View Single Post
Old 05-19-2019, 11:00 AM   #270
Answer
He / Him / His
 
Answer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,676
Battle Record: 20-1


Champed
- Summer Classic IX
- Netcees Battle League
- Fight night 15

Rep Power: 12534702
Answer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant futureAnswer has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amen View Post
Um, no.

Adoption is always an option. There are plenty of people who can not have children and much rather take a newborn over a toddler.

1) The woman still has bodily changes that are irreversible, 9 months of carrying a child in a public setting e.g. work and everyone knowing that you're pregnant and asking "i thought you were pregnant, how is your baby?". It's also not about whether or not men hold those bodily changes against them, it's the fact that women have to endure it themselves

2) It still costs thousands of dollars in medical bills in a health system that is increasingly upcharging patients

3) I would imagine there's also an incredibly complex psychological dispute for any woman who has to make the decision to either give the baby up or keep it. Neither choice is objectively the right one.

4) There are already kids who go their lives without finding homes through fostering or adoption. Restricting abortion will only increase that number substantially. The fact is that there are a lot of people (not all) who just have more interest in raising their own DNA than trying to adopt. The entire adoption process in itself also had a lot of issues that should be worked on, but that's a completely different topic.
Answer is offline   Reply With Quote