The following section is taken directly form:   

An Interview with the Devil^® – Exposing and Examining the Hidden and Previously Ignored Aspects of the Abortion Controversy.

T.L.C.   =  The Interviewer            Big D *[1]     =   The Devil, Himself

.

T.L.C.   Is adoption a realistic alternative to abortion?

Big D   Stoney, do you have any children?

T.L.C.   Not that I know of.

Big D   Since you can’t answer this question form personal experience, I invite you to ask any mom if she’d be willing to give away her child never to see him or her again.   To give away a child goes counter to the most basic human nature.   

T.L.C.   I don't need to have children of my own to figure out the answer to that question.

Big D   Of Course not!   Giving up a child produces extremely traumatic emotions in almost all women.   Emotional traumas of this magnitude often negatively affect women for the rest of their lives.   It also places a great psychological burden on many of the children who are literally given away.

            Your anti-abortionist friends make great hoopla about the trauma of having an abortion, but they completely ignore the trauma of a mother giving her baby away.

            Considering the complexities of adoption, the horrendous hurdles set up by governments regarding it, and the staggering number of willing parents that would be required to care for these children, do you think adoption a realistic solve-all solution to unwanted pregnancy?

T.L.C.   Well, no single answer is the solution to any social problem, but adoption does have its merits.

Big D   Of course!   Everything does.   Unfortunately, proposing adoption as the only answer is about as complete a solution as is applying a band aid to a bullet wound.    Let’s look at the numbers.

            Presently in the U. S., (2001) approximately 1,000 babies are adopted each week.   If all the abortions were magically transformed into adoptions, you’d need another 36,000 adoptions per week, and if you could, with even more magic, save the 40,000, third-world children who die every day for lack of proper care,[1] you’d need 316,000 adoptions per week.   That’s 16,000,000 adoptions per year --  about 44,000 per day, seven days a week, including holidays,  moon rockets,  and ice cream cones.

T.L.C.   Moon rockets,  and ice cream cones?

Big D   Ya, I know, that doesn't make any sense, but neither does claiming that adoption is a magic, cure all,  alternative to abortion.

T.L.C.   Your numbers are unfair.   You can’t count all those third world babies.

Big D   I can’t!  Why not?   Stoney, get real!  First, the anti-abortion leaders are doing everything in their power to prevent women everywhere in the world from having access to birth control  and birth control information.   They are responsible for creating millions of unwanted pregnancies.

T.L.C.   How can that be?

Big D   Are you familiar with the Global Gag Rule?   

T.L.C.   No.

Big D   Well, you aught to be.   It's essentially global censorship of anything to do with abortion, birth control or sex education.   If there was an Academy Award for hypocrisy or a Nobel Prize for sleaze, the forced motherhood leaders would win first prize.

             But getting back to the issue at hand,  the publicly stated intention of the anti-abortionists is “saving the lives of innocent babies.”   Shall we ignore these innocent babies because they’re already born, or because their skin is the wrong color, or their eyes are the wrong shape, or because their mothers suffered malnutrition during pregnancy, or they live in another country?   If that’s anti-abortionist policy, they’ve taken hypocrisy to a new level.

            And the 16,000,000 adoptions needed per year doesn’t figure in the older children who are often simply abandoned and left to care for themselves or die.[2]  Those who force unwanted babies on the world need to adopt at least ten children each.   Otherwise the adoption option is an unrealistic farce.

            And what do you do with the millions of deformed babies from drug addicted mothers?   How many of these babies have the ant-abortion leaders adopted?   

T.L.C.   But the adoption-option promoters keep telling us that there is a shortage of children do adopt.

Big D   As you can see by the above numbers, that's another fairytale designed to mislead the public.   There is, indeed a shortage of newly born, healthy, caucasian babies , but to say there is a shortage of children to adopt is a total fabrication.  It's another product of the anti-choice spin doctors.

T.L.C.   So you’re saying that offering adoption as the only alternative to abortion is another pregnant pipe dream?

Big D   As practical a solution to the problem of unwanted children, the adoption alternative is just another anti-abortion fairytale..   It’s about as realistic as their proposal of offering  just say no to sex °  as the one and only method of birth control.

T.L.C.   So why propose it?

Big D   Because it’s an effective propaganda tool.   It's another part of their media campaign for a Christian America.°   On the surface, it looks like a good idea and it sounds simple, so those opposing abortion talk about it in order to make their cause look and sound better. 

T.L.C.   You haven't mentioned the physical things that a woman has to go through simple to birth a baby?   If men were the ones who got pregnant, I cant imagine men putting up with  the hassle, cost, the physical pain and discomfort, and potential health problems of birthing a baby they didn't want.

Big D   Yes, and neither would they tolerate how it would leave their bodies after the process was complete.   Can you imagine a young stud being willing  to go around with stretch marks for the rest of his life.

T.L.C.   And what about the emotional, psychological, personal  and social residue.   Men wouldn't stand for that either.

Big D   You've  probably heard the line, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

T.L.C.   I have.

Big D   And there wouldn't be any anti-abortion war going on, either.

.