A woman who becomes pregnant and who does not want to be pregnant has an unwanted pregnancy and, logically, an unwanted child. Without researching the precise statistics, if in fact they exist, let's assume that, if the option of abortion is not available, this unwanted pregnancy becomes over the nine-month period a "wanted" pregnancy/child by the mother in 50 percent of the time or 60 percent or 70 percent. The remaining percentage of pregnancies, it seems logical, would result in an unwanted child.
Why is it unwanted? The mother is too young, the provider of the sperm is too young and thus leaves her, she is undereducated, has emotional-mental difficulties, has substance abuse issues or criminal tendencies and, perhaps, she just doesn't want the responsibility of a child at that time in her life.
She has two options at that point. Give the child up for adoption or attempt to raise the child herself, under the circumstances and misgivings she had when she got pregnant.
So, let's say one half of these "unwanted" pregnancies/children are given up for adoption, leaving whatever percentage remains with the mother (and yes, perhaps a father) who, despite her knowledge and her misgivings, attempts to raise the child herself. She may or may not succeed. If she does, let's all celebrate! If she doesn't, it's reasonable to assume the child may be ultimately placed into the state's custody, whether in foster care or a group home.
My question to all of you pro-life supporters is twofold: Are you actively seeking to adopt a child? And this doesn't include necessarily the cute little infant but the older child who has been tossed from foster home to foster home. Or, are you a licensed foster home provider?
You may argue that you are too old, or not willing to assume the responsibility of another child, or not financially able to afford to adopt, or afraid of the hard work in accepting an older foster child who carries with him/her psychological baggage.
Whatever your argument, I don't care! Does your preaching about the sanctity of all life, most especially that of the unborn fetus, stop when the child is born? If you succeed in your hope to eliminate safe abortions for women, and you refuse to accept responsibility for all children, then your argument is reduced to nothing more than religious blather, void of substance.
All children should be wanted and if you argue that all children must be born, then be responsible for them! Adopt them! Be a foster parent! And not just for the cutesy infant. Is a teenager less in need? Less sacred?
Yes, this is an extreme outlook. So is yours. This is the ultimate "put your money where your mouth is" argument, except it ups the ante so very much to "put your life where your mouth is." To do less makes your "pro-life" stance so very uncaring and socially irresponsible.
The final argument would be that the girl/woman and the boy/man should not have had sexual relations in the first place and/or that they should be responsible for their actions.
The fairy tale world of sexless relationships simply does not exist, sorry. Being responsible for your actions is quite valid, one in which I'm in agreement with! Given, however the percentage of girls/women (and notice it's usually them alone) who do try to take responsibility and who, for reasons they were aware of before the pregnancy, fail, where does that leave the child? In foster homes or available for adoption.
I believe we've come full circle, have we not? Put your life where your mouth is or let women of any age for any reason, continue to have access to safe and legal abortions.
Peninsula Clarion ©2013. All Rights Reserved.