Most Wanted
I was blog-surfing over at One Odd Goose today, and found something that touched a nerve. Of course, Highlander had a (very brief) discussion of the issue in his comment threads the other day as well. And while I have very strong opinions on the subject of freedom of reproductive choice, I wouldn’t expect anyone to be swayed by my feelings. It’s just entirely too volatile a topic. And the things I feel, I feel strongly, but I realize that they are my personal opinions and others certainly have a right to theirs as well.
Mostly, I wanted to address something that Julia said in her post, and didn't feel I could do it adequately in a comment. This, unfortunately, is one of those soapbox issues I mentioned previously. I'm not doing the unabridged version. It would be an epic and I'd be frothing by the time I was done. You may thank me for that omission in the form of gifts.
Julia said that a she and a co-worker had been discussing the issue and that the co-worker’s position was that there was no need for abortion. That all children were wanted. All children were wanted.
That strikes me as absurd. How difficult is it to look around and dispute that theory? Unless, of course, “wanted” takes on some sick, twisted connotation that I missed.
Julia notes that, in her state, there are 1200 children currently awaiting adoption. Here, in Kentucky, there are just over 3000. And there are 48 other states that would have to be in similar shape. But even if you average 1000 children per state…and I honestly feel that number has to be low…that’s still 50,000 kids that were not wanted. And are retaining that status as thousands of anti-choice families don’t adopt them.
Leaving those 50,000 kids aside…as it seems so easy for us, as a society, to do…there are other kids who weren’t wanted, but were kept by their birth families. These statistics are a little harder to look at:
• In 2002, 1400 U.S. children died from child abuse related circumstances. That translates to roughly 1.98 out of 100,000 children. And that’s up from 1.84 out of 100,000 in 2000. In 2003, 906,000 children were (substantiated) victims of child abuse and neglect. I haven’t found figures more current, but I have to believe that it’s gotten worse and not better. And that’s closing in on a million human lives.
• Of the fatalities, children three and under seem to suffer the most. Children under one year old account for 41% of the child abuse fatalities. Digest that for just a second. Children under one year old account for 41% of the child abuse fatalities. Children three and under also make up the largest group of non-fatal abuse cases. Certainly, these are not wanted children. How can anyone believe that they are? How can anyone believe that these children being born and suffering at the hands of people who are supposed to love them…to take care of them…are better off?
• Sexual abuse against children is another staggering statistic. Here are some facts that might interest you:
1) Two thirds of sex offenders in prison victimized a child.
2) According to information gathered in 1992, half of the women raped (nationally) were under 18 at the time of their attack.
3) Recidivism rates are higher among sex offenders than other types of crimes.
4) One of every seven victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies were under age six.
5) Most child sexual abuse is at the hands of a family member.
Here’s one more that might shake you up. For most (incarcerated) child sexual predators, they have committed the crime dozens of times before they are stopped. I imagine that wouldn’t shock any of you. And I’m already imagining a few of you arguing that young women may have consented and then changed their minds, etc. Well, I won’t count that out, but that’s not the topic today. The topic is children being wanted. And even if you dismiss half of the convictions as frivolous or erroneous, (and that’s a generous dismissal, you must admit), that’s still roughly 50,000 cases of children being hurt.
When you begin to factor in the reality of what happens to these children of abuse and neglect, the picture grows even more bleak. Most of us know enough, or have seen enough tv cop shows to believe, that victims of this type of abuse become abusers themselves. Propogating a cycle of pain and degradation that creates thieves, substance abusers, rapists, and murderers, not only by their sociological conditions, but by the very real physiological changes that their brains undergo as a result of the continued abuse.
Now, I’m not advocating killing babies before they have the opportunity to “go bad” in order to make a more utopian society. Not by any stretch. But what I am saying is that the argument that all babies are wanted doesn’t hold any water with me. They simply aren’t. Much as we, as a society, may want them to be so.
I’d be CONSIDERABLY more impressed by anti-choice marches to get the unwanted babies adopted. I’ve love to see them coming around with petitions to find permanent homes for the children that have been put into the foster care system. I would lend them a great deal more credence if that were the case. But it never seems to be. Those who are the most vocal, at least in my personal experience, do not, themselves, have any adopted children. Neither, are they helping raise foster children.
Whenever I meet someone who has an adopted child or is raising foster children, I am always grateful on some level. Pleased that they have taken on the lifelong job of raising one of the unwanted children. Making their lives better. It's all too often a thankless job, but I'm always glad that one more child has a chance.
