Archive for Thursday, December 15, 2005

Social cost

December 15, 2005


To the editor:

Of course Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will reverse Roe v. Wade. To pretend otherwise is an insult to our intelligence. It's been his goal for years. Maybe we need another generation of unwanted children to teach again why we allowed abortion in the first place.

I don't see any of the anti-abortion crowd lining up to provide birth control to deter unwanted children, adoption services, pre- or post-natal health care, day care, good schools for low-income single moms, or mental health services for the children or the parents who were victims of rape or incest. They are not discussing creating good jobs for the single moms who must raise them or any real social programs to provide support for them.

However, when they grow up and do what unwanted, unhealthy (read up on fetal alcohol/drug syndrome), poor, uneducated kids do, namely become criminals to support themselves, the so-called "pro-life" groups will be glad to build bigger prisons and after "three strikes" enforce capital punishment and have them put to death.

There is a huge social cost that we now avoid in having millions of unwanted children who are not born against the wishes of the people who will have to raise them without any help. That topic never seems to be discussed, but economic reality drives lots of other policies in out country, why not this one?

Patrick Nichols,



Jamesaust 12 years, 5 months ago

"Of course Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito will reverse Roe v. Wade. To pretend otherwise is an insult to our intelligence."

The only thing I'm insulted by is that the author, who clearly is able to foretell the future, refuses to discloses the winner of the Super Bowl. (I could make a fortune with my bookie.)

For my money, I'd guess (I don't have a crystal-ball) that Alito will NOT vote to reverse Roe, only to limit it (the most liberal abortion policy in the industrialized world - we make the Swedes look like Fundies) at the margin.

And wow - What a determinist view of life. I'm almost convinced that its immoral NOT to abort unwanted children seeing that they're all future criminals. (btw - any non-criminal unwanted-as-a-child adults out there might consider a slander suit against the author. You've just been served, felon-wanna-bes.)

I want the Attorney General to investigate immediately where all the taxes I've paid to subsidize health care, adoption services, and school funding have gone to. And I want a refund!

As far as "creating good jobs for the single moms," the only persons I know who can do that are the single moms - its called having job skills that someone is willing to pay for. If the Kansas Supreme Court has its way, we'll be spending an EXTRA billion dollars providing this 'free of charge' to any member of the next generation of moms who wants it - single or otherwise - with a bit left over for the daddies, who we may all note don't figure in this author's calculus anywhere.

sweatpeagj 12 years, 5 months ago

ok..let me see ifI get this right? Unwanted children are all born with alcohol/drug syndrom..then the mothers will be living on welfare because they just won't have any skills to become employed, then the children will all end up in prison then put to death. Did I miss anything? First, all of my children were born on birth control, my first I had as a teenager. Damn, I missed out on all the glory of being a welfare mom. I WORKED and supported my son. No father in the picture on that one. I didn't drink or do drugs so I guess my son lucked out there right? To this day none of my children have been to prison and thank God because it would seem that if they did they would end up being put to death. And how do you come up with uneducated? I think if you want to place an editorial really know what in the hell you are talking about. I have worked with the population you so flippantly condemn. They are not all like you would portray them to be. Get on your soapbox and do some good by demanding all the so called fathers to pay and play just like the woman has too. Oh..I forgot this is just about us unwed, women who are addicted to alcohol or drugs and can't seem to be able to put one foot in front of the other who will make sure we raise unwanted, unloved, uneducated children who just by being born will end up poor and in prison. Thank you very much for being ignorant because you have made this teenager mother very happy to have proven you wrong on all counts. As an aside the three strikes rule does not mean you will be put to death but will spend the rest of your life behind bars..did you research any of the article you wanted to write?

bjohanning 12 years, 5 months ago

If we are to restrict abortion as a society then we must as a society take responsibility to provide sex education (to our children), health care and support services for the parents and children born. Then we must educate these children and provide for those born with handicaps,so far I do not see anyone in congress or the anti-abortion groupers lining up to do so.

Richard Heckler 12 years, 5 months ago

Since DNA is a readily available I say put it to work and if the Mom,which is a very big job, wants financial assistance from the father then do whatever is necessary.

In the case of teen-age pregnancies allow the fathers parents to provide financial assistance until Dad gets a job. With DNA it will be hard to deny who the father is. As I have said before it doesn't matter the sexual history of the mom it's the man who let the sperm loose that becomes the Dad. It's odd that the female is so often the only one chastised. Yep apparently sex education is more important than some realize.

sweetpeagj 12 years, 5 months ago

that's great merrill but what about those of us that were raped and still chose to keep the child? DNA isn't going to help in that case since he has never been caught and it has been 18 years. I was a virgin when it happened. I have actually been to support hearings and have heard judges drop the suit because it was stressing out the alleged father. What do you do in that case?

