Texas v abortion

[Silvanus]

No, there aren't. There is at all times an order of magnitude more families wanting to adopt than there are children to adopt (in the US*). There are older children stuck in the foster system, mostly either because their parents have only temporarily lost custody or because they have unique issues that any random family isn't equipped to manage, but there are dozens of hopeful would-be parents for every infant adopted. The average wait time is in years, without counting that the majority of people who consider adopting a baby give up on it.

*The UK is different, because for some reason your government has decided to make both giving away and adopting a child into miserable, arduous processes.

OK. So in the US specifically, the number of kids awaiting adoption is over 110,000, and rising significantly every year. 20,000 age out of foster care annually because (as Mysteriousgx says) people are much more likely to adopt infants. If there are theoretically over a million families looking to adopt, then clearly 1) geographic, 2) suitability, or 3) practical/ procedural/ financial factors are big enough to prevent them neatly matching up with kids needing families and solving the issue.

So the fact remains: you raise the likelihood of kids being born to people who cannot raise them, and you increase the number of kids without homes and families.

(On a side note, not aimed at tstorm, it should also be remembered that the US party most deeply preoccupied with restricting abortion is also the one most happy to gut funding for social programs like foster care, and the one which pursues preventing gay couples from adopting. The Republicans have very little interest in actually making these lives liveable. They're pro-life... until the point of birth, at which point they cease to give a shit).

 

[Kyrian007]

Abortion tourism making a comeback?

Its already being seen in my state, and its closer to go to Mexico for many Texans than make the trip north to Kansas. And it isn't without more "legitimized" precedent. There are already U.S. insurance companies that insure medical tourism. Already at least 1 insurance company who covers travel costs into Mexico for bulk buying medication because travel costs are cheaper than buying pharmaceuticals in the U.S. Considering the medical costs insurance wise for prenatal care, I would not be shocked to see insurance companies covering Mexibortions. If it would save the corporation money, they'll do it. Again, only for the well-off and insured. If you're too poor or uninsured, god must want you to have that baby.

 

[tstorm823]

There over a hundred thousand non-infants wanting to be adopted that these "concerned would-be parents" don't give two shits about

I'm sure you're out there adopting teenagers left and right.

Look, you figure out a way to remove a fetus from a person *without* killing it, at every stage of development, *and* you make it so doing so isn't a burden on the person wanting to do so, *then* you can ban abortion.

We're getting there, one step at a time, though not being any burden is a silly thing to add, since getting an abortion isn't just "wish it away" in the first place.

Not one minute sooner. Bodily autonomy is paramount

You only say this because of the abortion debate. There is no other context to make you say that sentence. How much of your perspective on life have you warped to justify abortion?

OK. So in the US specifically, the number of kids awaiting adoption is over 110,000, and rising significantly every year. 20,000 age out of foster care annually because (as Mysteriousgx says) people are much more likely to adopt infants. If there are theoretically over a million families looking to adopt, then clearly 1) geographic, 2) suitability, or 3) practical/ procedural/ financial factors are big enough to prevent them neatly matching up with kids needing families and solving the issue.

So the fact remains: you raise the likelihood of kids being born to people who cannot raise them, and you increase the number of kids without homes and families.

So you're saying that there aren't enough people to adopt the infants that would be born if we stopped aborting them... because people only want to adopt infants... you might want to check your logic here. The abundance of abused teenagers removed from their families is tragic, but it isn't indicative of too few families wanting children.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm sure you're out there adopting teenagers left and right.

You can't say "abortion should be illegal because look at everyone who wants to adopt" then get mad when people point out the tens of thousands of actual living kids who want to be adopted.

We're getting there, one step at a time, though not being any burden is a silly thing to add, since getting an abortion isn't just "wish it away" in the first place.

"It's legal for rich people" is a bullshit standard

You only say this because of the abortion debate. There is no other context to make you say that sentence. How much of your perspective on life have you warped to justify abortion?

I mean, I'm also against forced blood, organ and tissue donation, have a dim view of infant circumcision and intersex surgeries, want to amend the 13th amendment to remove the "slavery is okay if part of a prison sentence" exception, am in favor of adult drug and sex decriminalization, and am cool with all kinds of voluntary personal body modifications, among other things.

But we aren't talking about those. This is a Stupid Abortion Law thread

 

[Silvanus]

So you're saying that there aren't enough people to adopt the infants that would be born if we stopped aborting them... because people only want to adopt infants... you might want to check your logic here.

You might want to reread it, because that isn't what I said. There aren't enough people to adopt the current foster care population because of geographic/ suitability/ practical reasons. Hence 110,000 and rising in the foster care population despite these willing families.

It's reductionist to look at the total number of families seeking children on a national level, regardless of circumstance, and concluding that this means we can just adopt out all the kids who need it. The numbers show that to be false immediately.