I, myself, have never had an abortion. But I'll admit that I have considered it. I don’t know if that makes me good, bad or otherwise. I definitely felt that there was no way I could carry a child to term and give it away. And so, for me, it was a decision of keeping it myself, or not being pregnant. I can’t believe that I’m the only woman who would feel that way. I have three children, none of whom are adopted. And I have never raised a foster child. Maybe all of that makes my opinion worthless. I don’t know. But I do know that I refuse to believe , much as I long to, that all children in this country are wanted. And I think that people who do believe it…who actually feel strongly enough about it to argue it as a valid point…are dangerously foolish.
Mostly, I wanted to address something that Julia said in her post, and didn't feel I could do it adequately in a comment. This, unfortunately, is one of those soapbox issues I mentioned previously. I'm not doing the unabridged version. It would be an epic and I'd be frothing by the time I was done. You may thank me for that omission in the form of gifts.
Julia said that a she and a co-worker had been discussing the issue and that the co-worker’s position was that there was no need for abortion. That all children were wanted. All children were wanted.
That strikes me as absurd. How difficult is it to look around and dispute that theory? Unless, of course, “wanted” takes on some sick, twisted connotation that I missed.
Julia notes that, in her state, there are 1200 children currently awaiting adoption. Here, in Kentucky, there are just over 3000. And there are 48 other states that would have to be in similar shape. But even if you average 1000 children per state…and I honestly feel that number has to be low…that’s still 50,000 kids that were not wanted. And are retaining that status as thousands of anti-choice families don’t adopt them.
Leaving those 50,000 kids aside…as it seems so easy for us, as a society, to do…there are other kids who weren’t wanted, but were kept by their birth families. These statistics are a little harder to look at:
• In 2002, 1400 U.S. children died from child abuse related circumstances. That translates to roughly 1.98 out of 100,000 children. And that’s up from 1.84 out of 100,000 in 2000. In 2003, 906,000 children were (substantiated) victims of child abuse and neglect. I haven’t found figures more current, but I have to believe that it’s gotten worse and not better. And that’s closing in on a million human lives.
• Of the fatalities, children three and under seem to suffer the most. Children under one year old account for 41% of the child abuse fatalities. Digest that for just a second. Children under one year old account for 41% of the child abuse fatalities. Children three and under also make up the largest group of non-fatal abuse cases. Certainly, these are not wanted children. How can anyone believe that they are? How can anyone believe that these children being born and suffering at the hands of people who are supposed to love them…to take care of them…are better off?
• Sexual abuse against children is another staggering statistic. Here are some facts that might interest you:
1) Two thirds of sex offenders in prison victimized a child.
2) According to information gathered in 1992, half of the women raped (nationally) were under 18 at the time of their attack.
3) Recidivism rates are higher among sex offenders than other types of crimes.
4) One of every seven victims of sexual assault reported to law enforcement agencies were under age six.
5) Most child sexual abuse is at the hands of a family member.
Here’s one more that might shake you up. For most (incarcerated) child sexual predators, they have committed the crime dozens of times before they are stopped. I imagine that wouldn’t shock any of you. And I’m already imagining a few of you arguing that young women may have consented and then changed their minds, etc. Well, I won’t count that out, but that’s not the topic today. The topic is children being wanted. And even if you dismiss half of the convictions as frivolous or erroneous, (and that’s a generous dismissal, you must admit), that’s still roughly 50,000 cases of children being hurt.
When you begin to factor in the reality of what happens to these children of abuse and neglect, the picture grows even more bleak. Most of us know enough, or have seen enough tv cop shows to believe, that victims of this type of abuse become abusers themselves. Propogating a cycle of pain and degradation that creates thieves, substance abusers, rapists, and murderers, not only by their sociological conditions, but by the very real physiological changes that their brains undergo as a result of the continued abuse.
Now, I’m not advocating killing babies before they have the opportunity to “go bad” in order to make a more utopian society. Not by any stretch. But what I am saying is that the argument that all babies are wanted doesn’t hold any water with me. They simply aren’t. Much as we, as a society, may want them to be so.
I’d be CONSIDERABLY more impressed by anti-choice marches to get the unwanted babies adopted. I’ve love to see them coming around with petitions to find permanent homes for the children that have been put into the foster care system. I would lend them a great deal more credence if that were the case. But it never seems to be. Those who are the most vocal, at least in my personal experience, do not, themselves, have any adopted children. Neither, are they helping raise foster children.
Whenever I meet someone who has an adopted child or is raising foster children, I am always grateful on some level. Pleased that they have taken on the lifelong job of raising one of the unwanted children. Making their lives better. It's all too often a thankless job, but I'm always glad that one more child has a chance.
