thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) (08/26/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH A BABY *** A favorite argument used by anti-abortion forces is that if a woman does not want her baby, she can always carry it to term and give it up for adoption with one of those thousands of couples that want a child. Assuming that abortion was banned tomorrow, and all unwanted babies were adopted, how long would it be before there would be more babies than couples to adopt them (a reversal of the current situation)? It couldn't be too long; a million "extra" children per year is an awful lot; an estimate of the size of the waiting list is about 750,000. There is an obvious disparity in numbers here! What would happen after the demand for adoptable babies was reduced? Ann-Muir ...tektronix!reed!thoma PS-- Since I am starting school next week, I won't be able to answer most e-mail. So-- either post your follow-ups to the Net, or send mail to me and I will post a summary.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/27/85)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH A BABY *** > > A favorite argument used by anti-abortion forces is that > if a woman does not want her baby, she can always carry it > to term and give it up for adoption with one of those > thousands of couples that want a child. > > Assuming that abortion was banned tomorrow, and all unwanted > babies were adopted, how long would it be before there would > be more babies than couples to adopt them (a reversal of the > current situation)? It couldn't be too long; a million "extra" > children per year is an awful lot; an estimate of the size of > the waiting list is about 750,000. There is an obvious > disparity in numbers here! What would happen after the demand > for adoptable babies was reduced? > > Ann-Muir A million extra children, sounds sad when you put it that way. A million children each year that will not be alowed to live.