I'm not sure, but do they have to change their belief if they don’t adopt?

VERY good question!! I wish I had an answer, or at get least get a few on here!

I haven't but I'm only 18. I've always wanted to adopt though when I get older. I have 5 adopted cousins.

I just think it is interesting to see women with 5 kids, and advocate adoption or raise it yourself as the only options. Yet they never thought adoption as an option for themselves.

I'm pro-choice but I really want to adopt. Probably only one since I'm no Brangelina, but one is enough for me, especially if the child is special needs.

I think it would be interesting to see how many who preach adoption over abortion actually practice what they preach.

"..do they have to change their belief if they don't adopt?"

No, but it makes them appear hypocritical in many ways when they state this extreme concern for children and yet do nothing to help at least one of those children after it is born.

Or when they claim that women who abort are simply selfish and not wanting to put out the time to gestate and raise a child becuase it will change their lifestyle and yet the pro lifer also does not want to take the time to raise the child that does not have a home either.

I once asked a woman at the gate who was allways screaming "you can give it up for adoption" if she had adopted herself. She claimed her deep concern for the unborn came from the fact that she never was able to get pregnant. Her and her husband have a three bedroom house in a nice neighborhood of Wichita and good income and she does not work. She told me that she was too busy "saving babies" to adopt and raise one.

In other words it is easy to come out to the gate with her prolife friends for a couple hous aweek and yell at other women about how they should care about their unborn but when it comes to the post born the effort is just to much for her persoally to take on the responsibility.

In Kansas there are many many children that are waiting for homes that will never have them. There is no shortage of post born kids in need of parents. I also find it hypocritical that alot of these same prolifers that do not adopt themselves are the ones that are opposed to samesex couples that want to adopt doing so.

They want these kids to exist in theory but they do not want to do the actual grunt work it takes for these kids to grow up in a real home and then they want to prevent others who they do not approve of from giving these same kids a home. You can add on that many of the prolife camp are also hard line conservatives that fight any attempt at medical or social support by the government for these kids once they are born.

My husband and I would love to take in foster kids but have been told that becuae we are Pagan and becuase I work where I do that that is very unlikely we would meet the criteria. And here we have a farm with horses and other animals a good school near by and both of us love kids. (I guess we will just have to make do with the grannies on summer vacations).

It is easy to worship the preborn becuase it does not cost you anything personally that you are not willing to put out, but those darn postborn kids really do have actual needs that must be met and met for at least eighteen years plus they have their own personalities and can talk back and their primary goal in life is handing out brownie points for your concern. They can and will be critical and demanding and you can't just fold them up and put them in your car trunk like you can a fetus poster.

Not really hypocritical.. a lot of people have beliefs in different area. If a person doesn't believe in killing of polar bears in Alaska. They might donate to the cause but they wouldn't actually fly there and save all of them and bring them home. I would not find them to be hypocrtitical.

That doesn't make them hypocritical. Does it?

People can support what they believe in with out rescuing every child there is to be adopted by funding the organization.

I don't think adoption is a mandatory aspect of being prolife. Just like being prochoice doesn't mean you have to had have an abortion, or being progay means you have to ordain yourself and marry gay couples, or being pro mj means you have to buy mj.

No pro-liars adopt because they feel that a child is subhuman if it's not their biological loinfruit (a.k.a. "Adopted kids are too screwed up/are damaged goods"). Besides, they can't possibly preach their closed-minded values and fairy tales about God to someone else's mistake, can they? They probably also fear that, if they adopt and said child was the result of a woman being coaxed out of abortion, that child might grow up to be *gasp* pro-choice. Bad bad bad - the kid's gotta be brainwashed from the very start. A kid with any chance of having a mind of its own before getting into the clutches of a pro-liar would be of no use to said pro-liar because brainwashing may be unsuccessful or only partially successful.

Also, adopting would go against their belief system that only fetuses matter and any creature that is not living in a woman's uterus can go fornicate themselves with a rusted fork. And we can't have that.

But they aren't trying to take away other's rights? I would say it is a little hypocritical to have lots of children, and none are adopted, yet do not support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. I think you should practice what you preach, I understand if you are someone who believes that you take all the children G-d gives you but why cannot some of those kids be adopted.

LOL. Whaaaaaaaaat???

is this proof that there are kookoos on either side of the argument?

Cambion's statement that the concern for children ends a birth for most prolifers is correct.

Once born its every child for itself.

That is what is so hypocritical. The gushing concern (some are even willing to assasinate abortion providers) to have every zef come to term. Then the absolute lack of concern or responsibility for the zef once it is post born.

As for polar bears, Unlike fetuses they do not involve the negation of a womans rights to her own body or the forcing of a eighteen year long responsibility for caring for a post born child. In fact unlike adopting a child (which would in almost all cases improve its chances for survival and growth) removing the bears from their enviroment would in most cases cause them harm. The camparison is apples to oranges.

If you are insisting that something is born into the world then why do you not have to take responsibility for its welfare after it is born? Anything less is insisting that a woman lose her right to her own body for your beliefs, then have full responsibility for the welfare of the resulting child, while you go off on your merry way with no reprocussions.

If say you are one of those prolifers that think aborting a pregnancy so that a woman can finish school is selfish then should you not be willing to forgo school yourself to provide a home for the resulting child? It is you who wants the child born it is you who would take the choice out of the womans power and it is yuo who would make the choice for her. Would it not be selfish for you then to not take responsibility for the child?

I think what responsibility that is taken for the resulting child after it is born is what shows that the abortion debate is not about babies or zefs but about controlling women and punishment for women who choose to have sex.

that's right Birchie.. thanks!

I do not think it should be mandatory! I just wonder why it seems that a lot not all pro-life have many kids yet none are adopted?

Unless you are trying to control a persons life with a polar bear the anology is flawed.

Quite a few, actually. The ones I know adopt much more often than the prochoicers I know. Being prolife just seems to indicate a naturally charitable nature, and most of them are actively involved in many other causes and charities. But it's certainly not a prerequisite for being opposed to the mindless, elective slaughter of innocent babies, any more than it's a prerequisite for being a prochoicer that you favor infanticide.

"Being prolife just seems to indicate a naturally charitable nature,..."

And who said yodavader did not have a sense of humor???

Just idle curiosity, how many children did you adopt yoda?? Any foster kids?

Pro-life does not mean you can't have a belief without adopting children.