During the past few months I have interviewed a number of young husbands and wives who wish to adopt children.  The reason for the interviews was simply to assess the suitability of the couples to look after a child and give him or her a suitable home.  What impressed me about the young couples – mostly in their early thirties – was their “hunger” to have a baby in their home.  For various reasons they could not have children themselves, or – having had one or two – could not have any more.

In what is admittedly an “anti-child” society, where children are, in general, not welcome, it is consoling and inspiring to meet young husbands and wives who really Want babies.  Of course there are slight differences in the reasons why the babies are wanted.  Some just “want” a baby.  That is why they got married and their disappointment is evident in their faces and voices when they talk about it.  Others have a boy and would like a girl also; or they have a girl and feel that she needs a brother.

Some young wives feel that their “other instinct” is frustrated by the absence of a baby in their married life and love.  All these reasons are, in my opinion, perfectly valid and laudable and in every case I felt that a child would be fortunate to receive the love and care which would be his or her lot in almost any of these homes.

Hundreds in waiting

But the sad fact is that these couples may have to wait for at least three and probably five years before they can get a baby to adopt, if ever.  Why?  I spoke to the Catholic Children’s Aid and was told that there are literally hundreds of young couples on the waiting list for very few babies.

I asked why it is that, in spite of sexual promiscuity and the high number of single pregnant girls, babies are in such short supply.  The answer was that the shortage of babies cannot be assigned to any single cause.  There are at least three obvious reasons.  One is that with the increase of aid to single mothers and the fact that having a baby outside of marriage is more accepted than of yore, more unwed mothers are keeping their children.  The second is that with an increase in day-care facilities, women can now go out to work and leave their babies at the center.  The third is abortion.

If you take the abortion statistics for Canada, reported at 60,000 abortions per annum (we know that in actual fact it is at least 100,000!) that means that in ten years 600,000 babies are done to death in their mothers’ wombs.  It also means that thousands of homes will be without a child, although a child would be “wanted” and loved if he or she had been allowed to live.

A tragedy or a statistic?

I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said “When one person is murdered it is a tragedy. When one millions people are murdered it is a statistic!”  We have got used to the fact that 60,000 babies are killed each year by the abortionist doctors.  But we will be shocked at the news that one child was “murdered.”  I think one reason is that our minds can grasp the tragedy of one or a few deaths, but they cannot cope with thousands – they cease to be persons and become a mass.  One shooting star will galvanize us.  Billions, which appear to remain stationary, fail to stir our interest.

As far as I can determine, most pro-life people are against abortion because, it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.  That is, of course, the basis of the entire pro-life movement.  But, from a purely pragmatic point of view, abortion can be seen as doing serious damage to society.

This is made very clear in an article in the March Interim, written by Winifred Prentice, under the heading “A Sad Story of Missing Children.”  I shall concentrate on only one of a number of aspects – the effect of abortion on schools and consequently, on teachers right across Canada.

Affecting the economy

Dealing only with accepted government statistics and taking 40 children as the average per classroom, Winifred comes up with some startling conclusions.  She calculates that from 1971 to 1981 there were 14,117 classrooms than there would have been if these children had been allowed to live.  This means 14,117 less teachers employed than there might have been.  But others besides teachers are affected by abortion.

Fewer children means less employment for nurses, secretaries, maintenance workers, bus drivers, school board officials, etc.  And fewer children in this generation must mean even fewer in the next generation – fewer schools with all the consequences which must follow.  We are trying to “have our cake and eat it too,” and that procedure has always been doomed to failure.

Why can’t the government, the churches, the education boards wake-up to the obvious fact, that by allowing abortion to continue – and increase – we are destroying ourselves!  The wholesale acceptance of the murdering of babies cannot but weaken the age-old concept of the glory of motherhood; the “easy way out” of abortion as a contraceptive device degrades women and they become more and more the accommodating instruments of the lusts of men; with fewer people to feed, clothe, teach, and entertain, the economy of the country cannot but be deleteriously affected.  “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad!”