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

I can't even believe somebody would attach their name to a letter like that. I guess if the people don't realize that if they have sex they might have children then I guess abortion is the answer. There should be no such thing as an unwanted child. I am sorry but people like this disgust me. Life is precious, all life is precious. I guess we should count our lucky stars since our mothers thought so.

zbarf 12 years, 5 months ago

Let's just ask all the 10 year old kids in the country if they are wanted or unwanted. If they are unwanted...lets abort them at that point...that way there is no question on their wanted status.


Ragingbear 12 years, 5 months ago

I wasn't wanted. I was told that constantly while growing up. With the abuse and torment that I had to carry through my childhood, I sometimes wonder if it would have been better if I was aborted.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

Unfortunately Ragingbear that does explain a lot. I didn't say that there aren't any unwanted babies/children, just that there shouldn't be.

J Good Good 12 years, 5 months ago

I don't think he was saying that every baby who was aborted would have been a criminal or damaged by alcohol or drugs, but undoubtedly some of them would be.
The pro-lifers don't seem to focus on helping those children who would be born into very unfortunate circumstances, and the adoptive families are just not there for "imperfect" children or children who end up in foster care. There ARE THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN WAITING FOR ADOPTION IN THIS COUNTRY. People think foreign babies are "safer" because their birth parents are not "lurking', or they had the misfortune to have to be abused or neglected before they ended up in the system. If Roe V. Wade is overturned there will be more of these children, certainly not fewer. And the administration is making it harder for single parents to go to school and get skills not easier.

If Roe V. Wade is overturned, some of this energy the pro-lifers have should go toward children that will be brought into the world. Sorry if that seems like a harsh reality, but it IS reality.

Curtiss 12 years, 5 months ago

OK, apparently most everybody here is in favor of all pregnancies being carried to term. Then what? I suppose all of you who feel so strongly have jumped in and put your money where your mouth is.

Quick show of hands, how many of you have adopted a brain-damaged fetal-alcohol-syndrome child of a different race?

Lots of you?


Ummmm, any?

OK. Well, then... How many of you volunteer regularly as Big Brothers/Sisters?

Most of you?


Any? Ah, I see one hand out there. Good for you.

And how many of you who stand the strongest against abortion or any federal support for birth control have been the same ones who constantly bitch and moan and whine that your taxes are too high because of these social programs that feed and educate at-risk children?

Whoa! Too many hands for me to count! Good! I thought maybe you'd fallen asleep.

If you're against abortion, don't have one.

If a child is born, then someone needs to take care of it, feed it, educate it, teach it how to be a good citizen.

Kids who don't get that become everybody's problem, sooner or later.

J Good Good 12 years, 5 months ago

THERE ARE 1000's of Children waiting for adoption in this country. This is a fact. Check it out. And birth parent complications is not a bogus reason, it is a real reason for many people (if not your friends). Many of these children have health issues or drug or alchol damage. Many of the children are not small babies, but they are no less deserving of a home, are they?

I agree the bumper sticker is simplistic, (also not quoted by me). But so is the pro-life movement, most of whom want to deny the existence of unwanted children, or the reality that there will be many more if roe v wade is overturned.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

I don't complain about high taxes and I realize that we can't be against abortion and then never take the responsibility for those children. However, if kids end up in the system they still have it better than kids in other countries do. The people that live on welfare in our country are better taken care of than the poor in other countries. Maybe we should just educate people to be thankful they have a life, a roof over their heads, and that they live in America.

jg, I am sure that you have many adopted children as well. Well I guess those that are for abortion don't have to seek out children in foster care, that are medically handicapped due to FAS, or are from a different race because the kids should have been aborted in the first place if they were unwanted.

hottruckinmama 12 years, 5 months ago

that letter is so on the money. abortion is not the way to go. BUT i so totally agree...the biggest prolife folks are also the biggest "don't raise my taxes to pay for someone else's kid" people around. you can't have it both ways folks. to expect a child to be born and live in misery is almost as big a sin as abortion at least in my book. thats why even though i believe in god i don't go to church there to many hypocrites.

