Abortion is a terrible thing, but a necessary evil at times. I just wish people would take more responsibility for themselves. But banning abortion again would be abysmal, much like the new sig rules, we don't need some inane overlording body doling out stupid, heavy handed rules to keep us in line. Just make good decisions.

And support cleavage.

There may be an increase in parents terminating babies on their own, but I would contest this number would be much fewer than the number of abortions that occur. If thats the case those that commit that offense should be tried in court and punished as a murderer. I think it would be much more difficult for a parent to have the will to intentionally kill their child, even though I know there are sick people out there that still do this today. people finding babies dumped in trash cans and such. Its rare, but it happens. Its easier for them to go into an abortion clinic and have it done, because they don't truly see the baby inside of them as a human baby. Most are told its just a clump of cells.

I will share something with you. There is a woman I know in her 40s now. When she was young she got preganant and aborted her first child. Then soon after she got pregnant again. She went and had that one aborted as well. Later that evening she became extremely ill and went back to a local hospital. The Doctor ran some tests and then came back to her and told her that she had a serious infection because there were body parts of the child left behind inside of her. After that she was no longer able to become pregnant. And she didn't think of it as a human baby until the doctor told her that news.

I'm not trying to tell you this as a sob story, but the problem is the human being inside the womb has become dehuminized and thats why abortion is allowed, because we try to say we are not taking a life. I see people saying on this thread, "Well if it does not have a fully developed brian or dosn't have a concious then terminating it is not murder." Honestly this makes no sense if we know that truly the life inside the mother that was made from the man's sperm and the woman's egg is now developing as a human being then why is it not criminal act to terminate that human being? A human being IS a person. The human being inside the mother's womb is a baby no matter what stage of development it is at. A man and a woman chose to have sex and knew it could result in a new person to come into this world. What gives them the right to terminate that individual's existence and deny them the right to life?

Here is the Issue at hand: What difference does it make if I were to kill a human being in the womb in the first few weeks of its development from a baby just born into the world? The human being in the womb is doing nothing to contribute to society. Likewise the newborn baby is doing nothing to contribute to society. The newborn baby left on its own would die. It has to have care. If the  human being in the womb was taken out it would die because it needs to develop in order to live outside the womb. Both are human. Both have done nothing to contribute to society yet. Why deny the human in the womb the right to live, but not the newborn baby?

Well people want babies. There is great demand for babies.

My concern is there just isn't enough people adopting children that aren't babies. Perhaps most orphans aren't up for adoption as babies?

That's a large part of it. Most children waiting for adoption, by a large margin were put into the system after reaching  1 year of age.  For people, having the whole expierence like you were a birth parent is important.

Another problem is race... White people tend to adopt a lot more then other races... however the government doesn't tend to want to adopt out other races to white parents, ironically due to pressure from civil rights groups who view it as "White people stealing a young black/hispanic" child's culture.

Or people worried about culture shock.

Both which are silly arguements when the other answer is 18 years of Fostercare.

There is a federal law against considering race, but it widely happens anyway.

Apparently this is even worse in the UK.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=18829

@Kasz. The adoption laws are being mended in the UK to fix that exact problem.

He's running for the house of representatives in ohio.

No Joke.

Yeah, I know, but the US has had a law like that for decades... so even with the law passed, don't expect it to change overnight.

That's government for you.

Also oddly, people are against the changes.

I think you can do that if you have both of them agree to make their policy of not getting anything done, except going to war and pushing things further to a police state and oppose themselves as policy, with their motto being "Our goal is to make ourselves fail, but you MUST vote for us, because you have no choice)?  They the support the use of courts, super committees with dictatorial power, and government agencies to make all the rulings and regulations, and switch over to no interest fiat currency to pay for everything and never tax anyone (just spend the money into existence).  And they continue to run opposed to Washington, while using earmarks to bring back pork to their districts.  

They can kick this off by the Democrats reaching out to the Republican Party and say they really want bipartisan support, so in an effort to say they are able to do, they would propose the new bipartisan effort be called The Can (as in "We can do it").  

There you go, combine both parties into The Can party.  The party that is both #1 and #2.

The people who made the law had their hearts in the right place  - they were afraid that children would have a confused cultural identity. The fact is that they got it well and truly wrong though.

They'd probably still win, because anyone who actually wants to do things differently would be portrayed in the media as scary and extremist.