[Fundies are now blaming the lack of newborns for adoption on abortion.]
Legalized Abortion Drives Down Adoption Rates
Adoption rates in the U.S. have plummeted since abortion became legal in 1973, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
A recent CDC report shows that before 1973, nearly 9 percent of babies born to never-married women were placed for adoption. By 2002, that number had dropped to about 1 percent.
Chuck Johnson, vice president of the National Council for Adoption, said that creates a sad situation for the thousands of families waiting to adopt.
"Americans' attitudes about adoption have remained positive," he told Family News in Focus. "(Unfortunately) with that has come a decrease in the number of women considering adoption.”
43 comments
There's no shortage of babies needing adoption. There's a shortage of desirable babies needing adoption -- and of people wanting to adopt the kids who need special care, or who are already out of infancy, or who are just a different color from them.
I'm sorry, but I read those statistics otherwise. What I read is that, before abortion, a very low percentage of women gave up the NEWBORN babies for adoption and that, 35 years afterwards, that number is even lower.
The last I heard (and it wasn't long ago), there were thousands of kids aging out of the foster care program each year in America alone. They might not have the ivory white skin, blue eyes and blond hair these assholes demand, but there are still many, many children who need homes and families and aren't getting them. Too bad they're just a little too dark to deserve the homes of people who come up with shit like this.
The problem is that people want to adopt *babies that look like them.* They don't want a disabled kid, they don't want a troubled child, they don't want someone who's already been toilet-trained, and they don't want it to be painfully obvious that it isn't their natural child.
In other words, they're more worried about extra work and what other people will think, then about actually bringing a child into their lives.
Interesting... seems the numbers feel dramatically amongst white women from 1970 to 75... but was relatively static for coloureds.
Also interesting... the numbers of children up for adoption has remained almost static from 1970 to present.
Very interesting... Children who reach Adulthood without being adopted out of the system, leave the system and are no longer counted as awaiting adoption.
Most interesting... the number has stayed about level, while the percentage has fallen in line with population growth.
Shortage? What fucking shortage?
@David D.G.:
I don't get that mindset of "if they're not good they don't get adopted".
In the 50s and 60s, girls get "sick" or "went away" to live in group homes often run by sadistic religious nuts. When their babies were born, they were taken away because the girls' parents consented and/or forced them to give the baby up. This caused serious problems for the mothers, and often for the children who were not told they were adopted but inevitably found out.
Gee, I'm so sad that's not happening anymore.
We need to sputter out MORE children to be adopted? That's some interesting spin...I honestly don't think that there is a deficit of available children for adoption and a surplus of potential adopters. But, then again, I don't live in optimistic eternal sunshine fairy land, like certain other people...
Wouldn't the fact that it's easier for single mothers to raise their own children these days also be a factor?
(I know, that's awful, too.)
"Chuck Johnson, vice president of the National Council for Adoption, said that creates a sad situation for the thousands of families waiting to adopt. "
Strangely enough, there is another sad situation of thousands of children waiting to be adopted. You're talking out of your ass Chuckie.
@David D.G.: QED. The racist, classist, ableist, and selfish undertones of this fundie whining cannot be ignored.
Typical fundie bullshit of twisting evidence to fit their preconceived conclusions. Your stat of 9% vs 1% is soooo misleading that it isnt even funny. This has nothing to do with the number of embryo's being aborted. You are talking about babies that have actually been born you asshat.
The interesting thing is that a more logical fundie could have suggested that less babies are available for adoption because the norms in society have gotten more permissive. Now single women do not run and hide in shame if they get pregnant before they are married then basically sell their children so that they don't embarass the church community.
Also, you are a fucking idiot.
They do realize if there's been a drop in adoption percentage of the babies BORN they're talking about babies that were, well, BORN and therefore not aborted, right?
Because I'm sure there's a huge queue of people waiting to adopt babies, but not enough babies...
Maybe they're waiting for white ones or something.
So... If the stats were correct, UF is actually in support of premarital sex, because if there was no premarital sex, there would be no need for "contraceptive" abortions, and almost no children available for adoption, which is an even worse scenario than what's bemoaned of in the article. So, all you never-married women out there, keep on popping out those unwanted (by you) babies to keep the adoption industry humming! Just remember, abortion is bad, and premarital sex is bad, but mitigated slightly if you suffer the nine months of punishment- er, allow the blessings of new life to proceed, then fob it off into the system.
Interesting demonstration of a lack of mathematical skills.
The supposed figures say that pre-1973 nearly 9 percent of babies BORN to unmarried women were put up for adoption. By 2002 the number of babies BORN to unmarried women put up for adoption had dropped to 1%.
What the fuck does that have to do with abortion?
WTF? Don't you think that the decrease may be due to I don't know, contraception!
From wikipedia: Although the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive in 1960, contraceptives were not available to married women in all states until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and were not available to unmarried women in all states until Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972.
This article reads like they want poor, unmarried girls to go around making babies for the rich couples who want to adopt. Like some kind of sick supply and demand baby business.
@funnyguts: Possibly, but that is a fail based on these numbers. The figures are based on babies being born and put up for adoption, not the overall numbers put up for adoption.
The real reason is that single women are under a lot less pressure from society to pass their baby up for adoption.
Abortion is the bit before the baby is born and, generally reduces the numbers of births rather than the numbers born and placed for adoption :-)
Hi, I'm a Clue. Have we met? Nope, because you are totally missing the reasons newborns for adoption are down. Abortion is just a small reason.
Mothers keeping the babies, or their own families taking the babies. Better birth control stops unwanted pregnancies too.
David D.G. got it in one.
It's Focus on the Family, though, and this doesn't much surprise me. We need more quotes from them. This is pretty substandard, as far as helpings of insanity go.
Hey jackass! Adoption is a traumatic experience for a woman, and something I don't wish upon anyone. For some women, it is the best option, compared to parenthood and abortion, but, overall, they'd rather not have gotten pregnant in the first place than place a child for adoption.
Years ago, it was an even worse option, as it was by force.
If you even pretended to care about women and children, you'd support a lower rate of adoption as a sign that more children were born to people willing and able to raise them and no one was forced to surrender her child.
Adoptive parents aren't bad people. But adopting a child, that child is a gift intrusted to the parents, not a right. It is for the child's benefit that adoption exists, not for the APs, or even, really, for the birth parents.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
