Ok, here's a question. In the last forty years, the pro-life conservatives have failed to save a single child from abortion, because all they do is fight against Roe v Wade. Why haven't they sought to put measures in place that would incentivize having a child? I'm not saying make it possible to get rich off of having children, but if it were possible to compensate a would be mother for the medical costs, and for the loss of the child. Have a waiting period after birth. Make sure that these women, and even young girls have a chance to do something about the situation and how they'll really feel.
There are thousands of couples out there that would love the chance to adopt a child, so why aren't there programs in place to encourage placing a child up for adoption instead of having an abortion. Yeah, there are religious nonprofit organizations out there that try to steer women away from abortion, but how many more mothers would be willing to have their child if not only would they not be burdened with medical costs, but for the extra effort going into having a child they were paid. Not too much, just a few grand to incetivize having the child. And the post-partum waiting period would be substantial enough that a woman would be able to know she didn't want to keep a child, but not so much that the waiting adoptive parents would be strained to start raising a child that's already matured a fair amount, say three to six months.
I'm not talking about slavery, I'm talking about incentives to steer the women who would have an abortion away from it. I don't think there's a woman out there who would have an abortion if for the nine months of discomfort, plus the pain of labor, they were compensated some.
The other side of the coin is why aren't there more programs to make viable birth control methods available to women who would be unable to raise a child. What, the religious right wants to dictate that for religious reasons someone has to be burdened with such a horrible choice? In Genesis, Onan the son of Judah was struck down for failing to obey God's and his father's command to raise up a child for his slain, childless brother. Not because he practiced coitus interruptus and spilled his sperm on the ground. Birth control isn't a sin for those who need to withhold having a child because they can't properly raise and support him or her. As for the theology of sex outside of marriage, that is a sin according to many religions, but that has minimal place in a free society.
Those that would dictate laws based upon religion are nothing more than tyrants and despots, and have no place in a democratic society. If you want to raise your children to believe it's a sin to have sex outside marriage, that's your prerogative, but it's up to you to teach them, and be honest with them. Trying to dictate to others how to live rubs against the grain of God's will for us, that we should be free to follow Him of our own accord. If God did not mean for us to have free choice, he wouldn't have given man a choice to begin with.
There are thousands of couples out there that would love the chance to adopt a child, so why aren't there programs in place to encourage placing a child up for adoption instead of having an abortion. Yeah, there are religious nonprofit organizations out there that try to steer women away from abortion, but how many more mothers would be willing to have their child if not only would they not be burdened with medical costs, but for the extra effort going into having a child they were paid. Not too much, just a few grand to incetivize having the child. And the post-partum waiting period would be substantial enough that a woman would be able to know she didn't want to keep a child, but not so much that the waiting adoptive parents would be strained to start raising a child that's already matured a fair amount, say three to six months.
I'm not talking about slavery, I'm talking about incentives to steer the women who would have an abortion away from it. I don't think there's a woman out there who would have an abortion if for the nine months of discomfort, plus the pain of labor, they were compensated some.
The other side of the coin is why aren't there more programs to make viable birth control methods available to women who would be unable to raise a child. What, the religious right wants to dictate that for religious reasons someone has to be burdened with such a horrible choice? In Genesis, Onan the son of Judah was struck down for failing to obey God's and his father's command to raise up a child for his slain, childless brother. Not because he practiced coitus interruptus and spilled his sperm on the ground. Birth control isn't a sin for those who need to withhold having a child because they can't properly raise and support him or her. As for the theology of sex outside of marriage, that is a sin according to many religions, but that has minimal place in a free society.
Those that would dictate laws based upon religion are nothing more than tyrants and despots, and have no place in a democratic society. If you want to raise your children to believe it's a sin to have sex outside marriage, that's your prerogative, but it's up to you to teach them, and be honest with them. Trying to dictate to others how to live rubs against the grain of God's will for us, that we should be free to follow Him of our own accord. If God did not mean for us to have free choice, he wouldn't have given man a choice to begin with.
So true, I can find a place right here in my town to have an abortion, BUT I haven't the slightest clue where to begin had I wanted to put my children up for adoption.
ReplyDelete