idiotic.People in America need to use their God-given common sense. You'd have better odds winning the lottery than betting on not getting pregnant. "The sooner politicians accept that to meaning fully achieve fewer Abortions is to do better in helping women and their partners prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place ,the better". Some politicians are. There have been talks of establishing abstinance programs,but some people don't want to have the discipline needed to keep their legs closed.Thus solving the problem.
-
geauxbill
Nov. 2, 2007, 6:33 a.m.Politicians should not be allowed to decide who lives and who dies,as in Nazi Germany at the death camps.Are we to become like them? We have been because we accept Abortion without question,and vote for politicians that support the destruction of life for whatever reason. "It is a crime that a child must DIE so that you may live as you wish."------Mother Theresa of Calcutta.
-
Patriot1
Nov. 2, 2007, 9:01 a.m.4,000 Soldiers killed since 2001= War against terror.
4,000 Babies killed EVERY SINGLE DAY in the U.S.A.= Abortion!!!!!!!!How can you morons justify killing 4,000 babies every day, and then bitch about 4,000 soldiers killed since 2001? Do you all not see the moral contradiction here? It's very simple, if you don't want to get pregnant, then keep your damn legs shut, and your zipper up!!! Oh, wait a minute, I keep forgetting that would mean everyone would have to quit acting like a bunch of ******s!!!
-
canadianrancher57
Nov. 2, 2007, 9:20 a.m.As a male I will never know two things, 1) I will never know the feelling of having a new life growing inside my body. 2) I will never know the felling of concern if I am late for my period of being told I a pregnant. The government goes out of it's way to try to prevent some results of poor decision, they pass seat belt laws to protect us, they pass drinking limits to protect us and others, they make us obtain a liscence to drive, but none of these things can be applied to pregnancies. An unwanted pregnancy if usually a result of a bad decision. We live in a society that is still run mostly by men the problem is that when it comes to abortion or unwanted pregnancy very little blame is placed on men, maybe if men were faced to cover the costs of abortions or support a pregnant women there would be less unwanted pregnancies, although I really doubt it. Our attitude towards sex still has a long way to go in this part of the world.
-
Poulenc
Nov. 2, 2007, 9:27 a.m.Let's put Patriot's foaming sentimentality about "killing babies" aside for a moment and address the issue at hand: it's completely daft to assume that for every abortion that's, ah, aborted, and every unwanted baby born, an adoption of that baby is, or is more likely to occur.
What would seem to occur more likely is that the adoption "market" would increase exponentially, leading to a more chancy placement of those babies/children.
In short, and has been suggested, there's no correlation between foetuses/babies "saved" from abortion and the adoption of same.
-
joeblowe
Nov. 2, 2007, 9:51 a.m.What do you know? An article with some sense in it. While everyone is thinking about those skewed and/or misrepresented statistics Rudy was spouting, here's more numbers you might cogitate on:
Assuming that the 1.3 million abortions has been a fairly constant rate since -- let's say 1970 -- we can now speculate that there are AT LEAST 48.1 million fewer people here than might have been the case. AND, if we assume that each of THOSE people might have had a similar "problem" at an early age, we can easily grow that number to something like 61 million or more - depending on what you think might be a good guess as to age of first pregnancy. Now, if you FURTHER assume that each of those people would have ended up on welfare of some sort, even at a bare survival level WE, the taxpayers, would have been out 732 BILLION dollars. These numbers are pretty much just WAG's, but it's good to think about the COSTS (other than the misery) of forbidding abortions.
-
ecotourusa
Nov. 2, 2007, 10:17 a.m.the weird thing is that many women, especially from Mexico, have their children here. (so that the children become instant american citizens.)
on another thread, we should discuss the fact that white babies are very rare. and, therefore, the white population is diminishing.
as the hispanic segment increases exponentially...especially here in america.
-
texangelwings
Nov. 2, 2007, 10:53 a.m.One would think that all good politicians would verify the statistics that are found in their speeches, prior to giving the speech. With computer information these days, it would be fairly simple to achieve.
I enjoyed reading all the comments.
Thanks Quicksilver for the headsup on this article.
Thanks DR, interesting article.
-
toravia
Nov. 2, 2007, 11:10 a.m.How about this radical idea? Semi-mandatory COMPLETE and accurate sex-ed in jr. high with free school nurse-supplied effective birth control for every single student. If a parent doesn't want this for their little "angels," they sign a release form agreeing that the resultant pregnancies will be dealt with and PAID FOR entirely by THEM. No welfare, no WIC, no free insurance for the little ones with 16-year-old parents, not a single additional food stamp! Those programs will be reserved for responsible citizens of lower incomes who have TRULY unintended pregnancies. If a woman has easy access to birth control pills, shots, and IUD's and doesn't use them, but DOES have sex, how is her pregnancy unintended? Probably a little TOO radical, huh?
-
Hobe
Nov. 2, 2007, 12:03 p.m.'The Myth of Adoption vs. Abortion'
There they go again??? What don't the Republicans Understand about a Women's Choice to Kill her Baby???
It's The LAW, the Democrats proposed the Law, they have No problem with the Killing, they Voted for it and defend it to the Death!
Enough Already...
-
bobric1110
Nov. 2, 2007, 12:07 p.m.Go to all those foster care facilities and ask each child whether they would rather have been aborted, or born and be living in foster care. I'm guessing that is the only real question that need be asked to determine who is "right" on the abortion issue. Put yourself in their place, and imagine the worst of all circumstances for your mother - poverty, lack of education, even rape. Do you want her to terminate your pregnancy and snuff out your life??
The first 356 comments are shown. Show all 396 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
