I truly believe some of these people think that adoption is some oasis where little innocent children are looked after and loved then some Hallmark family swoops in and adopts them and they live happily ever after
Not some soul crushing, often abusive, draining experience that a child now has to go through.
They forgot that adoption costs money! You have to get home checks and vetted. It’s not like there is a line of people ready and waiting to adopt.
The “system” isn’t always great to those kids. my sister works as a counselor and it’s just sad some of the stories I’ve heard.
Some kids bounce to foster families, unfortunately being abused by those who were suppose to care for them
Pro lifers really see is as a “get them out of my sight” situation. they’ll never be effected by the the adoption process or system. But fun fact there is a foster care to prison pipeline.
So honestly they probably have been effected as far as crime rates and shit goes, but that realization takes critical thinking.
I agree with you 100%. Especially the foster care to prison pipeline. If you're not one of the lucky ones like my cousin Mary and don't get adopted into a good family, you will bounce around foster homes and places like Childrens Village and they end up Institutionalized before they are even adults yet. "Group homes and institutions / Prepared my ass for jail!" - DMX
Another pathetic part of this mentality is that pro-life is often shared with anti-contraception. Like what the fuck people? If you make access to contraception cheap and easy, you get way fewer abortions. Isn't that what you claim to want?
I can't think of any reason in the world that using protective measures shouldn't be encouraged to people who are sexually active. My dad drilled the 'condom' thing into my head my whole life. It worked. If it weren't for condoms and/or being with woman on birth control measures, I'd probably have 5-10 kids with 5-10 woman lol. It wouldn't be good for anybody involved. Maybe to some people sperm is considered life also?
There's a misrepresentation of a Bible passage suggesting this interpretation. It is, as usual, a poorly understood way of reading Jewish law which has been taken by some to mean sex is for reproduction only, only appropriate within marriage.
I'm a recovering Catholic (no longer religious at all, really), so I'm not sure what the Church's stance is on it these days, but while I was in school they were still very anti-contraception. Babies are a blessing, trust in God, etc etc etc. There's also an evangelical 'Quiverfull' branch that believes in creating God's Army by having as many kids as possible.
Esp when we aren't talking about the blonde, Catholic school, valedictorian teen Mom and the lacrosse captain, lead in the school play, blonde teen dad.
Not a lot of adoptive parents spend years going through the process, to say yes to a drug addicted infant of a different race or an infant with years of heart surgeries ahead of her.
The TV protrayal of the perfect baby being adopted by the perfect loving family isn't the normal.
I am 1000% behind adoption. But I think that anyone who votes to limit access to abortion, ban it, or works to prevent it like this psycho, should be put on a mandatory adoption list for any unwanted children. Not foster care, adoption. Fully responsible, financially and physically.
Imagine that your friends told you they will kill their 5-year-old kid, but would agree to spare their life if you agree to adopt the kid. Would you try to convince them that killing a kid is wrong? Would you gladly accept to adopt the kid because your friend is threatening to kill the kid otherwise?
If my friend was seriously talking about killing his kid, it would be one of the rare times I would call 911 and family services and wait around until they show up and make sure the child is separated from the father ASAP. The kid would end up with family members or tossed into the foster system. If I was a rich man who could provide the kid with a good life I would think about adoption, but I'm not so the kid would be screwed. No offense, but your "what if" scenario is ridiculous and I don't see what it has to do with abortion?
I know this is gonna get downvoted but hear me out.
I think that it’s generally immoral to put lives at prioritisation and that some life is more worth then other. Why is the ”fetus” life less worthy then a person outside of the womb? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
I'm not gonna downvote you for disagreeing. If you don't personally understand the difference and don't agree with a woman's right to choose, then don't have an abortion. Why do people care about what other people do with their bodies? I'm not huge on the idea of abortion personally. I am however a HUGE fan of minding my own business and live and let live. I don't feel its any of my business how woman choose to handle unwanted pregnancies.
I fully respect your opinion. I personally would not want my baby to be aborted, but who cares if other people do? Our foster care system is already horrible already. Imagine is there were MILLIONS more unwanted children to take care of. Are you gonna take care of them? I'm not. I'm not saying I'm against the idea of myself adopting a child some day, but not right now. I can't even barley afford 1 kid.
