Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

That might be some children but not all children in foster kids came from those conditions. Even accepting that shows that there is a bias in adoption. As another poster put it its about wanting Teslas rather than Nissan Leafs. So what happens to all those Nissan Leafs?

If a child born in a broken home who also might have congenital difficulties is going to end up in the foster care system and not be adopted (a Nissan Leaf to use the example) then the obvious answer would be to have less Nissan Leafs.

If it was about adopting children then it shouldn't matter if they are older as a 12 year old is still a child. Yet by the arguments presented here those children are just condemned to foster care while women shouldn't be having abortions so there babies can be adopted. What happens if that baby isn't adoped right away? That means another child who ends up being condemned to foster care with diminishing chances. Again the straightforward logic would say we should have more abortions to reduce the possibility of having more unwanted children stuck in foster care.

I don't subscribe to that logic but I'm not making arguments about how preferential people are in adoption. Frankly it's a far colder and callous argument. That cute babies get adopted but if you're not adopted as a cute baby you're SOL. That said women should still be forced to go through their pregnancy because there is a chance their baby get's adopted.

My argument has been that abortion should be rare and we need to work to addressing the conditions to reduce abortions rather than just moralizing or claiming that babies will get adopted when we know that not evey unwanted child does get adopted.

Also as someone with relatives who were adopted and close friends who have tried to adopt it's not an easy process. There are layers of checks and bureaucracy. It's not helped by groups like Catholic Charities not wanting to allow same sex couples to adopt. I admit not knowing enough about the issue but perhaps reducing regulation in adoption might help the situation but I don't see adoption as a significant solution to abortion.

 

So you's as old as Deckard?

(sorry couldn't resist.)

 

That's horrible but I'm not surprised. We're going to hear more of stuffl like this.

 

True you were responding directly to someone else that said there is an overall context to this discussion. That said you're still adding conditions to the scenario and not engaging it directly or forthrightly. Besides that if someone claims to care about somoene wouldn't they be willing to cover their losses from a risky behavior. WOuld you find it strange if someone's partner told them that if they went hang gliding they would still support them even if they were injured?

You're making several assumptions here. You're presuming that every child born is born healthy and otherwise from a stable relationship but has otherwise been unwanted. Many abortions come from situations where the relationship is very unstable, for example the women might be a drug user or abused, and many abortions are from fetal abnormalites. Your assumption is that those don't exist but as you've alread noted parents don't want to adopt a child with behavior issues. How likely is a baby born with Down's syndrome or with fetal alcohol symptom to be adobpted.

Your argument is simplistic and unrealistic that every baby born will be a "Tesla", when many are "Nissan Leafs".

Congratulations. You found an example of a doctor that broke the law and is in prison for it. I suppose then I should say that the legal profession is completely corrupt because of Michael Avenatti.

 

@rocketsjudoka

Talking about foster kids on the topic of abortion is problematic. On average, they're 8 years old as they enter the foster care system. The older they are the less likely they are to get adopted if they are even up for adoption. The younger they are the more likely they are to get adopted if they are even up for adoption. However, foster kids are typically NOT up for adoption. Those are two important reasons why it doesn't make sense to talk about foster children in a discussion of abortion.

The babies who are put up for adoption rather than aborted get adopted. They don't become teenage foster children. There are way more people looking to adopt a baby than babies available for adoption. Using the number of children in the foster care system in support of abortion just isn't a strong move.

 

I think this is getting pretty far afield from anything I was talking about, but okay. I would say someone hang gliding understands they are engaging in risky behavior and should be prepared to accept the potential negative outcomes of that behavior. If they were to suffer those negative effects, I would not agree with them killing someone else to help alleviate those negative effects. If someone chose to break up with a partner after a hang glider crash (maybe they became disfigured, infertile, or some other deal breaker for the other partner) I would not be shocked.

I made no such assumption.

A mother being a drug user or abuse victim prevents giving the infant up for adoption how?

Some of them, sure. 12% abort based on "fetal health" based on self-reporting. Would you be okay outlawing abortion in the remaining 88% of cases, because if not, this is not really the basis of your argument, you are trying to deflect.

People adopt special needs kids all the time. I don't think you understand that people want to adopt babies and they often will take any baby they can get. People are desperate for babies. There are millions of couples trying to adopt a baby, and the supply is not there.

Being an infant is what makes them a Tesla. Some other requirements might make them a Model S Plaid.

If I had said the medical profession is completely corrupt because of Kermit Gosnell, sure. If I had asked you to provide one example of a corrupt lawyer as though it was difficult to do that, and you said Michael Avenatti, that would be a perfectly acceptable answer though.

