Why is it that pro-choice Republicans are the people least likely to adopt minority children?

Question

And yet they are the ones that have the most children of their own disregarding the option of adopting these children that they fight so hard to bring into the world. Do they just pick and choose the parts of the Bible that are convenient for them?

I don't have a particular source. I'm just assuming by the astonishing amount of times I seem to hear the "n" word from the Republicans that I work with that they wouldn't be adopting minority children. Interestingly enough they are the ones who don't wanted gay couples to be able to adopt them either. I honestly just don't get their reasoning.

Answer 1

When I lived in California - hardly a conservative state - they were bleating about too many whites adopting minority babies. So which is it, Skipppy?

Nice try, troll. I am a life-long conservative, and I don't know anyone who talks or acts like that. But believe whatever you read on the Internet - that's a great way to learn. (And yes, that was sarcasm.)

Answer 2

First of all, do you have any proof that shows pro choice republicans are less likely to adopt minority children? If true, by what percentage under democrats, because if is a 1% difference, who cares! Not even worth mentioning.

Secondly, why does the skin color of the adopted child matter anyway? Are you like most Hollywood liberal types, that think they are more progressive and better people just because they adopt a minority child? These people are toting these kids around like they are some fashion accessory!

Answer 3

Republicans adopt more children, donate more to charity and do more volunteer work than the leftists.

In the past; whites were discouraged from adopting minority children in a misguided attempt to preserve minority culture. Fortunately I think that idea is fading away.

If you have a reputable source for your contention I would love to hear it. Until then drink the kool aid and spread the dogma elsewhere; here you will be exposed.

Answer 4

The argument you are making would be better made by a member of the Consistent Ethic movement. I agree that many prolifers could do better by babies that have been born, but I don't see how killing babies before birth is doing them any favor.

It is like a prochoice person saying conservatives only oppose abortion because they need soldiers for their wars. Even if that is true, killing the babies before birth robs them of the years of life before they enter the military, plus the chance to use GI benefits to go to college and become successful after they get out of the service.

How is picking and choosing when you support life and opportunity different from picking and choosing the parts of The Bible you find convenient?

http://www.consistent-life.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternatives

Answer 5

Your talking about people who believe so strongly in their own superiority that they the need to reproduce as may time as possible to spread their genes. Why would they waste resources raising someone else's children

Answer 6

lol, typical lib statement, no proof or evidence to back it up. where in the bible does it say you need to adopt minority children? the option doesnt start after the child is conceived, it should start before the child is conceived. maybe it is the libs that choose which parts of the bible are convienent for them. remember, thou shalt not kill.......

Answer 7

Do you have any facts to back this up? I didn't think so. More Paleolib propogana.

Answer 8

do you have a reputable source for your contention?

I thought not

Answer 9

I don't agree with your premis. Please advise me where you got your research.
Thank you

Answer 10

Soarce? None? Thanks for playing.