[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: The Problem of Adoption: Why Abortion Is A Necessary Evil In American Society Abortion is the quintessential wedge issue of our times. It is an issue of faith and privacy, cutting to the core of our personal lives and touching, in the act of choice, each and every American. To those most vociferously opposed to it, the legal practice of abortion represents no less than an ongoing genocide within the United States while those who defend the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade see the issue as one framed in terms of personal liberty in the face of theocratic state encroachment. The ethical, legal, and moral whys and wherefores have been argued nearly to death and it is not the intent of this article to focus upon them. Rather, as the issue of abortion once again rears its head in the election of 2010, it is long since time for Americans to take a step back and assess the debate in the cold light of day. Beyond the question of where humanity and person-hood beings, what does abortion or an end to abortion mean to our society? What would an America without abortion look like and is that a country in which today's pro- life crusaders would really like to live? The newest data the US Census has on abortion dates to 2005. In that year, the Census reports that there were approximatively 1,206,000 abortions performed in the United States. Of these, some 415,000 were performed on white women. The remaining 791,000 were preformed on minorities with more than half of the patients falling into the Black/African-American category. Those racial demographics are significant. Anti-abortion advocates often use them to paint the issue as a genocide against African Americans as black women are far more likely to get an abortion than women of any other ethnicity. Again, according to Census data from 2005, approximatively 49.3 black women in every thousand will undergo an abortion as opposed to 13.6 per thousand white women and 19.4 per thousand of all women. Moreover, women seeking abortive services are more likely to be poor and young. The pro-life Center for Bio-Ethical Reform posits that just 13.8% of abortions occur in families with more than $60,000 of income and more than twice that percentage occur in families below $15,000 of income. Further, the Census notes that nearly half of all abortions are preformed on women under the age of 25. Overwhelmingly then, a world without abortion in one in which a large number of young, poor, minority women are giving birth. Pro-life groups will argue, perhaps correctly, that each aborted fetus is a potential Mozart, Einstein, Da Vinci, or Lincoln consigned to a medical waste incinerator and yet the hard reality is that, while that might well be the case, eighteen or more long years stretch between birth and whatever alleged greatness was to await "the unborn." Certainly should abortion become illegal, some women will find extra-legal means of getting them. Some will choose participate in a medical black-market while others, particularly the wealthy 13.8% whose household income exceeds $60,000 will travel over-seas. Prior to Roe, such medical vacations were not an uncommon solution for middle and upper-class girls who found themselves "in trouble" but that still leaves the 86.2% who can not afford jet-set around this theoretical change in US law. What happens to them? Provided they follow the law they will likely give birth and put the child up for adoption. On the surface, this something of an ideal solution and the sort of Utopian vision the pro-life movement often advances when the prospect of a nation without abortion is raised. Adoption, it is argued, is the alternative to abortion. Except it isn't. Certainly any mother may put her child up for adoption and, yes, as the pro-life lobby reminds us, there is a long backlog of adoptive parents sitting on the edge of their proverbial seats hoping for a call from an adoption agency. Unfortunately, the vast and overwhelming majority of those would-be parents are white and they are hoping for a call about a healthy, white, baby. By way of example, consider Commonwealth Catholic Charities. CCC is the only infant adoption provider in South Western Virginia. Like many adoption agencies it offers placement services for children of various ages and backgrounds but for the purposes of infant adoption, Commonwealth Catholic Charities provides two "pools" for prospective adoptive parents. Both pools require parents to pass extensive background checks, complete lengthy surveys, provide numerous letters of recommendation, and fork over thousands upon thousands of dollars to both the state and the charity. One of these pools is nearly empty of applicants, however, and one of them has a multi-year waiting list before a couple is even eligible for consideration. The difference is race. Couples adopting from the "Black Pool" enter consideration for a child immediately upon completing the application process. Couples in the "White Pool" may see years go by before their file is placed before a birth mother. This is not because black children are more commonly put up for adoption. The US Census indicates that, as of 2000, there were 254,161 adopted black children in the United States as opposed to 1,017,666 adopted white children. The existing US adoption system has such significant difficulty finding placement for black infants that agencies like Commonwealth Catholic Charities are literally advertising for couples willing to adopt black infants. Even if we were to assume that the backlog of parents wishing to adopt white and non- African-American children is so great as to fully absorb the addition of 800,000 infants, the remaining 400,000 African American infants would still require placement that, under the current US adoption system, simply does not exist. To put that number in perspective, those 400,000 infants represent nearly twice the number of all adopted African American children aged 0-18 in the country today. That's 386,000 more African American children than were adopted in an average year prior to 2000. Over the course of 18 years that number swells to nearly 7 million, more than the populations of Los Angeles and Chicago combined. Each of those nearly 7 million souls would be totally and completely without any means of self or parental support, dependent entirely upon the state for every aspect of their daily care. Today, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, there are 463,000 children in foster care in the United States. It is likely safe to assume that raising that number by 14-fold would crush the system. Indeed, with such a population, the existing foster care system becomes entirely unfeasible at any funding level. Not only are there simply not enough foster families willing to take in the millions of children in question, but the expense of providing care demands management through economies of scale. Orphanages, almost unheard of in modern day America, are the only really viable means of providing stability and care to such a large population of children. To the fervent pro-lifer, even this Dickensonian Distopian is preferable to the perceived execution of millions of the unborn. Given the choice between death and a life, however difficult, there is really little debate to be had. Yet for those less dogmatic millions whose position on the issue of abortion is less entrenched, the difference between the rosy fantasy of mass adoption and the hard reality is one worth considering, particularly in light of the attitudes many pro-life candidates hold towards the very social programs their ideologies would strain to the breaking point. The ethics and morality of abortion itself may well be up for debate in this election season but, as with most political issues, there is a great deal of complexity beyond the bumper-sticker wisdom typically dispensed by politicians. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: mel (#0)
Adults that promote population control and don't commit suicide are hypocrites, imho.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|