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

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

And what is your argument?
Vegetarians should not eat eggs?
Frogs are edible but tadpoles are poisonous?

[Anonymous]

Living Mormons don't get baptized until they are 8 years old.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

There is nothing wring with you believing that; indeed I can see why you should never have an abortion. But I do *not* believe it and therefore I will have an abortion .

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Actually it does.

Because literally an egg IS NOT a chicken.

And if I gave you the 1,800 or so individual parts of a car in your driveway, you would not have a car.

[Anonymous]

Pro-choice supporters who can't admit it's killing babies are cowards and morons. Of course it is killing babies. I fully support a mom's right to kill her own baby as long as it has not yet been born. I don't apologize for my position and I won't hide behind "durrrr it's not really a life" like the other low iq degenerates

[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.

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.

Actually it does.

Because literally an egg IS NOT a chicken.

And if I gave you the 1,800 or so individual parts of a car in your driveway, you would not have a car.

You really need to get some philosophical education. And truth is truth whether you believe it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro-choice supporters who can't admit it's killing babies are cowards and morons. Of course it is killing babies. I fully support a mom's right to kill her own baby as long as it has not yet been born. I don't apologize for my position and I won't hide behind "durrrr it's not really a life" like the other low iq degenerates

It might be a kind of life, but it's not a person. An embryo is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. It gets closer and closer to becoming a baby. I don't have to admit that it's "killing babies" because I genuinely don't think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro-choice supporters who can't admit it's killing babies are cowards and morons. Of course it is killing babies. I fully support a mom's right to kill her own baby as long as it has not yet been born. I don't apologize for my position and I won't hide behind "durrrr it's not really a life" like the other low iq degenerates

Abortion ends a potential life. A potential "baby." Not an actual baby.

It's not a baby until it's born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-choice supporters who can't admit it's killing babies are cowards and morons. Of course it is killing babies. I fully support a mom's right to kill her own baby as long as it has not yet been born. I don't apologize for my position and I won't hide behind "durrrr it's not really a life" like the other low iq degenerates

Abortion ends a potential life. A potential "baby." Not an actual baby.

It's not a baby until it's born.

Since you are so concerned about life, how about foster and adopt teens out of foster care. They are alive and need families and parents. Time to step up.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps posters are getting lost in semantics
Guilting women for being sexually actively is a useless activity and serves no purpose
Guilting women for having had an abortion also serves no purpose

Question was about whether limited access to abortion would result in a return to the baby scoop era and bring about an increase in the number of available infants available for adoption

I highly doubt it, there will be an increase in child poverty, more disadvantage generally more societal issues

Women are not incubators for anyone, adoption is a solution for very few rare cases.

[Anonymous]

^ I agree with this. Adoptions are rarely focused on finding homes for the most vulnerable and needy babies.

The fact is, private adoptions allow people with money to bypass the process/wait of agency adoptions. They can seek out exactly the kind of child they want to include race, gender and social background. Adopting children who need a family is not their priority; finding the right child for THEIR family is.

Had a family member do exactly this. Found a baby by canvassing pregnant women and got the exact physical characteristics, background and gender they wanted. Paid their money to an attorney and walked out of the hospital with a newborn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or is it still a process with insanely long waitlists?

Hopefully not!!! Plenty of kids to adopt though! If you’re not willing to adopt a kid and aren’t able to conceive or carry, look into IVF, egg/sperm donation, surrogacy. But make sure any donation and surrogacy is done ethically!!! Many countries ban donation and/or surrogacy. Some countries it’s legal but not done ethically and it’s unfair to the young, poor women offering to carry a baby out of desperation for money, not understanding the risks to their health and life!

Please use US surrogate from an agency with good ethics and try to make sure the woman understands all risks that can come with pregnancy and birth, although I think in the US you have to have given birth once to even be a surrogate. Gay couple I know recently welcomed a beautiful baby with egg donation and surrogate.

Hope you are able to have a family if you want one, but I wouldn’t expect adopting a baby to be possible. Adopting a kid can take years, but my friends who used a surrogate and donor started the process in 2020 and baby was just born few weeks ago. There were some obstacles along the way and money wasn’t an issue for them. Much like couples who conceive on their own, loss can occur along the way. No matter what method you use, it could take a couple years to have a baby or adopt a child. Conceiving doesn’t come easily to a lot more couples than we realize. Find a community going through the same struggle and don’t give up if you want to be a parent. Good luck OP!

[Anonymous]

I am predicting that medical abortion tourism to India will increase. As a result, people will get used to eating spicy food.

[Anonymous]

I am predicting birth rates among whites will plummet as more and more women suffer with ectopic pregnancies and other dangerous conditions. Their friends and relatives will see this and forgo children all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know that there is this fantasy about blond, blue eyed girls with great SATs getting pregnant in college by a blond, blue eyed athlete, top scholar supply perfect babies for a bunch of Conservative hags to adopt but that isn’t happening. Sorry Amy.

Or just be like John Roberts and his wife and illegally import a set of twins from Europe. But that required wealth.