 

Then tell everyone who keeps pestering me about it to drop it if you want it dropped.

 

So what is it that you are saying at the end of the day? What is it that you want other than labeling people irresponsible - which frankly is their right anyway.

Do you want to outlaw sex? Make people get permission from the gov't or church to have "responsible sex"? Where you going with all this?

 

10 year old girl unable to get an abortion in Ohio, **** these people man.

 

Outside of a woman’s body, much like an organ a fetus is not viable. I draw the line at the 12-14 week mark personally but all this law does is **** over women for a cluster of cells


Our economy is already ****ed we don’t need another 60 millions kids from parents incapable of caring for them

 

Not to mention pregnancy is a big ****ing deal for a woman in terms of health even without complications.

 

No, I don't want to outlaw sex.

Like I've said many times, people are free to make irresponsible decisions. People do it every day regarding their diet, personal finances and how they use their sexual faculties. They have to live the consequences of those decisions. I want to implore people to make good decisions and be more thoughtful in the exercise of their sexual faculties. It's tragic people make irresponsible decisions but that's life.

I won't be like you and others and just pretend people making irresponsible decisions doesn't exist and nobody should take any responsibility for the decisions they make.

 

You're still being very vague, what do you mean by "implore people to make good decisions...."

Spell it out. Say what you really mean.

 

lmao I've said it like 50 times over the course of this thread.

I think people should exercise their sexual faculties where, if a pregnancy occurs, that won't put the woman in the position to decide between an abortion or raising a child, young, unstable and in poverty.

Doesn't that sound good?

 

That sounds like a very round about way of saying - sex should only be used for procreation.

 

No, sex should be used only with an openness to procreation. You don’t have to be trying to get pregnant but if it happens, which it tends to do… sex being a procreative act and all… that’s ok.

If you’re having sex and you’re not open to procreation and something happens, you’re going to put a woman in a really sh** situation.

 

When I read this (got to be seriously responsible and faces all the consequences ), two thoughts pop up.

Given that a human male can make 100 (or even more) females pregnant in ~1 year period while a female can be pregnant only once, I don’t see why the burden of punishment is only on females.

Thus if a female is punished for an abortion, the father(s) [since we might not know which ones at the time] should be too. States law should make it so.

 

What if the father doesn't approve of the abortion? What if he isn't even aware of the abortion, or the pregnancy for that matter. We don't usually charge people for crimes committed by other people, and certainly not crimes committed without their knowledge and support. If the father solicits the abortion, performs the abortion, conspires to get the abortion, or aids and abets the abortion, then go ahead and punish him. If his only contribution to the abortion is that he was the father of the aborted child, then punishing him would be an injustice.

 

Later term abortions are also about 1%, vast majority of abortions are early term abortions.

If you truly wanted the best for women then you should start by listening to their opinions on this matter.

I mean, I'm guessing you don't have a vagina and that you are not a woman. That means you have 0 experience with sex as a woman, that means you likely have no idea what you're talking about in this discussion. You are a dude literally giving sex advice and life advice to women having 0 experience as one.

So you have 0 experience having sex as a woman, 0 experience being pregnant, 0 experience having an abortion, and moralizing very heavily on all these things.

The main issue with your argument is that is assumes women are supposed to know the guy they are having sex with is going to abandon them. They don't know that at the time, hell, the man doesn't know that.

You're also ignoring that MOST, the vast majority of relationships today, cannot advance without some kind of sexual intimacy. Many guys will flat out lose interest in a woman that's not having sex with them. If you want to encourage abstinence you should be going at the men that have set this standard, not women, because I can tell you for a fact that most women operate with this knowledge. "Oh, if I don't have sex with this guy I'm interested in he's probably going to leave me." so I feel like you're approaching this all wrong. A lot of men seem to only be able to think from their POV (understandably), that courtship is led completely by the woman, that the man has to do the impressing and yes it is true that we do have to do a lot to impress women...but men forget all the crap women do to impress us, to convince us that they are worth settling down with.

I should note, I also don't have a vagina. I also am not a woman. So I don't know much about sex and pregnancy either from their POV...but my family has a crazy female-to-male ratio, being in rooms with like 7 women to 2 men I can tell you most women have the mentality of "If he's not getting it from me, he's getting it from someone else," and honestly, they tend to be right about that.

I would challenge any man to find female forums, reddits, whatever...just lurk in them for a while. The dating world from their POV is a lot different than males. It's very enlightening and well worth the time and if you are actually brave enough try to have that discussion with them. I bet most will tell you that they thought the guy they were with would never leave them but this happened and that happened and now here they are.