Gay marriage could save 1,000s of babies from being aborted every year

In today's The Politicizer, I found an interesting argument for supporting gay marriage that I've never heard before:

Upon considering gay marriage and pro-life in conjunction with one another, a surprising conclusion awaits: gay marriage can be a pro-life issue, and something the pro-life community should be actively advocating for. Why? Because same-sex couples will open up their homes to adopted children and this means less abortions and more options for mothers experiencing unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.

...

Over one million unborn children are aborted every year, sometimes because their mother isn’t able to support her child and is confronted with a lack of adoptive or loving homes. On top of that, thousands of children remain in orphanages with no place to call home, yet still, we deny same-sex couples the chance to provide these children with a safe, loving home that they would otherwise never know. It is time that we, as a society, recognize that gay persons should be entitled to having families. These families, based around adoption, would not only affirm the common beliefs between the pro-life and pro-equality communities in the value of every human being, but would save the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children in the process. Pro-life churches and religious groups - many of which are opposed to gay rights – should support gay marriage if only for this reason alone. America’s children depend on it. (Excerpt; read the rest of the article at The Politicizer)

As someone who is pro-gay marriage, I think this is a really good point. Support for gay marriage is growing across the country, but it would be great if we could bring the pro-life community (about the half country) into the fold.

:thumbsup:

L-

Abortion, pronography and homosexuality ruining this country.

It also forwards the notion that abortion is wrong (which I don't believe it is).

I don't think it necessarily forwards the idea that abortion is "wrong." I think than anyone, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, can see abortion as tragic situation not only for the baby but for the mother. Instead of women feeling alone and desperate about their unwanted pregnancies, they would have a lot more options for families (and potentially have the medical costs of their pregnancy covered by the couple). We should take that unwanted pregnancy and turn it into a happy family.

It's not wrong, it's just "tragic".


:mad:


Gay people should be able to marry because they love each other, not as some last-ditch repository for unwanted embryos.

because the last thing many woman want to do is risk their lives being an incubator for somebody else's baby.

The availability of adoptive couples, in other words, is just about the last consideration out there for women who choose abortion. Women who abort don't want to risk their lives, health, finances, social support system, jobs, and every other thing they have in the world to incubate an unwanted pregnancy.

Gay marriage proponents should focus more on opening up stable homes for unadoptable kids, those with emotional problems, physical special needs, or who are simply not cute white babies, having grown within a bad system.

The last thing the prospective adoption market for healthy white infants want is competition from gay couples. The last thing women need are more prospective adoptive parents pushing guilt at them for not wanting to risk their lives to supply the baby market.

Please reconsider.

but we also have an overpopulation problem. We already give birth to too many children voluntarily, you might then open up the can of worms where women would be forced to carry pregnancies to term just to satisfy pro-lifers.

Remember it was gay men who saved a lot of AIDS babies from spending their lives in hospital nurseries where no one would touch them. Maybe we would have fewer kids in foster care.

Never did the article or I say that women would be "forced" to carry their children to term. Rather, if there were more gay couples able to adopt => presumably higher demand for adopted children => benefits to mothers giving their children up for adoption would go up (covering cost of pregnancy, plus some) => pro-lifers should support it because there would be less abortions. Not "force women to give their children up to adoption for gay couples."

makes my head hurt.......

think a baby being raised in a gay home is a preferable alternative to being aborted. Sad but true.

1. There are already more than enough children out there we can adopt if they they will just change the restrictive laws and prevent us from adopting them. We do not need more children born just to meet some imagined need, and we don't need our community used as a pretext for anti-choice goals. If anyone in the anti-choice community really gives a damn about LGBT people being allowed to adopt, how about letting us adopt the existing children first? If we somehow adopt every single child in foster care, then we can talk.

2. crusading to prevent gay adoptions in the places where it is legal, and to keep it illegal everywhere else.

3. "Someone else wants your baby" is a really mercenary reason to convince someone else to spend 9 months pregnant. With all the possible health problems and risks, pregnancy is not trivial. Do we really want to get behind this? Someone should only agree to be pregnant after really serious thought, because it is what they have personally chosen to do, not because we have decided to pressure them to become baby-making machines.

4. The anti-choice community has too much of a history of advocating and accepting violence. Do we really want to be allied to them? I don't like the idea of breaking bread with assassins who killed doctors that I was trying to help and support. I'm LGBT and Pro-choice. I believe in choosing our real allies carefully.

Just too many things wrong with this argument.

People come to that POV for a variety of reasons... though the least reasonable and most crazy elements command the attention and drive the argument.

I say anything divvies the anti-everything forces from the anti-SOME things forces in the ranks of the anti-GLBT "coalition" ... if you will... is probably a net plus.