The abundance of abused teenagers removed from their families is tragic, but it isn't indicative of too few families wanting children.

No, it's indicative of the fact that a family wanting a kid somewhere doesn't necessarily mean another kid who needs a family is going to be adopted. It's not a neat match up.

 

[tstorm823]

You might want to reread it, because that isn't what I said. There aren't enough people to adopt the current foster care population because of geographic/ suitability/ practical reasons. Hence 110,000 and rising in the foster care population despite these willing families.

It's reductionist to look at the total number of families seeking children on a national level, regardless of circumstance, and concluding that this means we can just adopt out all the kids who need it. The numbers show that to be false immediately.

This is a massive non-sequitur. There is a real, gigantic waiting line of families wanting to adopt infants, if a child is born and adopted out instead of being aborted they would be adopted as an infant, and you're pointing to the population of older children who were not voluntarily given up as infants as evidence that there aren't enough people to adopt infants. You're pointing to a completely unrelated phenomenon.

You can't say "abortion should be illegal because look at everyone who wants to adopt" then get mad when people point out the tens of thousands of actual living kids who want to be adopted.

Those thousands of living kids aren't even making a point for you. Quite obviously, none of them are living with their biological parents, and the point was that people who don't want to raise a child after birth don't actually have to.

"It's legal for rich people" is a bullshit standard

Not even remotely what I said. I just want you to know that there is no "burden-free" end to a pregnancy. There are risks, consequences, and discomforts no matter what way you do it.

I mean, I'm also against forced blood, organ and tissue donation, have a dim view of infant circumcision and intersex surgeries, want to amend the 13th amendment to remove the "slavery is okay if part of a prison sentence" exception, am in favor of adult drug and sex decriminalization, and am cool with all kinds of voluntary personal body modifications, among other things.

But we aren't talking about those. This is a Stupid Abortion Law thread

But I'm gonna bet you aren't against prisons entirely, and I'm gonna bet you aren't against court ordered rehab, and I bet you aren't against medicating people with severe mental problems for their own benefit. I bet you have no problem with adults making medical decisions for children. I bet you don't think a lifeguard should be allowed to drop a drowning swimmer because they didn't want to touch them. I bet there are hundreds of situations where you don't consider bodily autonomy over all else because it's just one in a list of reasonable priorities.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Those thousands of living kids aren't even making a point for you. Quite obviously, none of them are living with their biological parents, and the point was that people who don't want to raise a child after birth don't actually have to.

Lol, that is just not true. Love the optimism about our safety nets though

Not even remotely what I said. I just want you to know that there is no "burden-free" end to a pregnancy. There are risks, consequences, and discomforts no matter what way you do it.

Correct. Abortion is much safer, cheaper, and causes fewer permanent bodily changes than the alternatives. And until that changes, abortion should be legal.

But I'm gonna bet you aren't against prisons entirely, and I'm gonna bet you aren't against court ordered rehab, and I bet you aren't against medicating people with severe mental problems for their own benefit. I bet you have no problem with adults making medical decisions for children. I bet you don't think a lifeguard should be allowed to drop a drowning swimmer because they didn't want to touch them. I bet there are hundreds of situations where you don't consider bodily autonomy over all else because it's just one in a list of reasonable priorities.

I see that we're at the point of equating pregnant people with violent criminals, drug addicts who are a danger to others, and the severely mentally ill. Except of the four, bizarrely, it's only the pregnant person that you are okay with forcing to donate blood and tissue.
(Side note, prisons and jails are in desperate need of reform. They're actively harmful to our society)

Also, like, there's a wide difference between helping a child make a decision about a medical issue and having a parent strap an unwilling child down to donate blood. Morally, ethically, and legally. Leave that intersex kid alone until they develop a gender identity, then let them decide how to go about it, let that kid decide if they want to be circumcised or have their ears pierced, etc.

I'm also fully supportive of a lifeguard dropping somebody if it becomes dangerous to rescue them. The idea that, somehow, a lifeguard making $12/hr is more legally obligated to try and save somebody's life than a well-payed, armed agent of the state, aka a cop, is bizarre to me. But also, like, if a lifeguard doesn't want to be a lifeguard, they can just...stop being a lifeguard. At any time.

 

[Hades]

I wonder if this law won't set bad precedents that give bad actors the ability to circumvent the constitution entirely.

The aspect of the bill that causes it to circumvent Joe vs Wade and be constitutional is that the state doesn't punish woman for having abortions. Its the bounty hunters who get to torment woman and the state just rewards them handsomely for it.

So can't bounty hunters not be used to circumvent parts of the constitution that the Republicans hold sacred? Things like the state not being allowed to take away arms from citizens, but that the state hiring bounty hunters to hunt down weapon owners and confiscate their arms in exchange for a fat check from the government is totally allowed?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Not with this Supreme Court.

