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

[Anonymous]

Medical tourism for abortion to places like India will increase. Get an all inclusive luxury package of flying first class, flying to Delhi, living in a 5 star hotel, getting abortion, visiting Taj Mahal, getting healing spa treatments and flying back. All inclusive package for $10 K. Buy 1 get another at 50%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This weird adoption fantasy, particularly for white babies, is definitely a strong undercurrent of the pro life movement.

This isn't true at all.

THere is a strong focus on saving black babies and adopting them within the prolife movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This weird adoption fantasy, particularly for white babies, is definitely a strong undercurrent of the pro life movement.

This isn't true at all.

THere is a strong focus on saving black babies and adopting them within the prolife movement.

There’s both — savior complex and the desire for more “acceptable stock” of white babied too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”

God help us.

Adoption doesn’t guarantee a good life, not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Medical tourism for abortion to places like India will increase. Get an all inclusive luxury package of flying first class, flying to Delhi, living in a 5 star hotel, getting abortion, visiting Taj Mahal, getting healing spa treatments and flying back. All inclusive package for $10 K. Buy 1 get another at 50%.

Ummm I would not think that woudl be a good destination for abortion...maybe Canada???

[Anonymous]

When will these pro-life people who "so desperately want a child and hope post-Roe there will be more babies for meeeeeee" adopt one of the many, many (many) youths already in the system? Oh yeah, cause they aren't perfect newborn babies. GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”

God help us.

Yea, no. Having gone through a really difficult pregnancy I never ever want to be pregnant again. It’s not a baby.

That’s not what the poster, who clearly acknowledged the presence of human life said; they said better dead than adopted, which is outrageous.

As for you, try studying up on your biology and maybe some bioethics. Things are what they are. One can debate their relative value, but it is irrational, unscientific, and self deluding to convince oneself that some creature begins as one thing and ends as another.

Of course one thing can become another. A fertilized egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A blastocyst is not an infant.

And yes, with 100% certainty, I would choose my own life, my own dreams, my own children, and my own peace over a blastocyst. Not one iota of regret. I am a moral person and for me, my family, my sanity, and my community, abortion care would be welcome and necessary if I got pregnant now.

[Anonymous]

Contrary to common thought. it is *not* difficult to adopt a black infant. You submit your paperwork and the birth-mother chooses the family. We (white) are the adoptive parents of 2 internationally-adopted children and a domestically-adopted black child. It took less than a year, as it did for all the couples (and 2 singles) that we are acquainted with.

You did not need Roe V Wade to be overturned to adopt a healthy (black) infant.

[Anonymous]

No. There will be more struggles with access to safe pregnancy termination. And that's it.

[Anonymous]

Someone please explain why the Catholic Church will not baptize a still born? I'll be waiting . . .

And as for you OP, you're channeling Serena Joy and it's creepy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Contrary to common thought. it is *not* difficult to adopt a black infant. You submit your paperwork and the birth-mother chooses the family. We (white) are the adoptive parents of 2 internationally-adopted children and a domestically-adopted black child. It took less than a year, as it did for all the couples (and 2 singles) that we are acquainted with.

You did not need Roe V Wade to be overturned to adopt a healthy (black) infant.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but OP and others like her do not want to adopt a black (or brown or any actual color) anything.

This entire thread is premised on the idea that the end of Roe will mean more 13 year old white girls will get pregnant the first time they have sex (with a white boy). They will be otherwise healthy (physically and mentally) females who have never eaten anything but organic produce and never taken any drug other than the occasional Advil. When they find themselves "in trouble" and for whatever reason their parents choose not to be parents and instead force her to go through with the pregnancy, you get a healthy, white infant ready for sale.

And one truly screwed up 13-14 (or 15 or 18 or 28) year old female who should have had the option of controlling her own body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone please explain why the Catholic Church will not baptize a still born? I'll be waiting . . .

And as for you OP, you're channeling Serena Joy and it's creepy.

What a weird question
Only mormons babtize dead people

Why would you even want this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone please explain why the Catholic Church will not baptize a still born? I'll be waiting . . .

And as for you OP, you're channeling Serena Joy and it's creepy.

Because someone who is already in Heaven can't participate in a sacrament here on Earth.

You also can't give viaticum or the anointing of the sick to someone who is definitely dead. If you aren't sure you can, although it won't be of value if you guessed wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone please explain why the Catholic Church will not baptize a still born? I'll be waiting . . .

And as for you OP, you're channeling Serena Joy and it's creepy.

Because someone who is already in Heaven can't participate in a sacrament here on Earth.

You also can't give viaticum or the anointing of the sick to someone who is definitely dead. If you aren't sure you can, although it won't be of value if you guessed wrong.

This, more or less. A person has to be alive to receive sacramental grace. A definitively dead infant would not be a proper subject of baptism. This is not to say stillborn infants are never baptized. Since baptism can be validly performed by anyone with the right intention and who follows the ritual, there certainly are parents who have baptized stillborn children. Baptism can also be administered conditionally: “If you are alive . . ..”

There also is “baptism by desire,” wherein a person without access to baptism for some reason could receive the same grace by virtue of a sincere desire to have it. At least some theologians support the idea that a child in utero can be baptized by desire via the parent’s sincere hope that such grace would be imparted even before birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

“Murdering my child is better than providing for it to have a good life through the beneficence of a generous couple.”

God help us.

Yea, no. Having gone through a really difficult pregnancy I never ever want to be pregnant again. It’s not a baby.

That’s not what the poster, who clearly acknowledged the presence of human life said; they said better dead than adopted, which is outrageous.

As for you, try studying up on your biology and maybe some bioethics. Things are what they are. One can debate their relative value, but it is irrational, unscientific, and self deluding to convince oneself that some creature begins as one thing and ends as another.

Of course one thing can become another. A fertilized egg is not a chicken. A tadpole is not a frog. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A blastocyst is not an infant.

And yes, with 100% certainty, I would choose my own life, my own dreams, my own children, and my own peace over a blastocyst. Not one iota of regret. I am a moral person and for me, my family, my sanity, and my community, abortion care would be welcome and necessary if I got pregnant now.

Calling things by different names does not render them ontologically different. A fertilized egg is a chicken in an early stage of development. Same with the frog. Same with the child in utero.