Poll of the Day > The GOP solution to all those forced births resulting from banned abortions

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/4/AAZslrAADiR8.jpg

Pure genius.

This is what the MAGA Let's Go Brandon "What about Hunter?" smoothbrained dolts massage their prostates to, I guess

Haven't those been around for a while? Either way that's a good idea on its own, terrible substitute for actually letting women have rights though

Muscles posted...

Haven't those been around for a while? Either way that's a good idea on its own, terrible substitute for actually letting women have rights though

The general concept dates back to the Middle Ages and the modern version goes back to around the 1950's.

You're right, we should just let them be left in dumpsters or on train tracks instead.

Krow_Incarnate posted...

You're right, we should just let them be left in dumpsters or on train tracks instead.

Because that's the only other option? Dumb comment.

Maybe allowing access to health care and abortion, improving sex education, and offering contraception are better alternatives to averting unwanted pregnancies, rather than forced births and safe havens...

Maybe not forcing people to make the desperate and difficult decision to abandon their baby to begin with is better but you know hey dumpster babies is the only logical alternative to some people I guess

For a party that claims they do not like government interfering in the lives, they sure spend an awful lot of time trying to dictate what people should or shouldn't do in their personal lives.

Far-Queue posted...

Because that's the only other option? Dumb comment.

Maybe allowing access to health care and abortion, improving sex education, and offering contraception are better alternatives to averting unwanted pregnancies, rather than forced births and safe havens...

Maybe not forcing people to make the desperate and difficult decision to abandon their baby to begin with is better but you know hey dumpster babies is the only logical alternative to some people I guess

That was a reply to post 3. I'm all for all of that, but these have been around forever and are necessary. Some people don't have the decency or patience to go through the system to find a better solution for an unwanted child that's already born, so giving them a safe place to drop them off is something.

Far-Queue posted...

Because that's the only other option? Dumb comment.

Maybe allowing access to health care and abortion, improving sex education, and offering contraception are better alternatives to averting unwanted pregnancies, rather than forced births and safe havens...

Maybe not forcing people to make the desperate and difficult decision to abandon their baby to begin with is better but you know hey dumpster babies is the only logical alternative to some people I guess

While all of that is true, I still wouldn't say that a baby drop box is necessarily a bad idea. Even if you make sure abortion is readily available, provide contraception to everyone that wants it, and improve health care to the point where there's zero risk associated with giving birth, there will still be cases of parents ending up in the position of feeling that they need to abandon their baby, for whatever reason. In those cases, having an anonymous option like this is going to be more comfortable for a lot of people than having to interact with somebody (given the feelings of shame and failure often associated with this decision), and this has the potential to be a much safer anonymous option than dropping the baby off in a dumpster or on the doorstep of a convent or whatever other options a desperate parent might otherwise choose.

It seems ridiculous on the first pass, and it absolutely does not in any way excuse or justify anti-abortion laws (if anything, it draws even more attention to how harmful they are by highlighting the fact that they create the need for something like this), but I can see some value in it in a broader sense.

Where did I say safe havens are a bad idea? I'm not against them. But the GOP pushing them as a viable solution to forced birth is pure stupidity

Yes, we agree on that. This is a half-assed solution to a problem that doesn't need to be created.

Krow_Incarnate posted...

That was a reply to post 3.

Apologies for saying your comment is dumb, then

Not disagreeing. I can assure you we pretty much have the same stance on abortions

Theres literally discourse about how these abandoned girls can be used to propagate more birthed whites while ??? becomes the fate of abandoned males.

DespondentDeity posted...

Theres literally discourse about how these abandoned girls can be used to propagate more birthed whites while ??? becomes the fate of abandoned males.

I guess we'll start seeing human versions of those shredders that are used to dispose of male chicks born on egg farms.

DespondentDeity posted...

Theres literally discourse about how these abandoned girls can be used to propagate more birthed whites while ??? becomes the fate of abandoned males.

Did somebody on Twitter say that?

Oh huehue Revelation posted, did everyone see how clever they are??

Far-Queue posted...

Where did I say safe havens are a bad idea? I'm not against them. But the GOP pushing them as a viable solution to forced birth is pure stupidity

where did they do that?

Uh yeah, sorry to tell you this but this sort of thing has been around for ages and is no help against the constant violation of human rights and health perpetrated by religious assholes. Ever heard about babies anonymously dumped off in front of orphanages in books, or tv? That didn't come out of nowhere. Safe surrender areas have been around for several decades at hospitals and fire stations. Fat lot of good that'll do to someone who can't get an abortion because their health is at risk, they were raped, or because religious morons won't understand the difference between an ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, and a baby that's died in the womb.

famfam posted...

where did they do that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/06/us/roe-safe-haven-laws-newborns.html

All 50 states have safe haven laws meant to protect surrendering mothers from criminal charges. The first, known as the Baby Moses law, was passed in Texas in 1999, after a number of women abandoned infants in trash cans or dumpsters. But what began as a way to prevent the most extreme cases of child abuse has become a broader phenomenon, supported especially among the religious right, which heavily promotes adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Over the past five years, more than 12 states have passed laws allowing baby boxes or expanding safe haven options in other ways. And safe haven surrenders, experts in reproductive health and child welfare say, are likely to become more common after the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During oral arguments in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that safe haven laws offered an alternative to abortion by allowing women to avoid the burdens of parenting. In the courts decision, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. cited safe haven laws as a modern development that, in the majoritys view, obviated the need for abortion rights.