But bounties on flag burners will definitely be a thing

 

[Revnak]

I wonder if this law won't sad bad precedents that give bad actors the ability to circumvent the constitution entirely.

The aspect of the bill that causes it to circumvent Joe vs Wade and be constitutional is that the state doesn't punish woman for having abortions. Its the bounty hunters who get to torment woman and the state just rewards them handsomely for it.

So can't bounty hunters not be used to circumvent parts of the constitution that the Republicans hold sacred? Things like the state not being allowed to take away arms from citizens, but that the state hiring bounty hunters to hunt down weapon owners and confiscate their arms in exchange for a fat check from the government is totally allowed?

Rings of an attempt to setup a privatized police force and the legal framework that will make it work.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Rings of an attempt to setup a privatized police force and the legal framework that will make it work.

A lot easier things we can do to torment Christofascists with privatization. Like just make it legal to burn down churches, for example. Limited government.

 

[tstorm823]

Lol, that is just not true.

You think there are children living with their biological parents while waiting to be adopted?

Correct. Abortion is much safer, cheaper, and causes fewer permanent bodily changes than the alternatives. And until that changes, abortion should be legal.

Well, that's more reasonable than "no burden", but it still shouldn't be legal. The fact that in the future your stance will be seen as completely morally heinous doesn't mean you're justified in taking it in the meantime.

I see that we're at the point of equating pregnant people with violent criminals, drug addicts who are a danger to others, and the severely mentally ill.

Yes. People all have equal value. You've rationalized to yourself that those things are ok because some people are sub-human, but criminals and addicts and the mentally ill are equally human and of equal value to you or I or a pregnant woman. All people have equal human rights, but circumstances around them sometimes require priorities set above the rights of the individual. Protecting the life of the unborn is not a statement on the inherent worth of the pregnant woman.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Protecting the life of the unborn is not a statement on the inherent worth of the pregnant woman.

It actually is. It says that society does not value her right to autonomy over her own body or to medical treatment. It suggests that women in general are to be seen as little more than breeders.

 

[tstorm823]

It actually is. It says that society does not value her right to autonomy over her own body or to medical treatment. It suggests that women in general are to be seen as little more than breeders.

Society having a priority higher than something doesn't mean society doesn't value that thing. Not everything is a class conflict.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Society having a priority higher than something doesn't mean society doesn't value that thing. Not everything is a class conflict.

When your higher priority is "the unborn", it does mean that society doesn't value that thing.

 

[gorfias]

I think in colonial times, you could get a procedure that amounted to abortion, before "quickening". Sounds like they're trying to return to that.

I am curious: we are getting to a point where rather than abortion, a fetus can be removed from the womb and brought to term without her body.

Could/should such a law be opposed?

 

[tstorm823]

When your higher priority is "the unborn", it does mean that society doesn't value that thing.

Well, I didn't expect you to say the future has no value today, but here we are.

 

[Silvanus]

This is a massive non-sequitur. There is a real, gigantic waiting line of families wanting to adopt infants, if a child is born and adopted out instead of being aborted they would be adopted as an infant, and you're pointing to the population of older children who were not voluntarily given up as infants as evidence that there aren't enough people to adopt infants. You're pointing to a completely unrelated phenomenon.

No, again, I didn't say that the population of older kids is evidence that there aren't enough people to adopt kids. I didn't make that connection. I connected that solely to the fact that 20k age out of foster care without being adopted, which was a tangential point.

Well over 100,000 in the foster system are under 5. Around 30,000 are under 1. Clearly, it is not a direct match-up where every prospective adopter means one more infant gets adopted. The statistics show that that simply doesn't happen. Even for the infants, as the population in that age group also significantly grows yearly.

 

[tstorm823]

No, again, I didn't say that the population of older kids is evidence that there aren't enough people to adopt kids. I didn't make that connection. I connected that solely to the fact that 20k age out of foster care without being adopted, which was a tangential point.

Well over 100,000 in the foster system are under 5. Around 30,000 are under 1. Clearly, it is not a direct match-up where every prospective adopter means one more infant gets adopted. The statistics show that that simply doesn't happen. Even for the infants, as the population in that age group also significantly grows yearly.

Because the foster system is, by a large majority, children not waiting for adoption. About 3/4 children in the foster system are expected to be reunited with their family, and are not eligible for adoption.

Listen. I live here. I listen to the radio. They have radio commercials advertising adoption. None of them are about adopting infants. Nearly every one is telling people to "adopt a teen". America does not have unwanted infants. That isn't a thing. People travel around the world to adopt other place's infants because we have too little supply here to meet demand.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I'm sure you're out there adopting teenagers left and right.

"Well, you're not solving the problem, so you can't criticize us for making it worse!"