What is your plan for dealing with 800,000 children each year if you ban abortion?

[smallvoice]

It was meant to be sarcastic. I know that is not the anti-abortion position.

It fell flat since it was so far from reality.


That still, small voice that says: He’s right!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bum]

To be clear, what a woman does with her body if none of my biz....but the OP questioned what to do with the 800,000 babies born each year if RvW were overturned; I dont know much about adopting, so perhaps someone smarter on the subject can elaborate:

American Adoptions - How Many Couples are Waiting to Adopt a Baby?

As you start to look for the perfect family, you might have one big question: How many couples are waiting to adopt a baby? Find the answer here.

www.americanadoptions.com

From the Article...


Just how many families are looking to adopt?
It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

I cannot speak to the accuracy of those numbers, but if they are accurate, it would seem to provide one option.....but, again, I know nothing about the adoption process or why it appears to be such a lengthy endeavor.

 

[Rexedgar]

To be clear, what a woman does with her body if none of my biz....but the OP questioned what to do with the 800,000 babies born each year if RvW were overturned; I dont know much about adopting, so perhaps someone smarter on the subject can elaborate:

American Adoptions - How Many Couples are Waiting to Adopt a Baby?

As you start to look for the perfect family, you might have one big question: How many couples are waiting to adopt a baby? Find the answer here.

www.americanadoptions.com

From the Article...


Just how many families are looking to adopt?
It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

I cannot speak to the accuracy of those numbers, but if they are accurate, it would seem to provide one option.....but, again, I know nothing about the adoption process or why it appears to be such a lengthy endeavor.

If the babies being born number is correct, how long before the supply would exceed the demand? If the supply exceeds demand then what is done?


Disclaimer; I normally avoid this sub-forum like the plague, your post just brought up the question.......

 

[GummyVitamins]

It was completely relevant as you kept bleating that you didnt know where abortion was mentioned in the Const...and I just showed why it didnt need to be.

The Supreme Court said that it was not something that could be left to the states because it was identified in the Bill of Rights. You're arguing against yourself. If you disagree with decision made in RvW do you also then believe that the Supreme Court should readdress the issue?

 

[Bum]

If the babies being born number is correct, how long before the supply would exceed the demand? If the supply exceeds demand then what is done?


Disclaimer; I normally avoid this sub-forum like the plague, your post just brought up the question.......

I generally avoid it as well......but the question did make me wonder why US couples are adopting so many children from overseas....now I know ( sort of).....and I cannot answer your question as I have no idea how many new couples apply to adopt each year; again, this is outside my scope, so perhaps someone who is involved in such work might be able to answer.

 

[GummyVitamins]

To be clear, what a woman does with her body if none of my biz....

A fetus is its own body, scientifically. It has separate DNA. Nobody cares what a woman does to her body. The debate is about her deciding to another body and at what point that other body has rights. The US has some of the least strict abortion laws excluding the third-world. Most everyone believe has rights. The question is where do they start. In most of Europe, for example, a woman can only have an abortion no later than 20 weeks. Elective abortion up to 24 weeks is much longer (20%+) than pretty much anywhere else in the world. A 24 week fetus is essentially a baby. The ability to terminate that life electively is an odd position to take in a society that values science.

 

[vegas giants]

A fetus is its own body, scientifically. It has separate DNA. Nobody cares what a woman does to her body. The debate is about her deciding to another body.

It's a dead body after abortion.....or get your money back

 

[Lursa]

The Supreme Court said that it was not something that could be left to the states because it was identified in the Bill of Rights. You're arguing against yourself. If you disagree with decision made in RvW do you also then believe that the Supreme Court should readdress the issue?

Yes, the 4th Amendment is part of the BOR. I keep reminding you that much (not all) the decision was based on the 4th and 14th Amendments, with reference to precedents.

So again, not sure you understand the legal foundation behind RvW or the Const.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Yes, the 4th Amendment is part of the BOR. I keep reminding you that much (not all) the decision was based on the 4th and 14th Amendments, with reference to precedents.

So again, not sure you understand the legal foundation behind RvW or the Const.

Then rationalize it. You're dancing out of beat. This circular reasoning of stepping forward them backpedaling and sidestepping is chaotic.

