Why don't all religious groups adopt "ALL" children that need adoption?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 12-3-2010 @ 05:00 PM by Trudge

I was just thinking of this today. Why don't "ALL" religious groups (families) adopt "ALL" children that need adoption? In my opinion, I think it is a womans right to decide if she would like to have an abortion, and religious groups don't believe in abortion, and fight teeth and nail to try and stop abortion. My question is ,why don't "ALL" families who are in religious groups adopt "ALL" children who need a home? Shouldn't "ALL" children have a place to call home? I think that until "ALL" children that need a home have a home, they should stop trying to get rid of abortions. Am I way off here??

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:16 PM by mnmcandiez

Because raising children costs a gigantic amount of money that a lot of organizations don't have.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:18 PM by kiwifoot

Hm, I fail to understand the true gist of your post.

I take it you're pro-abortion.

I'm pretty sure you're pro children having homes.

This is where it gets tricky, are you saying that before religious folk get up in arms (over abortion) they should adopt all the kids that need a home?

But how would that affect the ladies wanting to have abortions in the future?

Am I missing something here friend?

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to get some clarification!

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:24 PM by Trudge

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Hm, I fail to understand the true gist of your post.

I take it you're pro-abortion.

I'm pretty sure you're pro children having homes.

This is where it gets tricky, are you saying that before religious folk get up in arms (over abortion) they should adopt all the kids that need a home?

But how would that affect the ladies wanting to have abortions in the future?

Am I missing something here friend?

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to get some clarification!

Well if "ALL" children were adopted that needed a home then I would think that they could stop abortions because there would always be a family that would adopt the newborn and raise the child in a home with a family. But I think its wrong for religions to put down abortion and try and stop abortions when there are so many children that need a home. Why don't they adopt all children and then I think they would have an argument to stop abortions.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:35 PM by ladyinwaiting

reply to post by Trudge

Actually, many adoptions are made each year for children from all over the world, and not just religious groups, but homes where people feel compassion for children, and desire to give them homes, regardless of religious beliefs.

Many religious organizations, such as churches, give money regularly to fund homes for needy children. They pay foster parents, open and fund group homes, as well as larger homes/group homes, which a long time back might have been referred to as orphanages, although that term is no longer used.

Adopting children is not so easy as it might sound. For example, the most desirable children are "healthy infants", and there is actually a shortage of that population of children, so many people do wind up adopting "older children", or children with medical issues such as blindness, spinal bifada, or other pervasive illnesses such as autism, or organic brain syndromes.

Just because someone might oppose abortion, does not necessarily mean they would make the best parents, or meet criteria required to be permitted to adopt.

Perhaps the problem is that abortion has been made a political issue, and should not be. It is a family issue. A medical issue. It seems to me the remarks here, contribute in making what should be a private decision, such as abortion and adoption, a political one. It's really not helpful, imo.

[edit on 3/12/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:39 PM by fockewulf190

If it wasn´t for a lot of BS government beurocracy (the world over) and human corruption and greed, there would be a hell of a lot more of those needy kids being adopted....religious groups or not.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:41 PM by Trudge

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

I understand your point of view ladyinwaiting and appreciate your post.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:44 PM by litmuspaper

Do you honestly think if these groups had infinite amounts of money that they wouldn’t make such a deal to rid the nation of abortion? I think they would.

I think obviously the smarter thing to do is to stop a long dead debate and start supporting programs that will lessen unwanted pregnancies and support programs that will lend a mother with an unwanted pregnancy more help with raising her child if she decides to keep it.

Of course adoption is always an adoption, but I think women are less likely to keep the fetus inside them if they don’t plan on keeping their baby.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:45 PM by Aeons

reply to post by kiwifoot

No one except the insane are "Pro Abortion." There is no campaign for a Chicken in Every Pot, an Abortion in Every Home.

Pro Abortion is a serious misnomer.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:45 PM by Bilw85

What about the women who don't want to deliver a baby at all? And why put it on anyone "religious" to change the world? Most religious people are just waiting for the end anways. If your FOR abortion then you're ignorant as noone in their right mind wants to see a child terminated. If you're against it, then get off your butt and start doing something instead of just sounding alarms.

Abortion is wrong in my eyes(most cases, not all), but I think the way to change that isn't some huge show of force by the church or legislation that criminalizes it. The way to make a stand against aborting is to teach your children values and self-defense so they don't sleep around or become victims. It will(and should) always come down to the woman; If it doesnt then we have opened to flood gates to lose our rights to our own bodies and possibly our minds.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:47 PM by Aeons

To prove that point, my mother's neighbour has anti-abortion stickers all over his car. He will corner you to talk about it and vaccines.

And if he ever tries to corner me again I am going to make sure he cannot have children. He is so freakin' creepy that if I see him approach my children again I will probably try and run him over.

The idea that that man would have children makes my skin crawl.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by Trudge

Just because someone might oppose abortion, does not nessasarily mean they would make the best parents, or meet criteria required to be permitted to adopt.

