Post-Roe, will there be more infants available to adopt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's this simple, if you have a child you cannot afford then don't expect uncle sam to bail you out - adoption is a healthy alternative and there are many people out there with the money management ability to both love AND care for a child, unlike many parents who do not think before they do the deed

Poor, traumatized women aren’t cheap wombs for infertile couples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's this simple, if you have a child you cannot afford then don't expect uncle sam to bail you out - adoption is a healthy alternative and there are many people out there with the money management ability to both love AND care for a child, unlike many parents who do not think before they do the deed

This was the prevalent societal thinking during the "Baby Scoop" era of the 1930s to early 1970s. It is a fairy tale and it is about controlling women and their sexuality. Adoption is a "healthy" alternative for WHOM? It isn't for the woman who does not wish to be pregnant and carry a baby to term. It isn't necessarily for the child placed for adoption. Read the recent New Yorker article doing a deep dive into the lives of adoptees and their stories. One key fact in that article---most adoptees are themselves pro-choice. I am SO sick of Catholics and Evangelicals trying to impose their religious beliefs about when life begins onto the rest of us. Let the Catholics and Evangelicals who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies live out their beliefs, carry the pregnancies to term, and then place the child for adoption. But leave the rest of women---the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, mainline Christian protestants, and athiests and agnostics (apologies to the belief systems I have omitted) alone.

"Adoption is hard so let's kill a life!" - PP

There’s no “we.”

[Anonymous]

You’re not entitled to a baby just because you can’t make one yourself. It must suck to be barren, but too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's this simple, if you have a child you cannot afford then don't expect uncle sam to bail you out - adoption is a healthy alternative and there are many people out there with the money management ability to both love AND care for a child, unlike many parents who do not think before they do the deed

Correct, that’s why getting an abortion is the ultimate act of personal responsibility. It’s knowing your limitations & life goals as a woman.

[Anonymous]

The way people have zero compunction about forcing somebody to birth a baby and then taking it away, just because she doesn’t have money, is nuts. Let’s deny women their right to boldly autonomy *and* make a policy of taking babies away from those who aren’t as financially fortunate as us. Do you hear yourselves?? Have you studied any history at all?

[Anonymous]

If I was pregnant, wanted an abortion and didn’t have the resources to travel to get a surgical one legally, I would attempt to perform a pill one. If that didn’t work, I would try DIY methods. If I did give birth, I would do some, uh, other things…

I would smoke cigarettes & drink alcohol during the pregnancy, and certainly wouldn’t step foot in an ob office.

What I would never, ever do is hand the baby over to a wealthy married couple at infancy or put the baby in a box at a firehouse!

[Anonymous]

I’ve never felt a chill like I felt reading what Amy C-B said about how the existence of adoption means it’s fine to force women to have children.

[Anonymous]

I’ve met many, many adoptees through my line of work who suffered enormously under the care of their “financially stable adoptive parents.” Especially international & transracial adoptees. There is a growing moving of adoptees standing up for their rights.

[Anonymous]

Abortion is almost always a preferable alternative to having your baby ripped away from you at birth.

[Anonymous]

See: Romani under the rule of Nicolae Ceaușescu.

[Anonymous]

No. There will be more dead women and more abused and neglected children and more poverty and more violence in the world long-term. F the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's this simple, if you have a child you cannot afford then don't expect uncle sam to bail you out - adoption is a healthy alternative and there are many people out there with the money management ability to both love AND care for a child, unlike many parents who do not think before they do the deed

The entitlement in this post. Chilling.

[Anonymous]

There are tens of thousands of children in foster care in the US, many of whom have special needs & are school-aged. You’d think that someone “desperate to care for children” would be jumping at the opportunity to care for these kids.

Or heck, that anyone desperate to do that would become a daycare worker, nanny, social worker or teacher.

[Anonymous]

Ethiopia, the Philippines and Uganda have a lot of warm bodies, but I would not describe such countries as places where one would have a good quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. There will be more dead women and more abused and neglected children and more poverty and more violence in the world long-term. F the right.

How many MORE women would there be if not for rampant abortions?

People who care about women, actually care about women, even when they’re tiny little beings, not yet born. How many have been snuffed?