 

[weaver2]

.....OP questioned what to do with the 800,000 babies born each year if RvW were overturned; I dont know much about adopting, so perhaps someone smarter on the subject can elaborate:

Adoption Statistics from the Childrens Bureau of the Dept. of HHS
Fiscal year 2016
Total number of children in foster care. ……...............................................…… 437,465
Children waiting to be adopted ………………....................................................117,794
Children waiting adoption whose parental rights have been terminated ..........65,274
Children adopted with HHS support ……………...................................................57,208
% of children in foster care elegible for adoption …………..............................…..42%
% of children actually adopted……...........................................................................13%
Only 80% of adopted chidren actually get legally adopted into a family.
About 10% of the 437,465 children in foster care (or 43,746 children) actually get successfully adopted/

Adoption Data 2016

This page includes reports on state-specific adoption statistics for fiscal year 2016.

www.acf.hhs.gov

 

[Lursa]

Would you prefer to punish a woman with added pain and internal damage just because you are offended by the procedure? Keep in mind that a later abortion is one where a woman/couple WANTED a baby and are now likely devastated by the loss due to medical issues (mother or unborn).

It was completely relevant as you kept bleating that you didnt know where abortion was mentioned in the Const...and I just showed why it didnt need to be.


How so? The medical field categorizes a pregnancy by trimester. If you choose to put your personal emotional preferences on the timeframe, that's your prerogative. But the development of the unborn is pretty well categorized within those trimesters. As is the proper abortion procedure.

How much later? Please be specific? You are the one not accepting 'timeframe.'

Well cool beans. You are all worked up over stuff that never happens. Such drama! (well, I guess it could be anything for you, since you seem to have your own ideas about trimesters being 'subjective.')

Elective abortions of healthy viable (do you need the definition?) fetuses do not take place. If you disagree, please provide the data. And no Dr is compelled to perform them.

No woman has an abortion right at birth...that's ludicrous drama queen garbage. Why would women abort any healthy late term fetuses when the procedure is then more painful, more dangerous, and they could instead put it up for adoption for a cool $20,000?

Are you a fan of useless, feel-good legislation? I'm not. I dont believe in creating laws for things that never occur.

I mean, would you support a law that forbids riding unicorns when unicorns dont even exist? (Psssssstt: they really dont!)

Then rationalize it. You're dancing out of beat. This circular reasoning of stepping forward them backpedaling and sidestepping is chaotic.

I have no idea what question you even want answered anymore, you've bobbed and weaved completely away from context (most likely intentionally.) I havent avoided anything, you are just flailing.

How about you answer my questions first, since I asked them and you didnt bother answering them. They're above, but if you need more, the 2nd longer quote is post 80.

Then I'll come back to what ever yours is. How's that?

 

[GummyVitamins]

I have no idea what question you even want answered anymore, you've bobbed and weaved completely away from context (most likely intentionally.) I havent avoided anything, you are just flailing.

How about you answer my questions first, since I asked them and you didnt bother answering them. They're above, but if you need more, the 2nd longer quote is post 80.

Then I'll come back to what ever yours is. How's that?

Nothing you've said has any bearing to the legal justification under RvW. You've been completely dodging the question I've asked you repeatedly while saying you believe I'm the one who doesn't understand the legal decision... all while you cite unrelated amendments to the Bill of Rights. Can you answer my question? Where in the constitution is there a legal right to abortion up to 24 weeks? Justify it legally. All of this back and forth just proves that you can't. Roe v Wade was decided on flaky legal reasoning. Your dancing the issue proves you cannot disprove my statement that you called me out on.

I'll respond to each of your irrelevant points below because apparently you desire to talk about nonsense rather than my initial statement that you challenged.

Would you prefer to punish a woman with added pain and internal damage just because you are offended by the procedure? Keep in mind that a later abortion is one where a woman/couple WANTED a baby and are now likely devastated by the loss due to medical issues (mother or unborn).

Any opinion of punishment of the mother or fetus is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

How so? The medical field categorizes a pregnancy by trimester. If you choose to put your personal emotional preferences on the timeframe, that's your prerogative. But the development of the unborn is pretty well categorized within those trimesters. As is the proper abortion procedure.

Any discussion of trimesters of pregnancy is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

How much later? Please be specific? You are the one not accepting 'timeframe.'

Irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade. My personal opinion of when it would be justified to kill a fetus has nothing to do with Roe v Wade.

Well cool beans. You are all worked up over stuff that never happens. Such drama! (well, I guess it could be anything for you, since you seem to have your own ideas about trimesters being 'subjective.')

The temperature of your beans is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

Elective abortions of healthy viable (do you need the definition?) fetuses do not take place. If you disagree, please provide the data. And no Dr is compelled to perform them.

Your incorrect opinion of elective abortions of viable fetuses is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

No woman has an abortion right at birth...that's ludicrous drama queen garbage. Why would women abort any healthy late term fetuses when the procedure is then more painful, more dangerous, and they could instead put it up for adoption for a cool $20,000?

Irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade. In countries where there is no limit on elective late term abortions they do take place.

Are you a fan of useless, feel-good legislation? I'm not. I dont believe in creating laws for things that never occur.

