I am pro life but I am also pro quality of life. If you are able to care for a child and you are pro life isn't it your moral obligation to adopt a child? I think that the pro life groups think that the fight is over once the baby is born, but really, for that child the fight has just begun.
2006-06-20 18:05:14 · 13 answers · asked by simplyfabulous 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
i did not say adopt a baby, of course everyone wants to adopt a baby, that is called new puppy syndrome, i said adopt a child. And yes the two are very much related.
2006-06-20 18:17:56 · update #1
That's one of the reasons I'm pro-choice. Abortion may be the wrong personal choice for me, but who am I to tell someone who can't afford the medical care to have a child -- much less care for it after birth -- that they must have one?
On an semi-unrelated note -- Ever notice how it's the people who are against abortion are also the ones against educating about birth control in schools and also usually -- but not always -- the ones most likely to limit welfare benefits?
Adoption is nice, but since everyone seems to want to adopt perfect little babies -- not kids whose parents have abandoned them, or kids who have spent time in the foster care system -- it doesn't seem viable to have that as the only solution. **EDIT to clarify** My point here is that even when people do decide to adopt, they often overlook or choose not to adopt at-risk or high-needs children, older children or children who have been in the foster care system. So simply saying every child that would be aborted should be put up for adoption doesn't seem a viable solution to me.
2006-06-20 18:13:18 · answer #1 · answered by ReniHana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good point, and one of the reasons that I'm pro-choice. I know that there are way too many children caught up in the legal system with no way to get out. Another option that pro-lifers might consider is fostering. You don't always have to adopt, and sometimes the birth parent(s) won't give up their rights, so you can't. Just think of the positive affects you could have in four or five foster children's lives for the price of the adoption of one child.
I think my husband and I would like to adopt one day, if we could find a way to do it without bankrupting ourselves--which wouldn't help our child or any other we might want to adopt!
Oh, and you might mention that adoptive parents should look to the children in their own countries first, if they can afford to, before turning to foreign adoption. Although it can be cheaper, it doesn't do anything for the children living in foster care all around us.
2006-06-21 01:31:51 · answer #2 · answered by Ally 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Moral obligation? No. Being pro-life doesn't mean that you are obligated to "clean up after other people's mistakes". Being pro-life means that you value life over a "choice" to end life. This assertion is basically saying the person who made a choice (to have sex) which led to a pregnancy should not be responsible for that choice. Further asserting that they should have a second choice, which involves ending an innocent life.
Following the same logic as this question. If you are anti-death penalty, are you morrally obligated to "adopt a death row inmate"? I would again say no.
2006-06-21 01:17:21 · answer #3 · answered by asafam23 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we are all faced with different set of challenges, not only these kids without parents.
Living in a chaotic household with both parents is also not a quality life.
Living in a household where both parents are cold and uneffectionate is also not a quality life.
I guess life it self is a struggle.
But as long as we're alive, there is hope. We can always do something better for ourselves and turn the table around.
I feel that these children mature rather quickly at young age when they are faced with problems.
Through experience, I know that some of them became successful, forgiving of their parents, more understanding towards others who are less fortunate, more appreciating life itself. I think eventually they know that self-pity does nothing good to them. Life goes on.
2006-06-21 01:20:00 · answer #4 · answered by VAVAV 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm pro-choice but I will likely adopt a child or two. I would adopt more but I am going into teaching and it doesn't provide a lot of money.
2006-06-21 01:10:02 · answer #5 · answered by Alex LaCroix 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pardon me but Im not sure you know how hard it is to adopt a child. There are people out there, like me who would LOVE to adopt children but cant because they're single, dont make enough money, not in perfect health or whatever. It's not like there's all these orphans and no one trying to give them lives... its this country wont allow it. You're griping in the wrong direction.
2006-06-21 01:12:16 · answer #6 · answered by impossble_dream 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off there are not enough babies to go around. Lots of people want to adopt and there are no babies to adopt.. People even buy babies so they can have children. Where are all these babies that need adoption??
2006-06-21 01:11:15 · answer #7 · answered by † PRAY † 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NOPE!
Many are against abortion - yes - moral grounds.
Question #2 answer=Many children are without parents because they were abandond.
The two Q are unrelated. One is not a consequinceof the other.
2006-06-21 01:11:10 · answer #8 · answered by whynotaskdon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Excellent question! Because our society is messed up. I asked the exact same question of my youth leader once, about how he can say that Abortion is the greatest evil, when there are children starving all over the world, and AIDS spreading like wildfire. His response? Abortion is the greatest poverty... I have disagree with him, and agree with you.
2006-06-21 01:24:30 · answer #9 · answered by magicwriter65 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have it wrong, If you cant handle the consequences of having sex, then it is your moral responsibility to make sure you don't get pregnant!
2006-06-21 01:16:19 · answer #10 · answered by Deborah G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