It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Obehave said:

Okay. That seems fair if I did something evil and was ignorant that it was evil.  I wouldn't expect to be punished or held back from doing something I did not know was not good to do.  I would rather avoid mistakes if possible, and not be ignorant, but, okay.

Obviously.

We all are ignorant in various ways - emotionally, mentally, spiritually, socially, etc.  

Sometimes we are open to instruction, sometimes we aren't.  Sometimes we are exposed to instruction, sometimes we never are.  

Thank goodness for our Savior Jesus Christ, and thank goodness we aren't judge and jury of each other. Or, at least, we aren't supposed to be. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

I believe people can do bad or evil things in ignorance but I would not call that sin if done in ignorance of what is good or evil. 

 

29 minutes ago, Obehave said:

You may be sinning right now but not realize it. 

You flip-flopped on what sin is in only half and hour.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

The objective of banning or placing restrictions on abortion is mostly not, I think, to "reduce the hazards" of pregnancy, but to preserve the life of the unborn child.

Banning abortions shouldn't be taken out of the context of why they happen.

I agree.  That is why I have been providing context.  Repeatedly.  

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If they don't and thus no effort is made to reduce those pressures on women, the weight will only be heavier for them. 

I'm sorry, but I dont' understand what you are saying here.

I am not denying that pregnancy is a substantial burden.  At all.  What I am saying is that it is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, and that absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, a woman has the capacity to either A) avoid or B) accept that risk.

I am also saying that if and when that risk materializes, then the calculus changes because another person's life is at stake, a life that merits acknowledgement and attention and consideration.

With respect, I do not think you are addressing these points.

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yesterday a man told me that even if all the resources used to overturn Roe v Wade saved only one child, it would be worth it. But ironically he argued against actually helping women to help reduce abortion. I asked him if he was willing to help help women if it could "save only one child." He didn't answer.

I do not agree with his reasoning, so I do not feel obligated to defend it.

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Expanding the context even larger, when people calculate induced abortions, the figure is in all likelihood not even half of all spontaneous abortions. 

Okay.

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Who cares about the spontaneous abortions?  Who cares about improving female health and prenatal care to improve pregnancy outcomes and save the unborn who are wanted but lost naturally?

I think we all should care.

What does this have to do with elective abortions?

40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If you SMAC want the prolife side to soften people's hearts as you talk about in the OP, I think you all will struggle to build credibility if you don't make concrete efforts to care for the women who are stuck in untenable circumstances that make them seek abortions, and if you don't make concrete efforts to help improve women's health to improve maternal and fetal outcomes when no abortion is sought.

I believe I have elsewhere acknowledged these things. 

I think we need to focus on education and resources, including emphasis on personal responsibility, availability of contraceptives, proper use of contraceptives, etc.

I have long been in favor of "Safe Haven" laws. 

If and when we end up with a surplus of babies who would have otherwise been killed in abortions, I think it is incumbent on private citizens to step forward and adopt them.

I think we need to continue to attempt to persuade mothers away from aborting their babies, as opposed to principally relying on governmentally-imposed prohibitions.

I think state laws governing abortions need to include (limited) exceptions for rape, incest, competent medical determination that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Meanwhile, Meadowchik, I also think it is incumbent on people like you to meaningfully address things like

• (A) the personhood of the child,
• (B) society's interest in protecting the rights attendant to such personhood,
• (C) the "assumption of the risk" and "personal responsibility" issues,
• (D) the tension between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, and
• (E) proposals, short of a my-way-or-the-highway "abortion-on-demand" approach, that addresses items (A)-(D).

I cant' speak for the entirety of the "prolife" side, as there is too much diversity of opinion there, some of which I don't think is defensible.  As for me, myself and I, however, I have given substantial time, study and thought as to the foregoing issues.

