The Christian fight against abortion is not simply a fight for the life of a baby. It must also include a fight for the souls of the mothers who abort those babies. Anything less is unacceptable, and we will answer to God for our failure to do so. That is why we must do the hard work of not merely speaking out against abortion but compassionately caring for those who get abortions, even in the midst of their sinfulness. After all, that is what Jesus did when He died for us while we were still in our sins.
You mention these as reasons given for why women have abortions.
You fail to mention rampant sexual immorality.
Fair enough, I understand why.
But when you consider that fornication sometimes is a coping mechanism for the issues used as excuses for abortion, (besides the lust of the flesh), it really seems hopeless.
You and Joe both are right. And we cannot give up reaching out with the gospel which shows grace yet also uses the law to make people aware of their sin.
But the following verses tell me the issues you point out and the one I did - rampant immorality, which is not even on the table for discussion - are so systemic in our society, that neither political solutions will work and neither will (rightly) condemning people. Society is calloused and has no conscience.
We have been given over...
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:28, NASB)
I wonder how many young couples every year discover they cannot have children? I know a couple who could not have children and they adopted six themselves. The sad part about this, is many young couples who cannot conceive, but want a newborn baby. There aren't enough newborns up for adoption for everyone who wants a baby. What happens? They either go overseas to adopt a baby, or they adopt older children who have many psychological issues due to having been abused in foster care system, or by their own biological family member(s).
To frame your argument the way you have - "Are there 547000 Republicans who want to adopt a baby?" - is disingenuous at best. Who says they can only adopt one child? Maybe they want four or five kids. Why do you assume only Republicans adopt? I bet if you took a survey, Democrats adopt on occasion as well. This is a terrible article skewed with bias.
It is interesting you called me bias when I stated facts in my article, but you only offered conjecture. As I said in my article, I prefer to look at facts so let’s see if we can fill in the gaps you did not check before commenting. But first I want to address this question.
“Why do you assume only Republicans adopt?”
I don’t. It is we who are republican that are pushing for an abortion ban, not the democrats. That is why I posed the question to republicans. Also, it was a rhetorical question, which you and Joe used to avoid the actual reason for my note, which was what are we going to do to help these women who have very real needs and keep the influx of babies put up for adoption at a manageable amount?
“There aren't enough newborns up for adoption for everyone who wants a baby”
You are correct, there are only 4% of children in the foster care system that are under 1 year old. That means 354,296 are older children.
Approximately 117,000 kids are waiting for adoption in the US. Statistically speaking, around 73,591 of those will wait 2-5 years in the system with 8,190 being 5 or more years and 20% of all kids who go into foster care stay until they age out.
Why is that?
In your words, people prefer to adopt babies because older children have “many psychological issues due to having been abused in foster care system, or by their own biological family member”. Are these children not worthy of adoption? What if these couples who are waiting for a baby to adopt miraculously have a baby naturally and it came out with mental illness, would they abandon it to the foster care system?
The inconvenient truth of why so many can’t adopt is not because there aren’t enough babies, but that they don’t want to adopt older children that might take more work to raise.
Throughout the Bible we see God’s care and comfort for those struggling with psychological issues; from David with his constant battle with depression in the Psalms and the promise that “God is near the brokenhearted and save those who are crushed in spirit, to Jesus healing those who are mentally ill. As Christians we are called to be like Christ and therefore adopting a child who is mentally ill, is a form of Christlikeness.
I am not faulting these people who choose not to adopt the mentally ill child because caring for a mentally ill child is very difficult and not everyone can do so. I am simply pointing out the truth behind the reasoning is not because there aren’t enough babies but that there aren’t enough that meet their criteria.
“Who says they can only adopt one child? Maybe they want four or five kids”
The annual income needed for a 2-person household in 2024 was $76,474 just to break even. When you factor in the cost of raising a child, which is $7,572 annually a 2-person family must increase their income to $84,036 to have a child. However, only 50% of American households make over $75,000 annually which drastically reduces those who can afford to adopt a child.
For the record, to adopt 5 kids as you implied, the income just to break even, must be $114,000 while only 15.5% of American households make over $100,000 annually. Keep in mind, these numbers are merely to break even and they would not have the money to pay adoption fees.
The cost for an adoption in the US ranges from $25,000 - $45,000 but in 2023 only 25% of American household had more than $25,000 in savings.
That means only 165,145,000 Americans can afford to adopt, but you must also look at who is disqualified or unlikely to adopt.