We're not talking about laws. We're talking about a judicial decision. Your opinion of laws is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

I mean, would you support a law that forbids riding unicorns when unicorns dont even exist? (Psssssstt: they really dont!)

Our opinion of unicorns is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

 

[Lursa]

Nothing you've said has any bearing to the legal justification under RvW. You've been completely dodging the question I've asked you repeatedly while saying you believe I'm the one who doesn't understand the legal decision... all while you cite unrelated amendments to the Bill of Rights. Can you answer my question? Where in the constitution is there a legal right to abortion up to 24 weeks? Justify it legally.

I've answered your question about 'where' many times. And then I told you where most of the decision was based on in the Const...the 4th and 14th Amendments. The justifications are clear and I even posted the first section of the 14th where one precept is stated clearly.

So I dont understand why you keep asking me. Why dont you formulate a question based on something specific in the decision? Because again....they justify the decision quite clearly. I agree, so there's no other reason for me to copy it (even tho I did for one when I posted the 1st section of the 14th A.) If you disagree....let's see why?

 

[Lursa]

Any opinion of punishment of the mother or fetus is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.


Any discussion of trimesters of pregnancy is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

You are the one that introduced this to the discussion...where you were discussing 'your feelings' on how 'horrible' the procedure was.

So your dismissal now appears to just be out of convenience or lack of desire to acknowledge the truth when read.

Irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade. My personal opinion of when it would be justified to kill a fetus has nothing to do with Roe v Wade.

Then you shouldnt have brought it up if you only wanted to discuss the issue as related to RvW.

The temperature of your beans is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

Your incorrect opinion of elective abortions of viable fetuses is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

Irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade. In countries where there is no limit on elective late term abortions they do take place.

We're not talking about laws. We're talking about a judicial decision. Your opinion of laws is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

Our opinion of unicorns is irrelevant to the legal justification of abortion under Roe v Wade.

Just diversion from the conversation at the time. As I've written, if you only wanted to discuss RvW then you shouldnt have ventured into territory where your feelings led you to post uninformed comments. And it's not my opinion that no such elective abortions occur...it's fact. But since that's not in RvW, you can avoid addressing it. At least others can read it.

 

[Lursa]

A fetus is its own body, scientifically. It has separate DNA. Nobody cares what a woman does to her body. The debate is about her deciding to another body and at what point that other body has rights. The US has some of the least strict abortion laws excluding the third-world. Most everyone believe has rights. The question is where do they start. In most of Europe, for example, a woman can only have an abortion no later than 20 weeks. Elective abortion up to 24 weeks is much longer (20%+) than pretty much anywhere else in the world. A 24 week fetus is essentially a baby. The ability to terminate that life electively is an odd position to take in a society that values science.

Funny, none of that has to do with RvW. Not the biological aspects and not the term limits in Europe.

 

[Lursa]

Quick post cut and pasted from my OneNote. Might save some time later.



How does the govt ban elective abortion without violating women's rights? What legal justifications would the justices consider?

And since every single pregnancy risks a woman's life (it's not always predictable), since the Const requires the state to protect women's rights, including life, how do you justify the govt demanding women risk their lives without their consent? (And no, we dont recognize rights based on 'frequency.' A right is protected unless with due process, the person gets their day in court and the right is restricted.)

 

[briar rose]

If you are really "pro-life" your desire to keep that zygote alive until it becomes a baby would extend to having a healthy, happy, well-cared for child with none of the problems that go with the mom never wanting him/her. There is no good reason to want any offspring to live from conception to birth, only to then not care what happens to him/her indefinitely after the umbilical cord is cut.

I agree

 

[weaver2]

.......Can you answer my question? Where in the constitution is there a legal right to abortion up to 24 weeks? Justify it legally. All of this back and forth just proves that you can't. Roe v Wade was decided on flaky legal reasoning. Your dancing the issue proves you cannot disprove my statement that you called me out on......

The people that constructed the Constitution knew they were writing something untried and were uncertain of it's success. However, they were intelligent, well educated and understood that the Constitution needed to be broadly stated to cover many unstated situations and allow for changes over time when needed.

The Constitution does not say anything about driving cars for the same reason it doesn't say anything about abortions at 24 weeks: the breadth of the Constitution's language covers or allows for interpretations of issues not specifically mentioned.

Many states have banned abortions after 20 or more weeks. Many states have not mentioned banning but have indicated that the decision is to be left up to medical professionals. What is it specifically you think needs to be mentioned in the Constitution in order to satisfy your religion drenched soul.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The people that constructed the Constitution knew they were writing something untried and were uncertain of it's success. However, they were intelligent, well educated and understood that the Constitution needed to be broadly stated to cover many unstated situations and allow for changes over time when needed.

