3 ms·
I can understand this argument, however in this specific case we are forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them (or most wouldn't cons
by BowBun 4y ago
I can understand this argument, however in this specific case we are forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them (or most wouldn't consider abortion), and our state does a terrible job at providing support to kids throughout their lives (healthcare, education, welfare programs are all notorious in the US) in the case where parents aren't reliable.
As a pro-choice person, I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen.
So without the appropriate follow-through, this is actually less enlightened and hurting both parents and children more.
- londgine 4y ago> I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen. Kids brought up with bad parents will be somewhat similarly disadvantaged. Why should potentially bad parents (eg. heavy drug addicts) not be banned from having kids? Both of them would be "forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them".
- nulld3v 4y agoIsn't this essentially what CPS does today? The difference being that it's reactive instead of being proactive.
- londgine 4y agoCPS can take kids from parents who are bad parents (drug addicts) just as they can take kids from parents who don't want the kids (and presumably would have aborted the kid if they could have).