Post-Roe, will there be more infants available to adopt?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Women... or girls... Did it ever occur to OP that some of those freshly generated infants will have a father who is also their grandfather or uncle? |
Anonymous
|
Not the kind YOU want.
How disgusting. |
Anonymous
| I think the result will be a lot more children be raised by clueless parents in sketchy circumstances. |
Anonymous
|
More infants to adopt? LOL
Who is in the market to adopt infants with terrible genes and womb environment? Most of these poor unwanted kids will be probably used for nefarious purposes. Either they will become criminals, or be in the sex trade or harvested for their organs. In this day and age, educated people will use BC or morning after pill. Rich people will go on "abortion travels" to countries that offer abortions cheaply and safely. |
Anonymous
| I wonder who will all these children grow up to be 20 years from now. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Rich people have always been able to procure abortion access.
There will be more middle class babies born but since the stigma regarding illegitimacy has largely gone away, those women will keep their children instead of placed for adoption. Unfortunately, that will result in a greater decline of the middle class and widening income inquality, plus greater instability for kids as their young unmarried parents either fail to marry or marry and divorce quickly. And the sickeningly dismissive ACB statement during Dobbs that "safe haven" laws were the best for everyone was staggering in how it ignored the impact on both the woman who had given birth AND on the abandoned child. (It truly was a 1950s throwback to the era when young women were forced to endure the health risks of unwanted pregnancies and a generation of adoptees were told they needed to "get over" the pain of abandonment and just feel "lucky".) And while there will likely be no appreciable increase in the number of healthy children available for adoption, there WILL be a large number of special needs kids relinquished to the state, as many women will not be able to provide for those children. And while there is no shortage of judgmental evangelicals waxing eloquent about the glories of adoption, there are far fewer willing to put their own finances and family structures on the line in order to take care of children with tremendous and life long physical and/or mental challenges. |
Anonymous
| I think all the pro lifers should have to give 20% of their income every year to help women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. If this were the case overnight they would become pro choice! |
Anonymous
This scenario is SO rare that it ended up in ESPN. |
Anonymous
| Stop with the anti-adoption crap. |
Anonymous
That is the story of adopted children, and children raised by unmarried teenagers By the way, I have made sure that my kids know everything possible about contraception |
Anonymous
Just because they know doesn't mean they will use it! |
Anonymous
| This is such a dystopian question. |
Anonymous
|
What a messed-up way to think about it.
My guess is no. Currently, most women who have abortions are already mothers. They are unlikely to give up their additional baby for adoption, even if keeping the baby results in serious financial or other hardship for their family. The result will be a lot of unnecessary suffering, but not many babies up for adoption. Another category of people who abort is people whose fetuses have abnormalities or conditions that mean they are either unlikely to make it to birth or are unlikely to survive long after birth or who are likely to have severe birth defects or disabilities. Again, a lot of unnecessary suffering and unlikely to result in adoptable babies. A third (perhaps overlapping) category of abortions is people for whom carrying to term is very risky. These people, assuming they don't die during pregnancy or childbirth, and assuming it's not a stillbirth, are not likely to put their baby up for adoption. I suppose the dream is that a lot of (white) teens and young adults will get pregnant and put their babies up for adoption? Some might, I suppose, but given that there is less of a stigma against unwed mothers, it seems unlikely that you'll see a huge increase. It's as or more likely that they'll keep the baby (perhaps having to drop out of school or having their educations curtailed), and that they or their families will raise it. |
Anonymous
No one is opposed to adoption. We're opposed to forcing women to carry through unwanted pregnancies in order make "more infants available." |