So you believe the intention behind the constitution was to eventually allow the killing of unborn humans. Can you explain where you came to that conclusion?

The Constitution does not say anything about driving cars for the same reason it doesn't say anything about abortions at 24 weeks:

Which is why motor vehicle laws are regulated by the state. You're hurting your argument with your example, not helping.

the breadth of the Constitution's language covers or allows for interpretations of issues not specifically mentioned.

So explain the broad interpretation of how we allow abortions? Your constitutional theory of a "living document" is controversial as it is. You're still not taking it to the next level.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Funny, none of that has to do with RvW. Not the biological aspects and not the term limits in Europe.

I'm not the one defending RvW from a legal standpoint. You're confused. Again.

 

[GummyVitamins]

I've answered your question about 'where' many times. And then I told you where most of the decision was based on in the Const...the 4th and 14th Amendments. The justifications are clear and I even posted the first section of the 14th where one precept is stated clearly.

So I dont understand why you keep asking me. Why dont you formulate a question based on something specific in the decision? Because again....they justify the decision quite clearly. I agree, so there's no other reason for me to copy it (even tho I did for one when I posted the 1st section of the 14th A.) If you disagree....let's see why?

Because the 4th and 14th amendment are unrelated to abortion even by the most generous reading of it. I'm asking you to rationalize it, not point to something that doesn't have any relation to abortion and was never intended to be used to justify it. I disagree with the decision of RvW because it takes a butcher knife to the constitution and opens it up to be abused in other ways you likely wouldn't want it to be used for.

 

[BlueTex]

To be clear, what a woman does with her body if none of my biz....but the OP questioned what to do with the 800,000 babies born each year if RvW were overturned; I dont know much about adopting, so perhaps someone smarter on the subject can elaborate:

American Adoptions - How Many Couples are Waiting to Adopt a Baby?

As you start to look for the perfect family, you might have one big question: How many couples are waiting to adopt a baby? Find the answer here.

www.americanadoptions.com

From the Article...


Just how many families are looking to adopt?
It is difficult to find reliable statistics to answer this question. Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption.

I cannot speak to the accuracy of those numbers, but if they are accurate, it would seem to provide one option.....but, again, I know nothing about the adoption process or why it appears to be such a lengthy endeavor.

And yet, as of this afternoon, the state of Texas has 995 children waiting to be adopted...

Error

www.dfps.state.tx.us

 

[BlueTex]

Because the 4th and 14th amendment are unrelated to abortion even by the most generous reading of it. I'm asking you to rationalize it, not point to something that doesn't have any relation to abortion and was never intended to be used to justify it. I disagree with the decision of RvW because it takes a butcher knife to the constitution and opens it up to be abused in other ways you likely wouldn't want it to be used for.

I take it you disagree with the right to privacy acknowledged by RvW. How about the right to marital privacy acknowledged in GvC?

 

[GummyVitamins]

I take it you disagree with the right to privacy acknowledged by RvW. How about the right to marital privacy acknowledged in GvC?

I'm a fan of the right to privacy. No idea what that has to do with killing a human though. Am I allowed to kill you in privacy?

 

[Jason Warfield]

If abortion was banned, penalties were heavy and intensive policing was used to track down providers and women so that very few abortions happened there would be about 700.000 additional children born every year.

What kind of legislation would Congressman and women have to enact in order to deal with 700,000 unwanted children every year that need medical services, child care, education, financial support of 75%, police, jails, counseling, job support, welfare?

Since banning abortion is a conservative dream how will you accomplish this and what kind of solution do you proposer dealing with the 700,000 additional unwanted children ?

Given that once the child is born, most pro-lifers reveal their true colors as pro-birth.

Once you ask them to help society to raise the child, they immediately think about the money in their wallet and then turn around and use the argument that the mother shouldn't have had sex, that she's a slut and why should they be held responsible for helping to care for the child by using tax payer monies to fund services, schools, etc.

Of course, the logical answer is that if you demand the child to be born, then you as a member of the society that demands that child be born, has an obligation to that child by virtue of the fact that you....demand the child be born.

So, when they push back on that obligation and you say, well you forced the woman to have a baby...then they use age old stance of they should have been more careful, responsible, not be a whore/slut. Never understanding that in desire to punish the mother so they don't have to pay anything out of pocket for what they demanded....they are actually punishing, hurting and damning the children instead.

Honestly, outside of medical reasons, incest and rape....I have no use for abortion. But at least I am willing to pay taxes to care of a child and do my part to help in that regard. I think that is a reasonable obligation for our society; taking care of our future.

But for some...they love the moral high ground...until it affects their wallet and then they do all sorts of mental gymnastics to get out of their obligations...