J Good Good 12 years, 5 months ago

Most of the children waiting for adoption in the US are in "the system" and there are 1000's. There are quite a few just in Kansas, those of us who have been foster parents can tell you. They are black, they are not tiny newborns, but they need love and parents just as much as the Korean kids that have cool website. But you have to go through "the system" to adopt them. (Which is a failing of that system probably). Since they don't have a cool website there are no throw away kids in the US, huh?

kansasboy 12 years, 5 months ago

"I sometimes wonder if it would have been better if I was aborted." Ragingbear watch "Its a Wonderful Life" its on a hundred times this month and maybe you will change your mind.

Bruce Bertsch 12 years, 5 months ago

There are thousands of children waiting for adoption in the US. There are hundreds in Kansas alone. Just visit and you can see their faces. You will likely be surprised that the vast majority are not black. You won't see any infants, you will see children that need a mother and a father. What is missing are those who will adopt non-infants. Those who spout that they are pro-life rarely are the folks working to foster or adopt at risk children.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

Sorry jg to address that comment of mine to you since it was Curtiss that made the original comment. My bad.

Hottruckinmama, the people at church shouldn't be the reason you go. I am not being judgemental but your faith comes from hearing and hearing and hearing the word of God. You are starving your relationship with God by not going to church. Don't let hypocrites get between you and God. Just a thought. Please don't take this the wrong way.

Spoken1 12 years, 5 months ago

No one starves their relationship with God by not going to church. There are many people that have fantastic personal relationships with God because they could not find a church that fits them personally. Some people believe it is better to be one with God, then be part of a congregation made up of folks that may or may not carry the same set of ideals, morals, personal conviction, or any other number of things. Your faith is what matters more than a building or congregation.

craigers 12 years, 5 months ago

Spoken1 you need to do some reading in the bible and what it says about relationship with a congregation and a relationship with God. The body of believers are supposed to help you through your tough times. We are supposed to share each other's burdens and accept one another through Christ. If you believe in the bible fully, then it shouldn't be a problem to find a congregation that believes the same way. In addition God says in His word to not forsake coming together with other believers in a church setting because it is beneficial to have the relationship between other people and share God's love. Sorry Spoken1 but you do starve you relationship with God and the growing that you can do if you have a good church family.

lunacydetector 12 years, 5 months ago

The assertion that pro-lifers don't care for unwanted children is a farce and absolutely untrue. Pro-lifers show deep concern for mothers and their babies before and after birth. There are over 1500 crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S, a figure roughly double the number of abortuaries. An estimated 30,000 women are living in the homes of pro-lifers. In addition to individual households, there are many homes for unwed mothers run by pro-lifers. The operation of pro-life centers and homes is made possible by caring and compassionate volunteers. Commonly, pregnant women are taught child rearing as well as vocational skills.

Compare this with Planned Parenthood, the world's largest provider of abortion and "family planning" services. They teach women only one thing: how not to have children (and if that fails, how to get rid of one's "mistake"). Planned Parenthood has an annual budget of well over 300 million dollars. With this huge, government-subsidized, taxpayer-funded budget, guess how many homes they run? None! When it comes to "family planning," having a family seems to be the one thing that Planned Parenthood doesn't plan for!

It is the pro-abortion cartel that doesn't care about children after they are born, nor the woman who chooses life for her baby. Every woman who chooses to let her baby live has rejected the only thing that pro-aborts offer: Death. And despite the "choicespeak" of a child before birth being a potential person, he or she is truly a potential source of revenue for the abortionist. Perhaps in this morbid sense, pro-abortionists "care" more about children before birth than after: "Once born, never to be aborted!"

Pro-lifers have always extended their time, energy, resources and compassion to help unwed or poor mothers in need of support. These efforts do not suddenly disappear when a baby is born. Examine where much of today's charity money comes from. Very little comes from "pro-choice" organizations.

Unlike pro-lifers, pro-abortionists have a hard time justifying the birth of children in less than ideal circumstances. If a woman is poor and unable to feed her child, the "problem" could have been eliminated before birth, they reason. A starving child should never have been born, they say. The pro-abortionist is not merely "pro-choice"; abortion in many cases is the "promoted-choice." Is it any surprise then that despite the great financial resources of the pro-abortion industry, it does virtually nothing to help those poor mothers who nonetheless choose life for their babies?

Whenever a pro-abortionist laments about the suffering of children and how it should be avoided, we must clarify their "solution": death NOW for the potential suffering of a child. The pro-lifer sees a child with a problem; the pro-abortionist sees the child as a problem.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.