6 ms·

So the Democratic party are strongly advocating against safety nets to prevent children from growing up in abject poverty? Because that would be "socialist"? R

So the Democratic party are strongly advocating against safety nets to prevent children from growing up in abject poverty? Because that would be "socialist"? Regardless of abortion laws, this would seem like a basic requirement for any civilised society. I'm not sure why you would say that reliable contraception doesn't exist. Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing. When it comes to adoption, it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children, outstripping supply by an order of magnitude. Are you saying this is not the case?

diydsp 4y ago
> Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing. Condoms are only 98% effective even when used correctly[1]. Women need access to abortion. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/
- hellojesus 4y ago
  There is risk with everything in life. If someone is having sex, regardless of condom use, birth control use, vasectomy, etc., they are accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it that we push for the killing of unborn persons instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions?
  - diydsp 4y ago
    > accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. No, they're accepting the risk of having an abortion.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  That's per year, not per instance. So it's really quite high.
falcolas 4y ago
This isn't a partisan issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans (the politicians, not necessarily the constituents) want safety nets. They have different reasons, but the end result is that neither side is willing to make it a reality. > Condoms are extremely effective Condoms have an 85% success rate† in the real world (98% if used perfectly, but humans are rarely perfect, especially when... emotionally compromised). That means a pregnancy a year is absolutely within reason. > it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children A case where research is easy, and worth doing. But here's what I found Google: "Of the more than 440,000 children in foster care in the United States, there are over 123,000 kids available for adoption right now. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, children in foster care can expect to wait an average of three years to be adopted and the average age of a foster care child is 8.5 years old." "... roughly 20,000 children “age out” of foster care each year. This means they are now legally adults without ever finding a family through adoption." That "huge demand" is for families who will only take babies, not fostered children. Historically, 2% of families in the US will adopt, meaning that even if every previously aborted fetus was carried to term and put up for adoption as a baby, there still wouldn't be enough families. EDIT: The cost to give birth, without complications, is between $5 and $15k. That's just giving birth. And the parent doesn't receive the adoption fees; that cost is on them. For the adoptive parents, a private adoption (how you get a baby) is in the $25 to $50k range††. † https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom... †† https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/adoption-costs/how-much-does-it-cost/ https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/ad...
- Grustaf 4y ago
  > This isn't a partisan issue It was you that said "our current government". I would have thought the Democratic party was in favour of a working welfare system, at least for small children. You adoption numbers are not relevant, we are not talking about children, we are talking about newborns. Since there are apparently 2 million American couples wanting to adopt right now, and only 18000 being adopted each year, I'd say the demand is very strong. I'm not sure what cost has to do with it, surely you are not arguing that abortion should be a way to save money by not having to give birth? And I'm sure a lot of adoptive parents would be more than happy to bear the cost of childbirth. In a civilised country essential healthcare is of course socialised, but we are talking about the US here.

diydsp 4y ago

> Condoms are extremely effective, and cost nothing. Condoms are only 98% effective even when used correctly[1]. Women need access to abortion. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/male-condoms/

hellojesus 4y ago
There is risk with everything in life. If someone is having sex, regardless of condom use, birth control use, vasectomy, etc., they are accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it that we push for the killing of unborn persons instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions?
- diydsp 4y ago
  > accepting the risk of an unplanned pregnancy. No, they're accepting the risk of having an abortion.
Grustaf 4y ago
That's per year, not per instance. So it's really quite high.

falcolas 4y ago

This isn't a partisan issue. Neither Democrats nor Republicans (the politicians, not necessarily the constituents) want safety nets. They have different reasons, but the end result is that neither side is willing to make it a reality. > Condoms are extremely effective Condoms have an 85% success rate† in the real world (98% if used perfectly, but humans are rarely perfect, especially when... emotionally compromised). That means a pregnancy a year is absolutely within reason. > it is my understanding that there is a huge demand for adopted children A case where research is easy, and worth doing. But here's what I found Google: "Of the more than 440,000 children in foster care in the United States, there are over 123,000 kids available for adoption right now. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, children in foster care can expect to wait an average of three years to be adopted and the average age of a foster care child is 8.5 years old." "... roughly 20,000 children “age out” of foster care each year. This means they are now legally adults without ever finding a family through adoption." That "huge demand" is for families who will only take babies, not fostered children. Historically, 2% of families in the US will adopt, meaning that even if every previously aborted fetus was carried to term and put up for adoption as a baby, there still wouldn't be enough families. EDIT: The cost to give birth, without complications, is between $5 and $15k. That's just giving birth. And the parent doesn't receive the adoption fees; that cost is on them. For the adoptive parents, a private adoption (how you get a baby) is in the $25 to $50k range††. † https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom... †† https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/adoption-costs/how-much-does-it-cost/ https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoptive-parents/how-to-adopt/ad...

Grustaf 4y ago
> This isn't a partisan issue It was you that said "our current government". I would have thought the Democratic party was in favour of a working welfare system, at least for small children. You adoption numbers are not relevant, we are not talking about children, we are talking about newborns. Since there are apparently 2 million American couples wanting to adopt right now, and only 18000 being adopted each year, I'd say the demand is very strong. I'm not sure what cost has to do with it, surely you are not arguing that abortion should be a way to save money by not having to give birth? And I'm sure a lot of adoptive parents would be more than happy to bear the cost of childbirth. In a civilised country essential healthcare is of course socialised, but we are talking about the US here.