The real goal of anti-abortion advocates

Abortion has been a highly-debated topic for years now. Some feel it is only right to have the child no matter the circumstances. Others believe in preserving the choice to decide what is best for everyone involved. 

Everyone is valid in their opinion, but I have noticed there is one flaw in the pro-life agenda that is not pro-life. 

Pro-life supporters preach there is a human life that should be saved and all children should be given a chance to live. Yet, this group rarely cares about what happens after this child is born. 

Regardless of which side is right in terms of science and when a fetus truly feels pain, what confuses me about their goal is there is so much care for an unborn child and so little care for the future that child will have.

One of the biggest aspects is the foster care system. Although there are times where a child is placed in a good foster care home, a lot of the time they are placed into distressing situations and left with trauma. 

According to Psychiatric Times, a study determined that almost 50% of children in foster care aged 2 to 14 identified with clinically significant mental health problems. In a similar study of teenagers, 42% had at least one mental health disorder.

There is also the issue of foster parents who take in children to receive government pay and don’t treat them well, or just abuse them. Now, of course, there are many loving foster parents, but a Psychology Today article suggests there are also an overwhelming amount of bad ones. The article cites that existing information underestimates the number of children who are abused in foster homes.

Children often end up in foster care to later reunite with their parents or another family member. However, if the child’s mother were originally in a position where she could not care for the child for any reason, it is unlikely that the mother would regain custody.

A lot of abuse often gets past social workers. For example, the Hazel family had more than 70 kids passed through their foster home, according to USA Today. The family was viewed as an amazing placement for foster children, all while Rick Hazel was sexually abusing his foster daughter. 

Another factor of the pro-life opinion that does not quite make sense to me is the standpoint on adoption. Many conservatives who are pro-life are simultaneously against gay marriage and adoption.

For example, according to NBC, Tennessee governor Bill Lee announced he will sign into law a measure that would enforce taxpayer funding of faith-based foster care and adoption agencies, including those that exclude LGBTQ+ families and others based on religious beliefs. 

Pro-life supporters who oppose the adoption of children by gay parents only make the situation worse for those who opt for adoption over abortion. If pro-life supporters want more children to be born, there needs to be better placement for them. Eliminating gay couples as potential adoptive parents only takes away many loving and safe homes.

In the end, giving a child a chance at life should mean fully committing to giving that child a happy and safe one. Although a child is born, they cannot truly have a good life if they are subjected to bad living situations, a lack of consistent education and suffering from the trauma the system can give to them. 

It is amazing to care for children and want them to live. That is essentially what everyone wants. When you claim to be pro-life, consider whether you just want kids to be born, or if you want them to live a safe and fulfilling life. 

To a certain extent, the pro-life agenda makes sense. However, I feel it would have a more valid argument if there were more focus on what happens to the children who will not go to safe or stable homes. If women are going to be pushed to give birth to children they cannot support, there needs to be help and a plan for how that child is going to live.

Pro-life supporters need to put more focus on children’s lives after birth. because without that they are truly only pro-birth.