Once you open the flood gates, you will have plenty who kill themselves who otherwise wouldn't with just a little bit of extra support.
What you mean by that? There is extremely high demand to adopt newborns, which is why parents desperate for children adopt from other countries. There is currently a waiting list of 2 million families willing to adopt newborns.
Children in foster care are different story - people are much less willing to adopt older kids.
Maybe finish adopting all those kids who exist and need families right now, regardless of where they’re from, rather than force people to give birth to more babies that need adoption.
My parents looked into adopting from another country - it was a program they were introduced to through church. It cost $20,000 plus travel... in the 1990s.
I'm not sure it avoids the majority since a decent amount of folks have the knowledge and tools to simply avoid the pregnancy in the first place, but it does lower it.
That's why there's so much interest in defining limits around abortions. Late term abortions are pretty much described as horrific by the vast majority. There should be room for political agreement here.
To be clear, you are right that a late term abortion is pretty horrific. They're also -traumatic-. No one is -intentionally- waiting around to get an abortion; there isn't room for political argument here because anyone who finds themselves pregnant at a late stage and doesn't want to be is already in the case of "reasonable exception". A medical complication, a change in financial status to where she can't support it (when before she thought she could), etc.
No one is finding out they're pregnant in the first trimester, and then just can't make up their mind until the third, and we as a society need to set a date she has to make up her mind, or force her to keep it against her will. That's a made up justification, and as we continue to see, the same forces that make that justification don't even stop there.
That said, I don't think there will be political agreement because it's not 100% about the rules around abortions anyway. It's a political instrument at this point. Either side is trying to win, not do what's right, and that's how things have gotten so extreme.
But then here you come with the ~93% of reasons that boil down to convenience. It's more convenient to murder this baby than to not murder it so murder it is.
There is a very important and overlooked 7% of abortions that are medically related that save the whole concept of legal abortion for me. Mothers who want babies but, because literally everything in biology can go wrong in ways that make abortion the only humane option, those poor women can't. And they don't need police investigating their terminations in the middle of unimaginable grief.
It is absolutely not convenience. To flip it another way, these are often homes you would never allow to adopt a baby, or homes where the child is inevitably taken by child services due to abuse or incapacity of the parent(s). Then they end up in foster care, far too late to be adopted by the nice well-to-do family with a white picket fence, and they bounce around the foster system.
The foster system can't even handle all the kids that aren't adopted, and some kids end up too broken to stay in care. What happens then? At some point they just throw a bunch of broken kids into a shitty house together and have a child services worker come check in on them every day or so.
...for nothing. The right to abortion isn't premised on any of those, in general. The only one that is particularly relevant as a justification is protecting the life of the mother, and that mostly has to do with abortions later in pregnancy, Cobstitutionally.
Otherwise, the justification of abortion is bodily autonomy.
By name, no. It’s a popular term which I think maps pretty well to a large and significant subset of “privacy” law under the Supreme Court’s 5th (as applies to the federal government) and 14th (as applies to the States) Amendment “due process” jurisprudence.
> What's the justification for the drugs laws then?
Arguably, none. The only case which has reached the Supreme Court in which I ama aware of the relevant Constitutional argument was kind-of considered against the Controlled Substances Act used it as an argument in the lower courts for Constitutional avoidance (a doctrine under which the courts read ambiguity in laws to favor an interpretation which does not violate the Constitution), and the Court refused to apply it because the law was not ambiguously crafted so as to permit the reading preferred, even if it was Cobstitutionally necessary; because invalidity of the law itself was not argued at the lower court, the Supreme Court declined to consider it for the first time on appeal. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001).
then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!"
Preempting the flaw in your strawman doesn’t invalidate it. A woman choosing to abort a pregnancy has no bearing on anyone but her. In contrast, the anti-vaccine crowd both directly, and indirectly, contribute to the propagation of disease.
Your right to bodily autonomy stops at society’s doorstep, which is broadly agreeing that the unvaccinated don’t get to participate in the non-essential aspects of society, otherwise furthering the risk to everyone else without reason.
Er, why not? The fact that it affects what is legally a non-person entity in whom the State has a legitimate interest is why abortion rights have different parameters later in pregnancy, so why wouldn't it be the consistent that vaccination having public health impacts that affect the life and health of other actual people is relevant?
This isn't directed at you, but I have had countless conversations about this very topic. The detriments are greatly overstated. I've found usually people are talking of these things outside looking in in an ideological vacuum, and not an experiential one.
Let's take societal outcomes for african americans, as an example. What people don't realize is, when people speak of abortions in a vaccuum (and lets be frank -- it's usually white liberals who champion it the hardest), the elephant in the room is with african american women carry out the disproportionate volume of abortions, and the the overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood locations being located in poor and black neighborhoods. There is a large argument now that is catching on in many african american communities that maybe if we had the estimated 11 million more black babies born in this country, black representation would be much better off in all matters of the socioeconomic and political spheres, resulting in better lives overall for the general population. In 2015, in association with National Black Pro-Life Coalition, Protecting Black Life, and National Black Pro-Life Union met with CURE to deliver a congressional report detailing all of these facts, and making the strong case that the economic and societal impact of all the abortions in the black community is far greater. I encourage everyone to read it: https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/106562/witnesses/...
Many would disagree with that characterization.
At the stages of development when most abortions are performed, the life that is being ended is much less of a life than that of a cow, or pig, or chicken, or even fish, that ends up being killed for food.
If people truly believe that ending abortion is a moral and ethical issue, then the only consistent stance is to also be vegan and push for laws requiring everyone else be vegan.
Your concern may be genuine but it is misplaced.
Although the numbers are a bit different here, maybe he’s referencing a newer data set. Still it’s shocking:
> non-Hispanic Black women had the highest abortion rate (21.2 abortions per 1,000 women) and ratio (335 abortions per 1,000 live births)
