Two big arguments we see used to justify abortion are actual attacks against pro-lifers, claiming that “nobody’s adopting newborns” and that pro-lifers are “pro-birth but not pro-life.” We are being told that we do not care about children once out of the womb and that’s why we have such a problem with so many children in the system. If we can’t take care of the ones we already have in the system, why should we bring more innocents into this world? We probably shouldn’t, but why aren’t they asking that question prior to getting pregnant? It doesn’t matter, it’s neither here nor there once a child has been conceived.
One of the first problems that I have with this logic is that it tries to put the blame and responsibility for older children in foster care or children’s homes (which, I might add, are both by and far run by Christian, pro-life supporters) on the shoulders of people that had nothing to do with the conception of said children. Now, even though they had nothing to do with these children being brought into the world, pro-lifers are already making it their responsibility to take care of these children by running the children’s homes and fostering and adopting children, but they cannot and should not take the blame for there being such a burden in the first place. The blame lies on the two people making irresponsible choices. They have already gotten out of taking the responsibility of raising their own children, but that does not absolve them from being the cause of the problem in the first place. I would like to inject really quickly that “burden” and “problem” aren’t exactly the kind of language I would use to describe children; however, this is how the left refers to the children they don’t want when they try to argue the case for abortion.
To say that “nobody’s adopting” is an outright fabrication. Many people are looking to adopt newborns! But how can a baby be adopted if she’s killed before she’s born? The majority of women who abort do not do so for any reasons related to the inability to find a suitable adoptive family. I’d even dare to say that this is not the reason for ANY woman aborting her child, but then we’d hear from one person somewhere on the other side of the world, and the next thing you know they’re sticking with that like they stick with rape, which also is a very, extremely rare happenstance (but not as rare as the previous scenario).
The adoption process is a long one – nine months minimum in most cases (when premature birth is not considered). Time needs to be taken for the birth mother to decide if she wants to keep her baby or give it up for adoption. There are lawyers and interviews and legalities that simply take time. And even if everything that needed to be done could be accomplished prior to the cutoff date for abortion, the birth mother would still have to wait out the rest of the pregnancy. The truth is, most of these abortive mothers not only do not want to make the commitment of raising a child, they do not want to make the nine month commitment they would have to make to deliver a live baby into the arms of its potential adoptive parents. The amount of time they are limited to getting an abortion is simply not enough time to seriously consider adoption.
Adoption is actually the least expensive option for birth mothers out of all three options (abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby). Planned Parenthood CHARGES YOU to kill YOUR baby – and no, they won’t kill your baby for you if you don’t pay up! Keeping the child is the most expensive option for the birth mother as it binds her to an 18-year “contract” and up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and more to raise the child. Adoption, however, is at the expense of the adoptive parents, so it’s FREE to the birth mother. Did you hear that?!? It’s FREE to take responsibility for one’s actions when one is willing to see the pregnancy through! And in some cases, there are even agencies out there who will PAY THE BIRTH MOTHER quite a hefty sum of money!
Some say that it would be too hard to carry a child for nine months only to have to give the child up for adoption when it’s born. Well, yeah, that would be hard. But if that’s really the reason one would consider abortion, then it makes more sense that the baby would be kept, not aborted. Especially based on the whole “it’s not human/it’s not alive until it’s born” argument that is still being forced on us. If the baby is not alive and is not human until it’s born, then what’s to get attached to? And if there is indeed (there IS, indeed!) something to get attached to, how can one “not have the heart” to give the baby up, but “have the heart” to kill the child?
The Armentrout Shout-out 