[edit on 3/12/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

[edit on 2010/3/12 by Aeons]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:55 PM by Equinox99

Because than you would have a bunch of Atheists crying because we are raising them in a religious environment. So it is not acceptable.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:07 PM by woodwytch

Originally posted by Trudge
I was just thinking of this today. Why don't "ALL" religious groups (families) adopt "ALL" children that need adoption? In my opinion, I think it is a womans right to decide if she would like to have an abortion, and religious groups don't believe in abortion, and fight teeth and nail to try and stop abortion. My question is ,why don't "ALL" families who are in religious groups adopt "ALL" children who need a home? Shouldn't "ALL" children have a place to call home? I think that until "ALL" children that need a home have a home, they should stop trying to get rid of abortions. Am I way off here??

Trudge,

I am sincere when I say that I admire your innocence ... life would be so much easier if things were that simple and straightforward.

Incidently, I was adopted and had a great upbringing ... but unfortunately not all adopted children are so lucky ... adoption doesn't always mean 'happy'.

Woody

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:19 PM by endisnighe

Did you know that there are more people looking to adopt than there are children to adopt?

The supposed problem of too many children for people to adopt is a misnomer. At least in the US.

Other countries it may be different, but not here.

Just look into a US adoption agency. Waiting times of 4-5 years is not unheard of.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:28 PM by ladyinwaiting

reply to post by endisnighe

Ah, yes. Absolutely true. This is the reason we see so many Americans adopting foreign-born children such as Chinese, Russian, and African.

__________
Additionally, we see the role of "surrogate mother" (someone paid to carry a baby for a couple) becoming more common. Often, the person having the abortion does so without anyone knowing. If they would tell someone, they very likely would be able to place the child in a good home, because as stated, there are more homes available than babies.

But there is still a social stigma involved in having a baby outside marriage. So people choose to hide it. I would be curious to know what percentage of abortion occurs for this reason. If the social stigma was diminished, we might see abortion reduced.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:34 PM by Trudge

reply to post by woodwytch

I thank you for your reply to my post woodwytch, and everyone else that has sent a reply, or will send a reply. I enjoy reading everyones thoughts on this matter, and it helps me to better understand this issue.

Thank you.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:44 PM by endisnighe

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

Yes, social stigma. The all encompassing problem, of putting ones nose where it does not belong. If the people that just learn one of the tenets of Christianity that some seem to forget, cast the first stone, a lot of people may begin to see the problem from their side.

I usually try to stay out of these type issues because of my stance on abortion.

I get hit from BOTH sides.

I am a spiritual person besides being a hothead on governmental issues. I am an isolationist/individual responsibility based person. What I mean by that, is everyone is responsible for themselves or for ones they intend to be responsible for.

Where I do believe abortion to be wrong, except for health of mother, rape or incest; but I have no right whatsoever to enforce my beliefs on another. Of course that does not mean I would not try to convince someone, I definitely would not be picketing or trying to pass a law to enforce my morals. That is wrong in my eyes.

There is a conspiracy somewhere in this, maybe the elite's want us to be more of a melting pot. I do not know though. I become ill when I research the origins of Planned Parenthood. Well, I am going to stop here before I get more people angry at my stances. We already know I have enough here that think I am totally off my rocker.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:45 PM by zaiger

reply to post by Trudge

Show me where "ALL" religious groups are opposed to abortion. www.abovetopsecret.com... vatican backed the abortion

www.bethany.org...
Some religious organizations do adopt children. Like you said it is the womans choice to get an abortion. If a religious organization was adopting children from mothers who wanted to get abortion wouldn't you be crying about how they are taking away her choice. Your OP comes off as a childish rant.

typical atheist bawww.

forums.adoption.com...
christian.adoption.com...
www.christianfamilyadoptions.org...

The list goes on

but i do admit it is nowhere near as good as richard dawkins' (bawwkins) fighting to give the great apes the same rights as humans.
en.wikipedia.org...

Or his organization to studdy the "psychology of belief and religion"
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

[edit on 12-3-2010 by zaiger]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by zaiger]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:16 PM by Blue Alice

In order to prevent abortion, pro-lifers must provide an alternative. That doesn't necessarily mean adopting a child.

Here are some possibilities:

Spread awareness to dispel myths about adoption
Promote open adoption as an alternative to the traditional method
Organize charities to make the process cheaper
Help impoverished mothers so they can afford to keep their babies
Provide homes for pregnant teens who have been thrown out by Fundy parents
Provide free birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies

Frankly I believe that a lot of pro-life people don't actually care about the innocent unborn child at all. Their real purpose is to punish the "sluts" for having sex. The children are just a tool used to punish the parents. If you really want to save lives, you need to stop worrying about the law, and do something practical to help.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 07:22 PM by woodwytch

Originally posted by Trudge
reply to post by woodwytch

I thank you for your reply to my post woodwytch, and everyone else that has sent a reply, or will send a reply. I enjoy reading everyones thoughts on this matter, and it helps me to better understand this issue.

Thank you.

Not a problem ... I always find it interesting when someone poses a 'different' question ... makes you think about things you may otherwise have overlooked. So thank-you.

Woody

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^