Why don't Pro Life Republicans Adopt More Children?

Question

In 2004, there were close to 140,000 children of varying ages in the United States, awaiting adoption. About 50,000 of these children were Black. Republicans oppose abortion. Many of them oppose Birth Control. Yet these unwanted children need homes.

While these American kids waited for new parents, more than 200,000 foreign children were adopted by U.S. citizens. These children were mostly babies, because adoptive parents usually want infants. These statistics do not include the number of children in foster care, who are not adoptive, since their parents have not signed the necessary papers and the courts have not removed parental rights.

Republicans always use adoption as a choice for a woman who is pregnant and unable to care for her child. Yet this child, if given up for adoption, may spend his or her formative years in foster care, with no chance of adoption.

Why don't more Republicans live up to their Pro Life arguments and adopt more unwanted children?

Answer 1

I am very strongly pro-life, and the only reason I am planning on becoming Independent instead of Republican is because I don't like how divided everyone is over parties.  I plan to adopt children when I am older.  I am not against birth-control;  I do not plan on using it, but I don't care if other people use it.  

Also, my aunt and uncle tried to adopt a child here, but after waiting years for a child, they adopted one from Russia.

Why do you automatically assume that every child up for adoption is unwanted?  Is it impossible for a poor woman to get pregnant, not be able to afford to keep her child, and put it up for adoption?

Answer 2

Why single out the Republicans over this issue?

How many Democrats have adopted children?

How many Liberty Party members have adopted children?

Isn't it the children in need of help.

How many have YOU adopted????

Answer 3

Because they would end up paying more than they would receive in tax breaks.

Answer 4

I am a Pro Choice Conservative, Registered as a Republican.

  

This is something my wife have both asked at different times.  Our motto on this has been that abortion should be unnecessary, not illegal.

We had talked about adopting a child, then discovered that both of our children are autistic.  As we discovered the amount of extra work autism demands, along with the regular stuff that any decent parent does, we decided against adoption.  For now at least.  I can tell you that if we do adopt a child in the future.  The child will be from the USA and I don't much care what the child looks like.  We both served in the Army and learned that skin color has nothing to do with someone being a decent person or a dirt ball.

    So I, as a registered republican, agree whole heatedly with you.  If you're telling a woman that she cannot abort a child, then you should be willing to take responsibility for that child.  If you aren't, you're working with flawed logic.

      With all that said, let us not forget that there are no accidental pregnancies.  There are unwanted pregnancies, unwanted for many reasons.  I cannot imagine the strength of character a woman would need to bear a child who was the product of a rape.  I don't call that accidental because a guy doesn't rape someone by accident.

    Well, there you have, yes those people are hypocrites.

Answer 5

Why won't liberals stop the s*x education that promotes s*x that gives us all these unwanted children in the first place? Why won't they take responsibility for their own actions? You want to have s*x whenever you want and you want to legalize drugs. But you won't do anything about the consequences? Then you blame the other side because we try to help you with your mistakes. Don't give me the rape and incest sob story either. If schools would promote a faith based education this country used to have the culture will change and the rape and the incest ends because you gave them alternatives to the broken homes.

Answer 6

First off, Pro Life is a Republican issue only because the overwhelming majority of the money holders in that party are pro-life.  Every republican that I have ever met, both church goers and non-church goers sit on both sides of that fence.  I think the actual statistics are 50-60% of voting Republicans are pro-choice.  Even Barbara Bush is Pro-Choice.

Secondly, every pro-life person I have ever met, support adoption, and offers to adopt womens babies when they are in "crisis" (meaning considering abortion).

Third, I've never seen one of these pro-life individuals only want to adopt a healthy white kid.  In every instance of adoption, these parents have offered to take "first available".  And as a result, I have seen some very diverse and loving families.

Now, if you want to make this into Red vs. Blue state thing (which I do NOT believe in).  Why do the Blue states still have kids in foster care???  Why aren't the democrats electing to have more taxes go to support families who want to adopt?

The situation is not as political as you are making it.  It's about what families are capable and willing to do.  If it means so much to you, I hope you are adopting the "first available" children out there.  Far too many families are more concerned with the child looking like them and that is the real crisis.

Answer 7

First, some context:

1- I had a horrible experience with adopted siblings

2- I am Republican

3- I am Pro-choice

If people wouldn't have so much wild, unprotected s*x, there wouldn't be this baby surplus. Pro-Lifers don't want OTHER peoples kids. They want other people to stop having so many they can't support.

If you can't support the kid, don't get knocked up. Pretty d**n simple.

Answer 8

Its not only "pro life republicans" that are adopting.  ITs all people who are driven to adopt or can't have children.  

The reason why its not more common is because it is THOUSANDS of dollars to adopt. And the process for adoption is LONG and tedious!

I strongly feel adoption needs to be quicker, and less expensive.  However, I also feel, adoption or not, people should be screened before they are allowed to be parents. There are alot of people who have given up on an adoption due to the long grueling process.

As to the foriegn aspect... If you would look at the circumstances at the Foriegn orphanages vs the american ones.. the children in foriegn orphanages are more likely to be abused, underfed, and treated like "workers" and animals.

Frankly, the children in foriegn orphanages are more urgent cases than here. Children in african orphanages are more likely to die from starvation than children in american ones.

Think twice before you put all pro life republicans in the same boat.. I am not opposed to birth control.. matter of fact.. I think many people should be mandated to take it.

Answer 9

Please give me the statistics on Pro-Life Democrats vs Pro-Life Republicans who adopt American children.