73,613,800 are under 18 (3 states require you to be over 21and 2 you to be over 25)
33,639,971 are ineligible due to poverty
12,900,000 are ineligible due to terminal lung cancer and heart disease (there are many more medical disqualifications not listed here).
16,000,000 are ineligible due to spousal abuse convictions.
-
688,799 are ineligible due to being sex offenders
Approximately 225,000 people have child abuse convictions, making them ineligible.
6,500,000 Americans are over 85 so we can assume most of them will not consider adopting.
Notice the 913k cases of abuse which will result in psychological issues meaning, as you said, most people will not want to adopt them.
That leaves us with 21,577,430 which looks like a big number until you consider the fact that only 2-4% of Americans adopt which if we use 4% means statistically only 863,097 people will consider adoption.
Now, as I said in my note, a full abortion ban will result in 537,000 babies being added to the system. In 2020 there were only 95,306 adoptions but adoptions have been declining since 2018 (The number of adoptions here is higher than quoted in my article because I was trying to be conservative and only used foster system adoptions, and not private adoptions. But let’s use the 95k number.
117,000 (waiting for adoption)
95,306 (adoptions annually)
21,694 (children rolled over to following year)
537,000 (added to system each year)
There are 2 million couples waiting to adopt a baby so the first three years all 537,000 babies will be adopted (imagine if 21k of them decided to adopt those mentally ill that stay in the system but I digress). However, after all the couples waiting for a baby have adopted, we will now have 558,694 babies in the system each year. This means it is highly likely that in 13 years we could have millions of kids stuck in the foster care system. As I said in my note, the foster system and orphanages will be overwhelmed.
Now it could be argued that the economy might improve allowing more couples to afford adoption, or that couples will decide to adopt older kids, women will begin practicing safe sex because abortion is not available, and some parents might adopt the babies born into their family (as of right now that figure is only 4,059), thereby raising the amount of adoptions.
However, it is an epic case of wishful thinking that we will go from 95k adoptions a year, to over 500k.
So, again I ask, what are we going to do to lower the number of babies put up for adoption? What are we going to do to help the 214,800 women who choose abortion not because they don’t want to do the hard work of parenting but because they live in poverty, to reach a place they can keep their baby?
I hope when you read this, you won’t let your bias keep you from seeing the facts. If you do and comment again, please do so with facts, not opinions.
Financial issues.
Abuse issues.
Drug addiction.
Mental illness.
You mention these as reasons given for why women have abortions.
You fail to mention rampant sexual immorality.
Fair enough, I understand why.
But when you consider that fornication sometimes is a coping mechanism for the issues used as excuses for abortion, (besides the lust of the flesh), it really seems hopeless.
You and Joe both are right. And we cannot give up reaching out with the gospel which shows grace yet also uses the law to make people aware of their sin.
But the following verses tell me the issues you point out and the one I did - rampant immorality, which is not even on the table for discussion - are so systemic in our society, that neither political solutions will work and neither will (rightly) condemning people. Society is calloused and has no conscience.
We have been given over...
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:28, NASB)
I wonder how many young couples every year discover they cannot have children? I know a couple who could not have children and they adopted six themselves. The sad part about this, is many young couples who cannot conceive, but want a newborn baby. There aren't enough newborns up for adoption for everyone who wants a baby. What happens? They either go overseas to adopt a baby, or they adopt older children who have many psychological issues due to having been abused in foster care system, or by their own biological family member(s).
To frame your argument the way you have - "Are there 547000 Republicans who want to adopt a baby?" - is disingenuous at best. Who says they can only adopt one child? Maybe they want four or five kids. Why do you assume only Republicans adopt? I bet if you took a survey, Democrats adopt on occasion as well. This is a terrible article skewed with bias.
You’re welcome. Have a great day.
Thanks for your comment.
It is interesting you called me bias when I stated facts in my article, but you only offered conjecture. As I said in my article, I prefer to look at facts so let’s see if we can fill in the gaps you did not check before commenting. But first I want to address this question.
“Why do you assume only Republicans adopt?”
I don’t. It is we who are republican that are pushing for an abortion ban, not the democrats. That is why I posed the question to republicans. Also, it was a rhetorical question, which you and Joe used to avoid the actual reason for my note, which was what are we going to do to help these women who have very real needs and keep the influx of babies put up for adoption at a manageable amount?
“There aren't enough newborns up for adoption for everyone who wants a baby”
You are correct, there are only 4% of children in the foster care system that are under 1 year old. That means 354,296 are older children.