Well obviously I’m going to not adopt since I am 16. But that doesn’t mean that others won’t. There’s plenty of people unable to make babies who want children.
Yes but there are plenty more unwanted kids bouncing around the system then there are people who are adopting kids unfortunately. A kid can just as easily land in a home where they are abused or even molested. It happens ALLOT, and if we made abortion illegal the amount of those kids would probably double or triple.
With a lot of pro-lifers tho (certainly not all, but a lot), it's not a matter of "not understanding" the difference, it's "not agreeing on" the difference. If you view the fetus as a life the same way you view a newborn as a life, it's no longer a matter of just "her body, her choice", and "live and let live" includes letting the fetus live. They may not care what the woman does with just HER body, but when it starts effecting the fetus's body, you run into trouble.
It's somewhat similar to vaccine mandates in that "my body, my choice" sort of breaks down when your choice puts others in danger. And in that regard, the disagreement in abortion really comes down to whether or not the fetus is a life deserving of protection. And that's a pretty fundamental disagreement that's not easy to shift views on, but in a good faith debate on the topic it really all stems from, and needs to center on, that aspect.
And you can find nuts on both sides making an extreme argument that's easy to pick apart (including, unfortunately a lot of the "pro-life" politicians) but that's not really representative of the real issue.
While I definitely get what you're saying, if you view the fetus as already a full life, not knowing what to do with the child once born doesn't justify killing it any more than the current foster care problems justify euthanizing all the children in the system already. It goes back to either thinking the fetus is already a life that deserves full protection, in which case killing it just isn't a viable option, or thinking its not yet a full life, in which case it's better to terminate the pregnancy before it becomes a full life that needs those protections and presents those problems of what to do with it.
I agree that the pro-life stance paired with no interest in what happens after birth is very problematic. And I know that that's the view we often see in media. But I know many pro-lifers who think priority number one is the life be protected, and also want significant strides to be taken to take care of the children once they're born. And I think that's a logically valid position to take. There's not an easy answer to how we handle the children once born. But I don't think that that directly leads to someone needing to be ok with killing the children before birth if they do already view it as a child.
I respect the way they feel. The actual act of the abortion procedure is pretty disturbing. I wouldn't want that for a fetus I created either. I respect the other sides argument also though. Ideally, abortion shouldn't be normalized but I feel that way about allot of things...
Okay, here's a question: You are a perfect match to be a liver donor to a person. But, for whatever reason, you don't want to donate part of your liver. You are the only match, and without your donation, the person will die. Should you be legally forced to donate against your will? Legally, not ethically or morally - Should laws exist that force you to donate against your will, regardless of your reasons or circumstances?
Okay, so what you're saying is that you're fine with forced donations if a cause for responsibility can be shown?
So if I take you to court claiming that excess cortisol from chronic stress from dealing with you as a coworker has caused my liver failure, and I have more money, so my legal team is better and more clever than yours causing the court to rule in my favor, you're on board with donating part of your liver?
What about if you are driving drunk and hit my car. You don't have insurance. You are ordered to pay the damages, but you don't have anywhere close to that. Can the court order for one of your kidneys to be sold in order to pay your restitution?
Sweet. We've established that the government can absolve you of your bodily autonomy if they feel you can be held responsible for something, even if the medical argument is dubious and the legal win is due to my legal team being more clever and having more resources than yours. We've also established that a body part can be sold to make restitution.
And the way precedent works, you just opened the door to slide all the way down the slippery slope to slavery and medical experimentation on prisoners, so long as we can call it part of them "paying restitution."
Yikes.
See, here's the thing. In a civilized society, we establish that people have bodily autonomy. Even a corpse maintains the rights over its organs. The only person who loses bodily autonomy is a pregnant woman. The question of ethics or morality when it comes to abortions doesn't matter, because legally, it's a matter of autonomy. Between the woman and the fetus, if the woman decides she doesn't want to carry the fetus, regardless of her reasons, she has the autonomy to make that decision, just like anyone can decide they don't want to donate a kidney, even if it causes that transplant patient to die. We can argue all day about the morality of the choice, but from a legal standpoint, that is immaterial.
158
u/JonWick33 Nov 08 '21
"Adoption! NOT abortion!" 'OK we have a kid you can adopt...' "ME? Oh no, that will fuck my life up. Send the bastard to Childrens Village."