It's been a long time since I've blogged! I guess I got out of the habit of writing something every week and perhaps had exhausted my range of topics. The topic I am going to discuss today is going to be controversial, but I think it bears some thought, especially as to how it relates to adoption. I hate politics, although I'm glued to the national conventions as if they were train wrecks...oh, they are! Are we better off than we were four years ago? I haven't met anyone who thinks so. How has the past four years affected adoption? President Obama is pro-abortion. The number of abortions is way up. That is one part of the equation. Then there is the economy. Women who previously would have tried to parent and then eventually decided on adoption as a better option are figuring out very early in the pregnancy that they won't be able to parent due to financial constraints. It's so early that they can justify making a decision for abortion and they are, thus, aborting (in record numbers). Fewer babies, lower birth rate, higher abortions...well that all equates to less babies for adoption.
I know there are many women who don't want their abortion "rights" taken away. Mitt Romney is pro-life and so is Paul Ryan. That doesn't mean they will even be able to change the law, as congress has a say. Just because they get elected doesn't mean that abortions will cease to exist in this country. I'm not sure that will ever happen. But it would be nice to limit them and it would be beneficial to women to understand better what is happening when a baby is aborted. Planned Parenthood would call it "products of conception" or "pregnancy tissue". They don't call it "pregnancy tissue" when it pops out screaming and wiggling. "Products of conception" ARE babies.
I am not condemning women who choose abortion. I think only God can do that. However, I praise women who have the courage to deliver a baby that wasn't planned and place it in the arms of another woman who may have fertility issues. That is a gift few people can give -- the gift of life. I think that's a much more healthy (physically, emotionally, and medically) way to handle an unplanned pregnancy. Just because a baby is a surprise doesn't mean the child isn't a blessing. Please consider all this when you vote in this November's Presidential election. There are hundreds of thousands of souls counting on you.
2 comments:
I think more people would receive the Right to Life Movement's message if this were their primary issue. After all, the message of: "Give someone else the greatest gift you can give! The miracle of life!" sounds a bit more warm and welcoming than, "God is gonna roast your ass if you have an abortion!!!11!!"
Of the dozens of developed nations of the world, only one (Ireland) has severely restricted abortions, so it's unlikely we'll ever achieve a ban here given demographic trends.
So I think they should shoot for a more modest goal. Most people don't actually realize that the United States is experiencing negative fertility. If it weren't for immigration, we wouldn't even be able to replace our numbers. I think the Right to Life Movement should be something more like the "Promote Life" movement. It's such a big movement as it is I imagine they would have no trouble moving legislation that would provide incentives to women not to have abortions so that other citizens can adopt their child. It would even be good for the economy.
Thanks for sharing this post! I like this post
http://carinasueburns.com
Post a Comment