Replies

Most healthy white children in foster care also have restrictions on adoption. But the fact remains that overall, healthy white children are adopted at far, far higher rates than non-white and/or disabled children, despite heavy subsidies and outright bribes for adopting the "difficult to place" children.

Of more concern is the quality of homes that many minority and/or disabled children end up in. The case in NJ of the 3 boys whose adoptive parents were starving them (including a 45 pound 19-year-old) is extreme, but I'm afraid part of a trend. Nobody wants these kids, so they get dumped on virtually any family who will take them -- including families who obviously want them only for the subsidy check, and haven't the slightest intention of caring for them to even a bare minimum standard. Too many of these kids grow up to be brain-damaged and permanently (and irreparably) angry, with no real options besides joining a street gang, and committing crimes, until they get caught and jailed, or get killed. Sadly, most manage to reproduce in the interim, perpetuating the horrible cycle and all its associated suffering -- much of which spills out into the healthy segments of society.

Society DOES matter, and that's why it's worth protecting from the scourge of unwanted babies. One of the most alarming results of the growing mobs of unwanted-children-turned-adults is the growing pressure they cause for socialism. Not just the ones who wnet through the foster/adoptive care system, but many others as well. They don't have the ability or inclination to support themselves, and they and their families invariably vote for socialism (if they vote at all) and are used by the left as pawns to convince others of the need for socialism. The only possibly ultimate outcome is the loss of a free society, and the imposition of socialism/communism, which can usually only be overthrown after decades of widespread misery followed by bloody revolution. No thanks.

Your assumption that there is a category such as "unwanted babies," and that that category does not have the right not to be killed is a personal prejudice of your own, not borne up by the laws of the US, the Declaration of Independence, or the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The only scientific definition of human being is the species classification. Any other definition of human being or discrimination between which members of the species may be killed without due process of law is a matter of personal opinion.

Your 3rd paragraph here would extrapolate from those who end up in foster care to "unwanted babies" to all who grow up to be "unwanted-children-turned-adults." None of your nightmares can be predicted from the time of conception to birth. Each of your endpoints (i.e., "They don't have the ability or inclination to support themselves" or "vote for socialism,")could be reached by those whose births were planned and much desired as well as those who were not. For that matter, we are each just a car wreck away from being able to support ourselves. That does not mean that we should be culled before or after we have shown ourselves unworthy of protection of life according to "Government Shrinker."

In contrast to you, I don't recognize your right to discriminate between which humans have the right to equal protection under the law.