The United States legal system has created a quagmire for those who want to adopt American-born children. Legal fees are exhorbitant, and background checks are lengthy--sometimes taking five years.

China, Viet Nam, Columbia, Africa, and many other countries have hundreds of thousands of children available for adoption; and, for $20,000 dollars and very little "red tape" are amenable to placing these "at risk" children up for adoption.

Until the U.S. Department of Human Services is willing to admit that many children in the United States are "at risk", and make adoption of U.S. children easier, foreign adoptions will only increase.

Answer 10

We should look to the "root" of the problem. We have a plethora of "unwanted children," and not enough responsible parents, couples, and people who engage in "one night stands."

Children do not have the choice of being born. The question should be steered to those who conceive a child and do not exercise responsibility.

Answer 11

I am pro-life and a republican, but I can't adopt 140,000 kids. In fact because of the cost of adoption I can't adopt even 1. For one reason,it costs around $10,000 to adopt. Some of my friends have been told they are too old to adopt an infant so they adopted older children. I wouldn't care what color the child was either. I have friends who have adopted children of all races-black, mexican, and asian. None of them got a blue eyed blond haired white child. It's neat to see the love they have for their children even though they don't look a thing like them. I have a friend and a cousin who had to adopt children out of the country because they couldn't get approved to adopt children here.(I don't know why). I wish that every child in the world could have a loving mother and father who loves them, but that isn't the case. I wish every person that had s*x was ready to live up to the possibility of a pregnacy but that isn't the case. If you aren't prepared to have a child either use birth control or don't have s*x. Also I don't know if you were implying that the reason those 50,000 kids aren't adopted is because they are black. I am not prejudiced. I know people can be prejudiced, but I don't think you can lump them into one (political or other) group.

Answer 12

GREAT question.

Answer 13

i have no clue

Answer 14

Pro-life republicans are scary people, I am glad they don't adopt children, they would probably treat them horribly.

BUT I get what you are saying, the irony of them being pro-life while not seeming to give a rat's *** about the living.

eta:  The prolife stance is written into the Republican platform  if you are Republican you are voting for the prolife agenda no matter what your personal stance is

Answer 15

that is odd thinking because if the mother used adoption as an alternative to abortion she would do it immediately after birth not when the kid is 2.

Answer 16

Uuuummmmmm, let's see:

A) the adoption would cost them more than they'd get back

B) they would have to spend money on something other than the GOP

C) it might cause them to have to give up ever being a member of "Billionaires for Bush"

D) the research required for investigation into the child's parents backgrounds(making sure there was no blood other than lily-white blood in their families), well, it would again cost them more than they would get back on tax returns, and, keep them out of the "Billionaires for Bush" club

E) because the child would not have their genes, they would fear that the child might just grow up with straight teeth(no dental tax breaks) and perfectly straight hair(without a daily visit to the salon)(another tax break down the tubes)

F) they fear that the adopted child might not have the mental capacity to conform(in other words, the child might actually think for themselves), which would scare the h**l out of them

G) oh, G stands for government, it would strike fear into their hearts to think that at sometime in the future, that child might want to find out who their real parents were, and eventually become a Democrat

H) the child could grow up to be President(coming from a rich background), only to empower the poor or middle-class with a chance for a better livelihood along with tax reform

I) the real matter of crisis for these Republicans, as this child came of age, it would want a Mercedes I class vehicle, once again relagating the parents out of the "Billionaire for Bush" club, and ending their tax breaks forever

Answer 17

yeah good question

Answer 18

Possibly because adoption in the U.S. is difficult, there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through. Not to mention the fact that there are many fees to pay. I was surprised however that you inferred that republicans aren't adopting yet you posted no facts as to how many republicans adopt in a given year, wouldn't it be funny if you were able to see how many of the people who adopted U.S. children were republican, and it turned out that the majority of them were?  Also you stated that 50,000 of those waiting children were of African American descent which seems to have nothing to do with the rate of adoption. Were you trying to infer that republicans are racist?  Also, have you checked into how many foster parents are republicans? Perhaps they are supporting their views that way. I think its unfair to imply that republicans have to adopt in order to support their beliefs, that would be like telling a democrat that if they support pro-choice and abortion they themselves should be out performing the abortions. Now that wouldn't be very logical would it..............................

Answer 19

The phrase "unwanted children" shouldn't be a term we even have to utter. I guess the real solution is responsibility.

Answer 20

Not all pro-lifers are republican...I'm prolife and I have never voted republican.

Answer 21

When a woman gives up a newborn these days, it definitely does NOT languish in foster care.

And adoption has nothing to do with abortion. That's a myth propagated by the pro-life republicans. There are two choices during an unplanned pregnancy: 1. abort or stay pregnant; THEN, later, 2. parent or relinquish for adoption.

The flip side of adoption isn't abortion; the flip side is PARENTING.

Now, some women do abort because they feel they can't have a child at that time. So, if Republicans really want to reduce abortions, they OUGHT to be encouraging care and support of the moms who get pregnant. But no, they just focus on the babies, and the moms can go to h**l. So they propose adoption as a solution. Ha.

More people adopting won't reduce abortions.

Adequate health care, affordable education and housing, and proper support stands a much better chance of reducing abortions.

Answer 22

While I appreciate your argument, if you are going to present one, at least present the right numbers.  Foreign adoption amounts to 22,000 children annually, not 200,000.  These adoptions also include family adoptions (i.e. naturalized or resident American adopting relative's infant).

Answer 23

Because they don't like colored children.  Only if the child has blue eyes and is whiter than a sheet, will they adopt them.