Why don't Pro Life Republicans Adopt More Children?

Question

In 2004, there were close to 140,000 children of varying ages in the United States, awaiting adoption. About 50,000 of these children were Black. Republicans oppose abortion. Many of them oppose Birth Control. Yet these unwanted children need homes.

While these American kids waited for new parents, more than 200,000 foreign children were adopted by U.S. citizens. These children were mostly babies, because adoptive parents usually want infants. These statistics do not include the number of children in foster care, who are not adoptive, since their parents have not signed the necessary papers and the courts have not removed parental rights.

Republicans always use adoption as a choice for a woman who is pregnant and unable to care for her child. Yet this child, if given up for adoption, may spend his or her formative years in foster care, with no chance of adoption.

Why don't more Republicans live up to their Pro Life arguments and adopt more unwanted children?

Answer 1

Its not only "pro life republicans" that are adopting. ITs all people who are driven to adopt or can't have children.

The reason why its not more common is because it is THOUSANDS of dollars to adopt. And the process for adoption is LONG and tedious!
I strongly feel adoption needs to be quicker, and less expensive. However, I also feel, adoption or not, people should be screened before they are allowed to be parents. There are alot of people who have given up on an adoption due to the long grueling process.
As to the foriegn aspect... If you would look at the circumstances at the Foriegn orphanages vs the american ones.. the children in foriegn orphanages are more likely to be abused, underfed, and treated like "workers" and animals.
Frankly, the children in foriegn orphanages are more urgent cases than here. Children in african orphanages are more likely to die from starvation than children in american ones.


Think twice before you put all pro life republicans in the same boat.. I am not opposed to birth control.. matter of fact.. I think many people should be mandated to take it.

Answer 2

I am a Pro Choice Conservative, Registered as a Republican.

This is something my wife have both asked at different times. Our motto on this has been that abortion should be unnecessary, not illegal.
We had talked about adopting a child, then discovered that both of our children are autistic. As we discovered the amount of extra work autism demands, along with the regular stuff that any decent parent does, we decided against adoption. For now at least. I can tell you that if we do adopt a child in the future. The child will be from the USA and I don't much care what the child looks like. We both served in the Army and learned that skin color has nothing to do with someone being a decent person or a dirt ball.
So I, as a registered republican, agree whole heatedly with you. If you're telling a woman that she cannot abort a child, then you should be willing to take responsibility for that child. If you aren't, you're working with flawed logic.
With all that said, let us not forget that there are no accidental pregnancies. There are unwanted pregnancies, unwanted for many reasons. I cannot imagine the strength of character a woman would need to bear a child who was the product of a rape. I don't call that accidental because a guy doesn't rape someone by accident.
Well, there you have, yes those people are hypocrites.

Answer 3

When a woman gives up a newborn these days, it definitely does NOT languish in foster care.

And adoption has nothing to do with abortion. That's a myth propagated by the pro-life republicans. There are two choices during an unplanned pregnancy: 1. abort or stay pregnant; THEN, later, 2. parent or relinquish for adoption.

The flip side of adoption isn't abortion; the flip side is PARENTING.

Now, some women do abort because they feel they can't have a child at that time. So, if Republicans really want to reduce abortions, they OUGHT to be encouraging care and support of the moms who get pregnant. But no, they just focus on the babies, and the moms can go to hell. So they propose adoption as a solution. Ha.

More people adopting won't reduce abortions.

Adequate health care, affordable education and housing, and proper support stands a much better chance of reducing abortions.

Answer 4

Possibly because adoption in the U.S. is difficult, there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through. Not to mention the fact that there are many fees to pay. I was surprised however that you inferred that republicans aren't adopting yet you posted no facts as to how many republicans adopt in a given year, wouldn't it be funny if you were able to see how many of the people who adopted U.S. children were republican, and it turned out that the majority of them were? Also you stated that 50,000 of those waiting children were of African American descent which seems to have nothing to do with the rate of adoption. Were you trying to infer that republicans are racist? Also, have you checked into how many foster parents are republicans? Perhaps they are supporting their views that way. I think its unfair to imply that republicans have to adopt in order to support their beliefs, that would be like telling a democrat that if they support pro-choice and abortion they themselves should be out performing the abortions. Now that wouldn't be very logical would it..............................

