Are we destined to lose the abortion battle in the U.S.?

If Pro-Lifers continue the same strategy, it will probably become legal in all 50 states. I've seen a number of recent studies that between 60% to 76% of women who had an abortion preferred to have kept the baby but felt they couldn't afford to keep it. The lack of affordable health care, affordable housing, and increased inflation, etc... has played a significant role in shaping popular opinion in becoming pro-choice in the last half-decade. And Pro-lifers are being unfairly pigeon-holed as being only pro-birth.

Either churches, faith-based non-profits, crisis pregnancy centers, etc.. need to do more with these issues so that woman believe they can keep their baby to term, or allow the government to do more. I'd prefer to keep it more non-government intervention. But either way, those committed to being Pro-life will need to demonstrate a more whole-life pro-life perspective for public opinion to change.

>>Either churches, faith-based non-profits, crisis pregnancy centers, etc.. need to do more with these issues so that woman believe they can keep their baby to term, or allow the government to do more. I’d prefer to keep it more non-government intervention.<<

I agree. I think we also ought to push hard for laws that allow for some period of time where the mother can give up the child, as well as making adoption much easier and less expensive (with appropriate legal protections for both of those). There are plenty of families who want children, and if those who would normally choose abortion would choose to give up their child instead, this could be a great solution if people are willing to work out the details.

I agree. I think we also ought to push hard for laws that allow for some period of time where the mother can give up the child, as well as making adoption much easier and less expensive (with appropriate legal protections for both of those). There are plenty of families who want children, and if those who would normally choose abortion would choose to give up their child instead, this could be a great solution if people are willing to work out the details.

I do agree that adoption should be made much easier and much less expensive.

In my job overseeing a ministry to fatherless youth and young adults, I've had at least fifty or so female students over the past 30 years who had a child or several children out of wedlock in crisis pregnancy situations and only 1 chose adoption. About 20% of these young women had an abortion as well.

But the fact of the matter is, that today's urban youth/young adult culture looks down on putting up a child for adoption. They see it as child abandonment. We often share and encourage the option of adoption, but it's rarely considered. In our situations, usually the father of the child is ready to step up and be responsible, especially if he grew up fatherless himself because he doesn't want his child to go through what he went through. So we are often coming along side of the father and teaching him how to co-parent in a non-resident environment. Sometime the father ends up marrying the mother of the child. But often its not the case.

How can we best communicate that "abandoning" a child to someone who is willing to care for that child is much better than killing the child? For many of us, that message is so obvious, but to others it is not. How do we bridge that gap?

How can we best communicate that "abandoning" a child to someone who is willing to care for that child is much better than killing the child? For many of us, that message is so obvious, but to others it is not. How do we bridge that gap?

I think a major part of it is making the adoption process easier and more affordable, and having a clear pathway laid out for the person who is giving up the child. Right now the pathway is very unclear and there is so much red tape that an abortion is far easier for people. Flip that around and people would more readily consider adoption rather than abortion.

Christians believed the hard work was overturning Roe v Wade. In reality, the hard work is providing funds, making homes available, and raising awareness and clear pathways to adoption. I hope that Christians/churches understand that the hard work is not done, but is rather just beginning.

I think a major part of it is making the adoption process easier and more affordable, and having a clear pathway laid out for the person who is giving up the child.

Yes, absolutely. Just for perspective, I found this information from an article in Today.com

The average cost of adopting a child in the United States is between $20,000 and $45,000, says the Child Welfare Information Gateway from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This price can cover legal fees, home studies, travel and lodging, court fees, and medical and living expenses for the birth parent.

Here is the link to that article: Average Adoption Costs — How Much Does It Cost to Adopt (today.com)

The conversation above reminds me of the reasoning that public school teachers are quitting in droves because they are not paid enough when the top reason they themselves give is it is because of student behavior. Salary is third.

Women may say they would keep the child if not for finances, but that is often a justification. We have some amazing crisis pregnancy centers in our community that offer help and mentoring, but women still have abortions. The truth is, as long as people view pre-born children as less than human and less than individuals, it will be easy to abort them. But, on the other hand, many believe that babies are just part of a woman’s body because they WANT to believe that, despite the science.

Women want the freedom to at least have the option to abort, and no matter what the facts say, they want the sexual freedom that goes along with such a view. And they do not want to be “stuck” raising a child they would not rather raise, or be stuck with having to go through childbirth itself. Or for others to know that they even were pregnant.

Doing more to help women who choose to give birth is the right thing to do, but more will not necessarily work better.

For those who are poor, it is not a justification. Most of the poor (at least in urban context) see pre-born babies as an actual human being. They would rather not abort their child, but see no other option. For many of the urban poor, it is Planned Parenthood, progressive (mostly white) school counselors and social workers (the professional class), government social workers, neighborhood associations, etc.. who have developed deep connections in urban communities, not the crisis pregnancy centers. It is the poverty industrial complex (which includes Planned Parenthood) who have the ear of the urban poor because they are the ones who are present. Some crisis pregnancy centers (CPC's) are located in certain urban depressed communities, but they haven't networked and developed deep relationships in those communities the way progressives have.

Many (not all) black churches don't partner with CPCs because their services end once the child becomes a toddler. However there are CPC exceptions, such as Alpha Woman's Center in Grand Rapids. They offer services for single moms until their child becomes a teenager and also offer job training for single moms and the dads through a Jobs For LIfe program, among other things. As a result, black churches are beginning to partner with Alpha because they practice a whole-life pro-life perspective. Alpha is now developing deep relationships in their community as an alternative to the progressive elites who have been manipulating the urban poor to have abortions for 50 years in my city. Its about being present in the community among those who are most vulnerable to single motherhood which are those who come from impoverished, fatherless backgrounds. Whoever spends the most time wins.

However, I tend to agree with you when we're talking about woman who are middle-class and above.