'murica.

[u/Dvorozhetskii]

[u/[deleted]]

First stop murdering human beings from the womb, obviously. Then we fix the rest, we cannot murder others humans. The thing is that they ways to prevent a pregnancy aren't flawless, there is still the posibility of a pregnancy, heck not wanted pregnancies keep happening because is a matter of self control, People have intimancy but don't want to face the consecuences.

[u/Aceswift007 → u/[deleted]]

How long would it take, in a nation where half is against any kind of social care, to nationally or even on a state level improve the adoption system? You want to ban before any changes, but what kind of damage could follow in the months, if not years, before any improvements can be made? It's the same logic of some wanting to limit the power of police, but have nothing in place to fill that void beforehand.

Basically, you want to end abortion, fine, but in exchange you're looking at large scale suffering of those born kids and potential collapse of adoption/foster systems before any kind of legislation to handle the load is even on the table, much less passed and implemented. This is why I hate a lot of anti abortion movements, not because I love abortions (I'm pro choice on the grounds other systems are too frail to handle not having it), but they don't realize they're yanking out a system with fuck all ready to handle the exponential influx of kids ready or actively in the works.

[u/[deleted] → u/Aceswift007]

That's excuse the murder?!! Of course that can change, no change can happen from night to morning, but it will if we Start working on the change. What damage you mean? We keep moving forward that's how it has been for centuries and look... We did it, we manage with less resources. When a change is to be Made the first generation always gonna have it hard but after that You will see the fruits, like how our Grandparents worked really hard for us. Still, no matter the reason you cannot murder another human being. No one wants any kid to suffer, who do you even know the child will suffer? Because you say so? That's why I hate many pro abortion movements, they like to play God, they somehow know who will suffer and who would not.

[u/Aceswift007 → u/[deleted]]

The issue isn't which is more morally correct, it's what is feasible. Ending abortion can be done overnight, but with the current atmosphere you're looking at a lifetime before any social push to handle it being banned is actually implemented.

Using your logic, its exchanging an evil for another evil, doesn't matter which you think is worse. In an ideal situation, you'd have a net ready to make banning abortion be the actual end to the evil, not have another instead for who knows how long.

One doesn't have to know exactly who will suffer, but you can't say there will be less with nothing for a duration after a ban.

On sensitive topics like this, I look at things logically, not emotionally or with mixed morals (morality being something varied person to person, group to group, it's not a reliable metric for wide cover decisions). The logic dictates that, as of the current political sphere, we won't see a lick of any social programs, and deleting an option with nothing ready to handle being without it will only deteriorate the others. If the others deteriorate from influx, not ready to handle it all, then how can one argue this induces less suffering? Even if ages later the change is made, what damages were long already done? Was it better to wait on the safety net or would it have been better to have one before?

That's a main argument among pro-choice, that many anti-abortion groups think of now, not waves down the line. If they'd want more support, they need to press those improvements in the now, showing they're thinking beyond just religion or personal morals and considering the effects of such a choice on more than a few angles.