Approximately 117,000 kids are waiting for adoption in the US. Statistically speaking, around 73,591 of those will wait 2-5 years in the system with 8,190 being 5 or more years and 20% of all kids who go into foster care stay until they age out.
Why is that?
In your words, people prefer to adopt babies because older children have “many psychological issues due to having been abused in foster care system, or by their own biological family member”. Are these children not worthy of adoption? What if these couples who are waiting for a baby to adopt miraculously have a baby naturally and it came out with mental illness, would they abandon it to the foster care system?
The inconvenient truth of why so many can’t adopt is not because there aren’t enough babies, but that they don’t want to adopt older children that might take more work to raise.
Throughout the Bible we see God’s care and comfort for those struggling with psychological issues; from David with his constant battle with depression in the Psalms and the promise that “God is near the brokenhearted and save those who are crushed in spirit, to Jesus healing those who are mentally ill. As Christians we are called to be like Christ and therefore adopting a child who is mentally ill, is a form of Christlikeness.
I am not faulting these people who choose not to adopt the mentally ill child because caring for a mentally ill child is very difficult and not everyone can do so. I am simply pointing out the truth behind the reasoning is not because there aren’t enough babies but that there aren’t enough that meet their criteria.
“Who says they can only adopt one child? Maybe they want four or five kids”
The annual income needed for a 2-person household in 2024 was $76,474 just to break even. When you factor in the cost of raising a child, which is $7,572 annually a 2-person family must increase their income to $84,036 to have a child. However, only 50% of American households make over $75,000 annually which drastically reduces those who can afford to adopt a child.
For the record, to adopt 5 kids as you implied, the income just to break even, must be $114,000 while only 15.5% of American households make over $100,000 annually. Keep in mind, these numbers are merely to break even and they would not have the money to pay adoption fees.
The cost for an adoption in the US ranges from $25,000 - $45,000 but in 2023 only 25% of American household had more than $25,000 in savings.
That means only 165,145,000 Americans can afford to adopt, but you must also look at who is disqualified or unlikely to adopt.
73,613,800 are under 18 (3 states require you to be over 21and 2 you to be over 25)
33,639,971 are ineligible due to poverty
12,900,000 are ineligible due to terminal lung cancer and heart disease (there are many more medical disqualifications not listed here).
16,000,000 are ineligible due to spousal abuse convictions.
-
688,799 are ineligible due to being sex offenders
Approximately 225,000 people have child abuse convictions, making them ineligible.
6,500,000 Americans are over 85 so we can assume most of them will not consider adopting.
Notice the 913k cases of abuse which will result in psychological issues meaning, as you said, most people will not want to adopt them.
That leaves us with 21,577,430 which looks like a big number until you consider the fact that only 2-4% of Americans adopt which if we use 4% means statistically only 863,097 people will consider adoption.
Now, as I said in my note, a full abortion ban will result in 537,000 babies being added to the system. In 2020 there were only 95,306 adoptions but adoptions have been declining since 2018 (The number of adoptions here is higher than quoted in my article because I was trying to be conservative and only used foster system adoptions, and not private adoptions. But let’s use the 95k number.
117,000 (waiting for adoption)
95,306 (adoptions annually)
21,694 (children rolled over to following year)
537,000 (added to system each year)
There are 2 million couples waiting to adopt a baby so the first three years all 537,000 babies will be adopted (imagine if 21k of them decided to adopt those mentally ill that stay in the system but I digress). However, after all the couples waiting for a baby have adopted, we will now have 558,694 babies in the system each year. This means it is highly likely that in 13 years we could have millions of kids stuck in the foster care system. As I said in my note, the foster system and orphanages will be overwhelmed.
Now it could be argued that the economy might improve allowing more couples to afford adoption, or that couples will decide to adopt older kids, women will begin practicing safe sex because abortion is not available, and some parents might adopt the babies born into their family (as of right now that figure is only 4,059), thereby raising the amount of adoptions.
However, it is an epic case of wishful thinking that we will go from 95k adoptions a year, to over 500k.
So, again I ask, what are we going to do to lower the number of babies put up for adoption? What are we going to do to help the 214,800 women who choose abortion not because they don’t want to do the hard work of parenting but because they live in poverty, to reach a place they can keep their baby?
I hope when you read this, you won’t let your bias keep you from seeing the facts. If you do and comment again, please do so with facts, not opinions.
Thanks.
Thank you, Lee Lumley. Taking you reply into consideration then, I hereby retract my original comment, and replace it with the following....
NO.