I, myself, have never had an abortion. But I'll admit that I have considered it. I don’t know if that makes me good, bad or otherwise. I definitely felt that there was no way I could carry a child to term and give it away. And so, for me, it was a decision of keeping it myself, or not being pregnant. I can’t believe that I’m the only woman who would feel that way. I have three children, none of whom are adopted. And I have never raised a foster child. Maybe all of that makes my opinion worthless. I don’t know. But I do know that I refuse to believe , much as I long to, that all children in this country are wanted. And I think that people who do believe it…who actually feel strongly enough about it to argue it as a valid point…are dangerously foolish.
9 Comments:
I WISH I could say more than I can, but I will say this: ignorant people who THINK they feel strongly about something will often misrepresent the facts or just grasp at straws to make a point. That person is stupid. And I am not just saying that to be mean.
This is was so depressing. Let's pick something petty and frivolous tomorrow, ok? LOL. JK.
A well stated and reasoned argument against such an ignorant arfument. This is why I can be a strong pro-choice advocate while having strong feelings against abortion. I don't believe that my feelings/beliefs on the issue should be made law and I can see what happens to all of these wanted children. Your statistics are disheartening enough until you imagine how they would increase without the choice.
I agree with Marci... give us some fluff next post.
arfument is my new word for an an unreasoned argument. Only Annie's dog could agree with such crap;)
SuperG, I completely agree with your extremely articulate and impassioned passage. Parenthood is such a complex and personal decision. It bothers me that you need a license to shoot a duck, drive a car, vote or own a dog, but anyone with working parts can produce a child.
I would be as impressed by anti-choice marches to get unwanted babies adopted as I would with advocates for the homeless actually taking a few homeless people into their own homes.
Mark,
Hey! SuperG don't fluff no one but me!
Pengie,
Yeah, I've often thought that bit about licenses (which I always think of as originating with a quote from PARENTHOOD, one of my favorite movies). But lately I've been coming to the realization that while I don't regard reproduction as a basic human right, I do think that letting the government regulate reproduction is a worse solution than the problem. And when we start talking about 'parenting licenses', we must inevitably talk about government authority and new enforcement agencies and good lord. Just the idea of a Fed with a badge coming around to check my dipstick for me gives ME the willies.
Hey Lady!
Thanks for bringing more attention to my pet issue.
Marci -
I'm working on something pretty fluffy. Maybe later today, k?
Mark -
I'm right there with you on being strongly pro-choice, but personally against abortion. And, yes, if the safe, legal medical procedure made available is suddenly stopped, the numbers I quoted are almost certainly going to rise. All of them. Many more people will suffer. Many more criminals will be born and bred. But, more importantly, I'd imagine other statistics would rise as well...suicides, infant mortality and high risk births, and clinical depression. I believe that if women felt that all children were really wanted, the abortion rates would drop on their own. Perhaps that is dreaming on my part, but it would make a difference to me, personally. Maybe not all the difference, but enough to sway a vote.
Opus -
That's a license agency where I'd NEVER want to work!
Cletus: Hey there, me and the little woman here are gettin' antsy to have us a youngun'. We need one of them thar licenses.
Tammy: I'll need to see your application, IQ tests, blood tests, medical records, criminal records, employment records, personal references, and a statement from your landlord.
Cletus: Ah, hell, we got the working parts, cain't we jus' have us a baby. Mabel's got 'er heart set on a litte one. We didn't brang any of that thar stuff you mentioned. But I can vouch fer her and she can vouch fer me.
Tammy: No. Absolutely not. I'm on a personal mission to keep people like you from reproducting. Have you considered homosexuality?
H -
::latex glove snapping:: Dipstick inspector here.
Julia -
No problem. It's an issue that's dear to my heart as well. Thanks for kicking the rock down the hill.
I don't see any easy solution to the problem of unwanted children either. Still, I can't support the idea that it's better to kill someone than to hurt them.
As a single guy with limited resources, I not only have no chance of successfully applying for adoption or foster parent status, I have no business doing so. However, much as I despise taxes, I'd gladly see mine double if the money went to a national child support program for unwanted children. Anything's better than wholesale slaughter, and the other option shouldn't have to be abuse.
...and yeah, I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
If it weren't for the fact that everything the government touches turns to shit, I'd insist on a license for childbearing.
I didn't say it was better to kill someone than to hurt them, Nate. Just that the argument that "all babies are wanted" was not a valid point at all and even a cursory glance would bear that out.
When our current government is cutting all kinds of programs designed to help children, it's unlikely that doubling your taxes is gonna do much more than keep soldiers in Iraq.
Wish I knew all the answers. I definitely don't. But I have to believe that government regulation of reproduction would, as you say, be one more thing that turns to shit.
Post a Comment
<< Home