Ever talked to a foster parent firsthand? It's a shit show for these poor children.
I'm pretty sure they take non-white kids too.
I'm signing off this thread, take care Clubber.
There's also a cost to being pregnant outside of just the medical costs. Assuming you have insurance that covers the doctors, you still need new clothes, new shoes, eating more, medications, tools to help support your pregnancy like a belt to take the weight off your back, etc because of the changes to your body. Those things aren't accessible to everyone.
Adoption is amazing for those that it works for, and I'm glad it's an option, but it's not a replacement for abortion by a long shot. (And all of this is ignoring the trauma both the mother and the child deal with later in life)
Go into labor during final exam week? Might flush a semester down the toilet or leave you in limbo. Might tack a year onto college, might miss some important job opportunities.
Giving birth is disruptive to health and life. There's no need to be so flippant about it.
Even just being pregnant is disruptive to life plans. Try interviewing for a job being 6 months pregnant!
Oh yeah, and some people die during childbirth or could have other complications. It's almost like shitting a watermelon out your ass isn't something to be taken lightly.
I hope I don't need a sarcasm tag for that one.
Would you be in favor of compulsory kidney donations? If not, what is the moral distinction between that and forcing someone to carry a child to term?
As is reproducing.
If we as a society can't teach our young to deal with the consequences of their actions, what good are we doing them?
*edit: grammar
Which is exactly my point. If you aren't required to give away your 2nd kidney for the life of another, why draw the distinction that a pregnant woman must rent her uterus for what many don't even consider a life?
> If we as a society can't teach our young
Not all who abort a fetus are young. Nor is "teach"ing about "consequences of their action" a valid reason to outlaw a medical procedure. We don't refuse to set and cast the broken bones of children because we want to "teach them the consequences of their actions". To the contrary, that would be cruel!
This is a paternalistic and condescending attitude that infantilizes every single person who has received, sought to receive, or explored the option of abortion.
We teach women the "consequences of their actions", believe me! They know because the "consequences" you want to "teach" about fall disproportionately on women, despite the fact that the act you're implicitly moralizing about is the consequence of both a man and a woman.
> what good are we doing them?
We are mitigating the harm (a lifetime commitment, and medical risks) that comes from a mistake. That is the good we are doing them.
You say that like this is trivial. Giving birth is literally life-threatening.
This took place at a world-class hospital in a major American city. We both believe she would have died had she been anywhere else.
No should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, ever.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020...
Here ya go:
In 2020, 861 women were identified as having died of maternal causes in the United States, compared with 754 in 2019
NHTSA projects that an estimated 42,915 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes last year
It's good to keep some perspective when you say giving birth is, "literally life threatening."
You are never legally forbidden from hitting the brakes and deciding that a particular drive to the store is too risky and that you aren't going to complete it. You should have the same right to choose not to complete a pregnancy.