Far-Queue posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/06/us/roe-safe-haven-laws-newborns.html

well, barrett and alito are buttheads =/

famfam posted...

well, barrett and alito are buttheads =/

Unfortunately, they're buttheads who get to decide what should and shouldn't be law in the US.

is there capacity for a million safety deposit babies per year?

who is going to take care of these unwanted babies?

Jen0125 posted...

is there capacity for a million safety deposit babies per year?

who is going to take care of these unwanted babies?

Obviously most of those would-be abortion-getters will discover the profound joy of motherhood and choose to keep their babies so there won't need to be any additional resources.

That, or they'll just choose to be responsible and never have sex except for procreating, since that's obviously 100% their choice and clearly the only sensible course of action for a proper young lady.

okay but realistically who do they assume is actually going to care for the influx of safety deposit babies?

there's already millions of kids in foster care

Well clearly all of those women dropping their babies off should have thought of that before they had sex!

Realistically, adopting out newborns - especially healthy ones - isn't actually that hard. The foster care system is hopelessly overwhelmed, but that's primarily by children that entered the system when they were older, rather than abandoned/orphaned newborns that have grown up. Newborns that are up for adoption get snapped up pretty quickly because there's so much demand for them that many would-be adoptive parents resort to adopting foreign children (often ones with health problems because they're all that are left over). The adoption system could absorb a pretty substantial influx of new babies without exceeding that demand, though that would have the effect of reducing the adoptability of children with health problems and killing the foreign adoption market (which would absolutely end up hurting those children).

Of course, that would still come with additional infrastructure needs to support the administration of all of those extra adoptions, and none of that justifies enslaving unwilling women to produce babies for people to adopt, but it's fairly unlikely that a federal abortion ban would result in more babies being put up for adoption than can be adopted.

Adopting healthy white newborns is desirable but adoption is not accessible to everyone. So it is hard to adopt pretty much any baby.

"The average cost of adoption is dependent on several variables, like the type of adoption, the adoption professional and other unique details of your situation. Each of these factors can influence typical adoption costs. Generally, for families adopting a baby through a private agency, the average cost of adoption in the U.S. is somewhere around $70,000. While costs may vary on an individual basis, families typically spend in this range on the adoption process."

https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/average-adoption-cost

How is the financial barrier alone "not hard?"

Might as well lead to a furnace, as they don't give a shit about them once they're born

Jen0125 posted...

"The average cost of adoption is dependent on several variables, like the type of adoption, the adoption professional and other unique details of your situation. Each of these factors can influence typical adoption costs. Generally, for families adopting a baby through a private agency, the average cost of adoption in the U.S. is somewhere around $70,000. While costs may vary on an individual basis, families typically spend in this range on the adoption process."

https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/average-adoption-cost

How is the financial barrier alone "not hard?"

Adopting a kid is hard. For many of the same reasons, though, finding somebody to adopt a kid is relatively easy. It's a matter of supply and demand: There's more demand than supply, so there will still be sufficient demand even if the supply increases considerably.

Though, as you touched on, that does make it more likely that less healthy and/or less white babies will be passed over, which is especially a problem given that a disproportionate number of the children given up for adoption will be less healthy and/or less white due to the socioeconomic realities of whether or not a given mother is able to raise a kid herself.

adjl posted...

Realistically, adopting out newborns - especially healthy ones - isn't actually that hard.

adjl posted...

Adopting a kid is hard

....

why argue one side when you can argue both sides

ReturnOfFa posted...

why argue one side when you can argue both sides

Like.. I don't even get the point of trying to argue it's not hard to adopt a kid. It's hard but not hard and easy but hard but it's actually not difficult because it's hard and easy

Jen0125 posted...

....

Note the first quote is "adopting out" and the second is just "adopting." The former refers to the supply end of the transaction, the latter to the demand. One who has surplus babies adopts them out. One who is infantilogically deficient adopts them.

I feel like there's probably a better verb to use for the act of providing babies to those interested in adopting, which would avoid this confusion, but I'm drawing a blank on what it might actually be.

So you want to revert back to a semantics argument because you were trying to argue it's not difficult to adopt a baby

Ok

No one was confused except you apparently

It's hard to "adopt out" babies when no one can even afford a house. So you'll have babies ready to be "adopted out" but where is the influx of people able to jump through all the hoops and expense for the extra babies going in the system compared to what there are now?

I'm not sure why that was confusing for you as I wrote it all previously in plain English which is the language you've been proficiently speaking to us in for years.

Jen0125 posted...

So you want to revert back to a semantics argument because you were trying to argue it's not difficult to adopt a baby

If by "semantics argument" you mean "pointing out that I'm saying the exact opposite of what you think I'm saying," sure. I'm not sure that's quite what those words mean, but so long as we're on the same page that doesn't matter.

Jen0125 posted...

where is the influx of people able to jump through all the hoops and expense for the extra babies going in the system compared to what there are now?

There isn't an influx, there's just already more demand than supply, which means the adoption system can absorb a considerable influx of new babies without being unable to offload them. Turning every would-be abortion into an adoption would indeed overwhelm that, but the reality is unlikely to be anywhere close to as extreme as that and the situation wouldn't be nearly that dire.

Jen0125 posted...

No one was confused except you apparently

I was never confused. You just went off on me because you thought I said the opposite of what I said, which sounds to me like you are the confused one.

Of course there isn't an influx yet. Abortion is just being fully banned and majorly restricted. There hasn't been time.

Have you hit your head? You've become a joke of what you used to be.

I replied to a present tense question with a present tense answer. I would have thought the corresponding future sense interpretation would have gone without saying, given that we're talking about hypothetical future problems, but I guess not. Allow me to rephrase:

There isn't an influx, nor do I expect there to be an appreciable one. There's just already more demand than supply blah blah blah.