• (A) the personhood of the child, - I think the child is a person.  I think personhood is essentially congruent with "human life," such that it (personhood) begins at conception (fertilization).  Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the in utero child, though a "person," is nevertheless uniquely situated in terms of physical location and means of living, and that this unique situation has a necessary and substantial impact on the physical and emotional well-being of another person, namely, the mother.  
• (B) society's interest in protecting the rights attendant to such personhood, - I think the State has a rational and reasonable basis for intervening to preserve the health and life of an unborn child, though again, the circumstances of this intervention are unique, and hence are not without limits or exceptions.
• (C) the "assumption of the risk" and "personal responsibility" issues, - I think that absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, avoiding or accepting the risks associated with and arising from participating in sexual behavior is within the capacity of women.  I also think that because pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, voluntary assumption of that risk carries with it some measure of a personal responsibility, and even a legal obligation, to endure the consequences of having assumed that risk.  I also think that the State can, within constitutional parameters, identify the scope and breadth of that obligation.
• (D) the tension between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, - I acknowledge the tension.  I account for it by advocating (very limited) exceptions to an otherwise general prohibition against elective abortion (the reasonable exceptions, in my view, pertaining to rape, incest, competent medical determination that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth).  I also account for it by advocating that the mother should, broadly speaking, be obligated to accept some measure of personal responsibility for, and deal with the natural and foreseeable risks arising from, her decision to engage in sexual activity.  I also account for it by advocating for "Safe Haven" laws, increased education/persuasion efforts, facilitating adoptions, etc. 
• (E) proposals, short of a my-way-or-the-highway "abortion-on-demand" approach, that addresses items (A)-(D) - This is where you come in.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I see evil as what is NOT good, and what is not real or true. 

You are saying that evil is not real.  Don't worry about it then. 

58 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Evil is a counterfeit version of reality. 

So, "alternative truths" are evil.  Got it. 

59 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Not healthy or not conducive to physical fitness for a mortal body is not the same as not good. 

Speak for yourself. 

I'm not sure how you are defining "good", but we are clearly not using it in the same way.  For me it is highly subjective and relative term.  "Jack fruit smells good" - some agree, most don't.  You seem to be using it in the absolute and spiritual sense - but absolutes are for the Gods to know, not man.  God's truth is absolute, mans understanding of God's truth is relative.  We can only have assurances based on trust.  Where there is faith, there is no absolute knowledge of anything. 

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Let's go back to that tree in the garden of Eden.  Why was it called the tree of knowledge of good and evil instead of the tree of knowledge of good and bad? What is bad and what makes something bad?  What do you think evil is?

  For me, evil is the opposite equivalent of righteousness.  Evil is always bad, but bad is not always evil.  In the same way righteousness is always good, but good is not always righteousness.  Who knows why they used those terms in those translations.  Some translations call it the "tree of conscience".   Words are descriptive and imperfect and fall short - don't think that they capture any absolute nature of things.   

 

  

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is all fine for you and me as private citizens with voting rights, but it is not really the responsibility of one branch of the government to tell another how and when to do its job.  Justice Thomas is trying to constrain overreach by SCOTUS.  He may well be wrong in some of the particular eventual outcomes, but his overarching emphasis - constraining SCOTUS from "legislating from the bench" - remains valid.

If SCOTUS has behaved improperly, then the only thing it can do is reverse itself.  Preserving an unconstitutional action to give Congress time to get its act together (and/or letting the states get their acts together) is not only improper, it could be seen as politicking.

I see this as neither "madness" nor "unwise."  

We as a society have dealt with substantial disruptions in the way of things many times now.  The abolition of slavery, suffrage, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Obamacare, Obergefell, and so on.  We can get through this as well.

Constraining SCOTUS from veering into political activism is itself "an element of political activism?"

Sorry, can't go along with that.

If constituional "rights" have been improperly fabricated by the Supreme Court, they ought to be at risk.  There is a process for amending the Constitution.  There is also a process for ascertaining unenumerated rights.  I don't think Justice Thomas disputes either of these things.  What he does challenge is the propriety of creating rights based on Substantive Due Process, which you yourself are "not particularly a fan of."

I'm not seeing it.  And even if was attempting this, it looks like he failed.  Not only did nobody from "the conservative majority" sign on to his concurrence, they seemed to be quite emphatic about Dobbs being unique and distinguishable from Griswold et al.

Has Substantive Due Process become a shortcut, via judicial activisim, for SCOTUS to take over the responsibilities of Congress, to avoid the hard and messy work of amending the Constitution?  As to Dobbs and abortion, I think the answer is "yes."  And I think it's fair and reasonable to ask similar questions about Griswold et al. (including Loving).  To be more clear, I think it is the duty of the SCOTUS to give some consideration to these questions.

If there are "alternative legal {read: constitutional} means" to ascertain rights to contraception, etc., the there is no problem because SCOTUS is following the Constitution.

Conversely, if there are not "alternative legal {read: constitutional} means" to ascertain these rights, then it is the responsibility of SCOTUS to reverse itself.  That's hardly the end of the story, though, right?  Because those "rights" can be A) properly added to the Constitution via the amendment process, and/or B) legislatively created, at the federal and/or state level, and/or C) recognized in or added to state constitutions, and/or D) be left to the people as an unregulated thing.

I don't think Justice Thomas is opposed to these rights per se, he just thinks they are not properly grounded in the Constitution via the Substantive Due Process theory.

