Larry Gude
Strung Out
You know, this game just goes on and on.
What does the right do? Blame the user, the wielder? Or do prohibition and go after the 'tool'?
What Side of The Fence Are You On?
- Thread starter b23hqb
- Start date
You know, this game just goes on and on.
What does the right do? Blame the user, the wielder? Or do prohibition and go after the 'tool'?
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, we should just ignore vaginal rape, since we can't be vaginally raped?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Good.
My interest is US stats. I'd like to see abortion numbers SOAR in a few countries.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
That's about right. Number of adoption of babies I think is about a quarter of that - but I think it would be a lot more if people didn't have to wait two years - or more - to adopt.
We waited four, for my youngest.
In nations where adoption is encouraged - it's actually sometimes snowballed. I was amazed to learn just how unusual people from abroad felt about adopting a child who wasn't already part of your family - let alone the child of a stranger - and not of your race. The first question I was asked for my first child in court was - why do you want to raise someone else's child? The agencies we worked with often told us that there's a stigma associated with orphans that is really hard to believe - but that they can be regarded as vermin or chattel. I've read a book by a man who grew up in Russian orphanages - and was never adopted - and said his parents would beat him BECAUSE he was an orphan.
So there's this social thing preventing it - and - it is changing. In fact, international adoptions are beginning to slow down, because in country domestic adoption is increasing.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Just for clarity's sake, (a) it's "let sleeping dogs lie", and (b) most conservative lawmakers do not bring it up. Most conservative lawmakers are hounded by people who are afraid the conservative lawmaker will bring it up.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Not even a nice try. Prohibition says you can't be trusted. Same thing the left is about with guns.
We're all people. We have the same strengths and weakness's. You have sacred cows and so do lefties. You have blind spots and illogical reason and so do they. You make excuses if your side does it and there can be none when they do it. And they're just like you. All of us. Yet boths sides insist the 'other' are a bunch of space aliens.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Woodrow Wilson was president during Prohibition. WW was a Democrat, not a "rightie".
Yes, Conservatives hold people responsible, not tools.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
AH, good. So I can put you down for 'yes' for legalization then. Glad to hear it!
Nothing new on the Forums today.......
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
As I've tried to say - there's different populations we're dealing with. Most people want to adopt a baby. That's just the way it works. As such, adopting babies, newborns and toddlers is a far cry from adopting older children in foster care, many of whom are there not because they've been floating around since birth, but because they've been removed from their home. In some cases - such as my foster brother growing up - they were not "allowed" to be adopted, because of the wishes of the family he was born into. They didn't want him, but wouldn't consent to letting adoption.
With babies, there's a high demand. You can't compare the number adopted last year to an additional number added because of children being given up for adoption as saying "see, there's only so much demand". No, there's only so much SUPPLY. Demand is high. When you can't adopt a child at all UNTIL you are chosen by a birth mother - who is STILL CARRYING the child - this demonstrates demand is high. Birth mother gets to see many profiles of prospective parents - and she chooses ONE couple. Lots of couples never get chosen.
I think you'd be surprised if this ever happened. Sadly, we are not encouraging mothers to bring children to term - and then give them up.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Nope, as we've discussed numerous times before, you can put me down for "yes" on going after people who illegally use drugs, not the manufacturers or sellers. Just like people who illegally use firearms are the problem (not Glock or Winchester), people who illegally use drugs are the problem (not Escobar or some pharmaceutical company).
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
that is based on conjecture. As i said, the numbers of abortions is a lot more than those of all adoptions, not just babies. IF somehow the adoption rate increased to account for the added babies that would be great, it wouldn't likely be able to keep up for very long.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
My argument began in a different direction - and it's that the left usually looks to government to solve their problems on these things - and the right goes a different route.
I was once in a church where several young couples needed help.
The older church members wanted to raise money and give it to them.
Many church members wanted to find government programs to help them.
Me? I belonged to the group that went to their house and cleaned it for them and took them out and bought clothes.
That's how I see much of the left/right divide - should government fix the problem? Or should *I* fix the problem?
The left thinks government is "we" - the right does not.
black dog
Free America
Apparently you don't live in the Bible belt..
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
thats interesting, but not exactly accurate. As has been pointed out in htis thread, the right was trying to get a national defintion of marriage passed over gays getting married. Both sides use the same tactics when they can.
Toxick
Splat
Lighten up Francis.
I was joking around.
I thought the popcorn smiley gave it away.
Also, I'm the one who pointed out that abortions could be replaced by adoptions. I don't have facts and figures, and I'm not even interested enough to dig them up, but I was pointing out I'm fairly certain the number of babies clogging up abortion clinic garbage disposals could be drastically reduced if the adoption option were exercised more often.
Last edited:
Even around here. Haven't you noticed all of the mini crosses in front of the local churches? Those aren't for service members, they are supposed to represent unwanted and discarded fetuses.
black dog
Free America
From the numbers I have been reading there is about 110,000 kids in Foster care at any given time, about 7 to 12 thousand age out each year. The average age of the children is 7-8 years old.
About 7 to 10 thousand are adopted each year.
There is plenty of children available for adoption, even infants. It just that the available children take to are from the wrong country or have the wrong skin color for the stereotypical white family to adapt.
About 7 to 10 thousand are adopted each year.
There is plenty of children available for adoption, even infants. It just that the available children take to are from the wrong country or have the wrong skin color for the stereotypical white family to adapt.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
(slaps forehead) Do I have to go through this AGAIN?
For one thing - you're talking about foster care - which is not at all the same as adopting. While kids are adopted through foster care, they are not always eligible. I know this from personal experience.
Secondly - there are two groups of kinds of kids people want to adopt - the one in VERY high demand is healthy babies. Almost all kids who are eligible for adoption that are babies have their adoption process begun before they are EVEN BORN. So you have one "source" of adoptable children - the universe of newborns - whose population past the age of a few months dwindles quickly to ZERO. The ones who aren't adopted are usually children with severe special needs. I know a family with an adolescent age child who still looks like a toddler - and will never mature past a baby mentality. We were offered dossiers of kids with extreme retardation or say, flippers for hands and feet. It is a hard choice. There aren't a lot of these.
When we asked to adopt a toddler - we were told to go overseas - because there simply weren't any available to us. Baby or older child (7 years or older). That was it. And we simply didn't think we could handle children adopted from traumatic circumstances.
Moreover the children available at that age - since they were not sitting waiting for eight years - since babies were all adopted by then - they are almost entirely there because they were taken from their parents, usually due to state intervention or trauma.
My argument was all about *BABIES*. Babies made available for adoption would be met with a tremendous demand - because one already exists. I suspect for many reasons - that demand will continue. People are delaying marriage more and more these days and finding that having children past a certain age is difficult. There are other trends but I do believe that if half a million babies were to become available to adopt - if they were healthy - they would almost all find homes. Many couples simply despair for waiting. We almost gave up for our third. We chose special needs and we're delighted with her.