Answer 5

I am against abortion and Republican, and have two children adopted from the foster system. I would adopt more, but even though there are thousands of kids awaiting adoption the government bureaucracy to adopt makes it nearly impossible. I suggest you go to one of the adoption sites for foster kids and make an inquiry on a kid or two. You will be lucky to get a response back from the social worker. If you do you will likely find the kid has been in the system for years just waiting for the system to make decisions in his or her benefit instead of in the benefit of adults. Meanwhile the kid has gotten older and developed more emotional issues from lack of permanency (wouldn't you too). When big government gets out of the way and holds the system and the workers accountable for caring for for children instead of taking care of the adults involved you will see more adoptions. Oops, smaller, more efficient, accountable government is a conservative goal. The current system fulfills the democrat goal of bigger government and more dependency on government.
A lot of Republican leaders are involved in adopting and/or fostering kids. Examples are John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann. It is possibly my lack of knowledge, but I cannot think of any Democrat leaders who are interested in anything except killing the kid.
Finally, I would prefer that people adopt U.S. foster kids, but in a larger sense, a kid is a kid and they are worth saving regardless of national origin or color.

Answer 6

You cite no proof that pro-life Republicans are not adopting at a higher rate than everyone else. You ignore other ways to support orphans, including volunteering and charitable giving. In other words, your question "assumes facts not in evidence" and lacks completeness.

You are not really asking a question. You are trying to make a point without evidence. This should not be on ask Yahoo.

Answer 7

I am pro-life and have an adopted child. There is a lot of misinformation out there on adoption. It can be very low cost when adopting from foster care. My experience was very pleasant and took about a year for my daughter to be placed with us. For anyone thinking about adopting please see those terrific kids on adoptuskids.org and get started now.This is the best decision I have ever made.

Answer 8

This is a misleading question, which suggests one party over another has more love for babies. Such as why do all Asians send their children away at age 14? (Not true of course) Really? Where do you get your stats? I just googled that, and found it s Republicans who are leading in adoption, (by a small number) specifically mixed racial children. (Wow, they aren t racist either!) The question is a smoke screen to advert our focus from why Planned Parenthood sells babies body parts, and why our tax dollars pay for this.

Answer 9

I am very strongly pro-life, and the only reason I am planning on becoming Independent instead of Republican is because I don't like how divided everyone is over parties. I plan to adopt children when I am older. I am not against birth-control; I do not plan on using it, but I don't care if other people use it.

Also, my aunt and uncle tried to adopt a child here, but after waiting years for a child, they adopted one from Russia.

Why do you automatically assume that every child up for adoption is unwanted? Is it impossible for a poor woman to get pregnant, not be able to afford to keep her child, and put it up for adoption?

Answer 10

I am pro-life and a republican, but I can't adopt 140,000 kids. In fact because of the cost of adoption I can't adopt even 1. For one reason,it costs around $10,000 to adopt. Some of my friends have been told they are too old to adopt an infant so they adopted older children. I wouldn't care what color the child was either. I have friends who have adopted children of all races-black, mexican, and asian. None of them got a blue eyed blond haired white child. It's neat to see the love they have for their children even though they don't look a thing like them. I have a friend and a cousin who had to adopt children out of the country because they couldn't get approved to adopt children here.(I don't know why). I wish that every child in the world could have a loving mother and father who loves them, but that isn't the case. I wish every person that had sex was ready to live up to the possibility of a pregnacy but that isn't the case. If you aren't prepared to have a child either use birth control or don't have sex. Also I don't know if you were implying that the reason those 50,000 kids aren't adopted is because they are black. I am not prejudiced. I know people can be prejudiced, but I don't think you can lump them into one (political or other) group.

Answer 11

What are you speaking about. no longer diverse human beings undertake. a lot of human beings that do undertake do no longer make it a public affair. maximum adoptions take position because the couple have not been waiting to have organic children and characteristic a reliable want to be mothers and fathers. as far as I see that has no longer something to do with political association nor does it have something to do with ideology. Then the question is why do idiots make up BS statements and attempt to apply them as insults.