Thanks,

-Smac 

I appreciate your perspective, and can see where you are coming form on a lot of it,  but I disagree in the wisdom of calling out the legal protection of birth-control while simultaneously overturning abortion rights.    Yes, we can get through it, but merely getting through it doesn't make it wise.   One can do good things but in bad ways.  Justice Thomas was not wise in his timing at the very least.   Wisdom tells me that if we are going to take away abortion rights, then we need to do everything we can in our power to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Quote

Preserving an unconstitutional action to give Congress time to get its act together (and/or letting the states get their acts together) is not only improper, it could be seen as politicking.

You are assuming that they would be found as unconstitutional.  The other justices seem to disagree on this point.  I think Justice Thomas already understood their position and was simply trying to push his influence for change.  The supreme court refuses to hear cases all the time.  It is not always improper to delay decisions on different subjects. I don't think justices should be actively influencing to push cases before the court to be reviewed.   I think that is improper activism.  I think they should try to remain unbiased and neutral and simply review what cases are presented, unless they find reason to delay or not hear a case.  Sometimes those reasons for not hearing a case are that they don't want to step into the battle of a political mine field.

Edited July 1, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

 

Nevermind

Edited July 1, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

I appreciate your perspective, and can see where you are coming form on a lot of it,  but I disagree in the wisdom of calling out the legal protection of birth-control while simultaneously overturning abortion rights.

Personally, I think it was a gutsy thing to do, but you may well be right.  By "calling out" such an important issue in a concurring opinion on which none of the other justices joined, which point was all but expressly contradicted by the majority opinion, Justice Marshall may have demonstrated just how out-of-step and isolated he is on that issue, and hence how unlikely the other "conservative" justices are to join him.  If he was as cagey and "political" as you think he is, wouldn't he have been better off muting his argument about Substantive Due Process, rather than shouting it from the rooftops (which may have, in effect, pushed the other "conservative" justices to distance themselves from him on that issue)?

My guess is that Griswold, Lawrence, etc. are safe for the foreseeable future.  Not because Substantive Due Process is necessarily beyond reconsideration, but because I think the current composition of the Court does not agree with Justice Thomas.

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, we can get through it, but merely getting through it doesn't make it wise.   One can do good things but in bad ways. 

I don't view this in a predominantly moral ("good" or "bad") way, but rather in a "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" way.

Doing "good" or "bad" things should be left to Congress, the States, and/or the People.  

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Justice Thomas was not wise in his timing at the very least.   Wisdom tells me that if we are going to take away abortion rights, then we need to do everything we can in our power to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

That is a political/policy consideration, which should not be part of the calculus used by a justice on the Supreme Court.

Justice Roberts rolled the dice when he played politics on Obamacare.  I think he permanently damaged his reputation when he did so.  

Justice Thomas, meanwhile, will likely die a contoversial figure, but I think the long arc of history will vindicate his general "originalist" approach to the law, even if people hate him for it.  

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Preserving an unconstitutional action to give Congress time to get its act together (and/or letting the states get their acts together) is not only improper, it could be seen as politicking.

You are assuming that they would be found as unconstitutional. 

That was not my intent.  I was speaking in an arguendo kind of way.

I will modify my statement this way: "Assuming, arguendo, that Justice Thomas is correct in his assessment of the Substantive Due Process theory, then preserving an unconstitutional action to give Congress time to get its act together (and/or letting the states get their acts together) is not only improper, it could be seen as politicking."

I hope that clarifies.  I agree with you that whether or not Griswold et al. are DOA for being based on Substantive Due Process is not remotely established.  If anything, I think Dobbs actually indicates that the current composition of the Court does not accept Thomas' thesis as to these other cases.

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

The other justices seem to disagree on this point.  I think Justice Thomas already understood their position and was simply trying to push his influence for change. 

Concurring and dissenting opinions are intended to allow individual justices and minority groups (numbers-wise) of justices to lay out their reasoning.  Not so much to "influence" the majority (that ship having already sailed), but to speak to history and to the People.  He works for us, after all.

That said, sometimes a concurring or dissenting opinion will have a down-the-road impact.  Time will tell.

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

The supreme court refuses to hear cases all the time.  It is not always improper to delay decisions on different subjects. I don't think justices should be actively influencing to push cases before the court to be reviewed.   I think that is improper activism. 

I don't think Justice Thomas was doing that.  He was expressing his viewpoint which, if anything, opposes judicial "activism."

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think they should try to remain unbiased and neutral and simply review what cases are presented, unless they find reason to delay or not hear a case. 

I don't think Justice Thomas did this, either.  His remarks were about the Substantive Due Process theory, which is not an indication of "bias" for or against any particular future litigant.

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Sometimes those reasons for not hearing a case are that they don't want to step into the battle of a political mine field.

As SCOTUS did in 1973 when it decided Roe, and again in 1992 when it decided Casey.

Justice Thomas concurred with the majority in Dobbs which removed SCOTUS from that 50-year-old "political mine field."  

I think the problem here is that you don't want to consider Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell as "political mine fields."  Maybe they aren't.  Maybe they are.  That's probably a discussion for another day.  Either way, I appreciate Justice Thomas's principled and restrained approach to constitutional law.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 1, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

and when we end up with a surplus of babies who would have otherwise been killed in abortions, I think it is incumbent on private citizens to step forward and adopt them.

What about the children who are not babies when given up for adoption because their parent(s) can’t care for them well enough?  There is much more likely to be a bigger increase in those kids as parents try and fail rather than babies being carried for 9 months and immediately given up. If a woman commits to the full 9 months, I believe most commit to raising the child as well, so if she (and possibly the father) gives the child up, it may be an older child.  

I am assuming you are all for stepping up then as well because you would be responsible from what I have read about your life you have shared, but we as a society already have that situation and since we don’t hear much from the prolife crowd about getting out there and adopting the 100,000 children waiting for adoption right now, why should we believe this will change in the future?  What indication is there that promises a woman if she tries and fails, her child won’t go through hell in the foster care and state ward system?
 

If there is no change in adoption rates of older children, then there will be even more children waiting to be adopted, not less with these laws, correct?

Edited to change:  it is 400,000 in foster care and 100,000 of those waiting for adoption. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

What about the children who are not babies when given up for adoption because their parent(s) can’t care for them well enough?  There is much more likely to be a bigger increase in those kids as parents try and fail rather than babies being carried for 9 months and immediately given up. If a woman commits to the full 9 months, I believe most commit to raising the child as well, so if she (and possibly the father) gives the child up, it may be an older child.  

I am assuming you are all for stepping up then as well because you would be responsible from what I have read about your life you have shared, but we as a society already have that situation and since we don’t hear much from the prolife crowd about getting out there and adopting the 400,000 children waiting for adoption right now, why should we believe this will change in the future?  What indication is there that promises a woman if she tries and fails, her child won’t go through hell in the foster care and state ward system?
 

If there is no change in adoption rates of older children, then there will be even more children waiting to be adopted, not less with these laws, correct?

I have long heard (and I lack statistics at the ready to back this up; it’s just what I’ve heard) that the greater problem is not unwillingness to adopt but the inability of willing couples to meet the onerous requirements. For years I’ve heard anecdotes about the heartache of childless couples who cannot adopt because of lack of availability. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What about the children who are not babies when given up for adoption because their parent(s) can’t care for them well enough?  

The same goes, I suppose.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is much more likely to be a bigger increase in those kids as parents try and fail rather than babies being carried for 9 months and immediately given up.  If a woman commits to the full 9 months, I believe most commit to raising the child as well, so if she (and possibly the father) gives the child up, it may be an older child.  

We'll see.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am assuming you are all for stepping up then as well because you would be responsible from what I have read about your life you have shared, but we as a society already have that situation and since we don’t hear much from the prolife crowd about getting out there and adopting the 400,000 children waiting for adoption right now,

You mean in foster care?  Per this site, "{o}n any given day, almost 424,000 children are living in the U.S. foster care system and the number has been rising. Over 122,000 of these children are eligible for adoption and they will wait, on average, four years for an adoptive family."  Per this article, "{m}ore than 23,000 kids age out of U.S. foster care each year."

However, per this article (published in November 2021), 

Quote

According to the Children’s Bureau of The Office of the Administration for Children & Families, out of 71,500 children awaiting adoption a total of 66,000 were adopted by families in 2019 indicating a 92% adoption rate, a significant increase from an 81% adoption rate in 2010.

So . . . 400,000 "waiting for adoption right now" versus 5,500 ("out of 71,500 children awaiting adoption a total of 66,000 were adopted by families in 2019 indicating a 92% adoption rate").

Quite a difference there.

The article goes on to note that

Quote

Although these rates indicate that many families are stepping up to meet the massive need within the foster care system, many of these families are unprepared for the physical and mental health challenges they may face raising a child who has come out of foster care or the emotional burden it may place on their already existing family.

Many children and youth coming out of foster care have significant histories of trauma and abuse, which most individuals are not well-equipped to understand or manage.  An exhaustive literature review show that children in foster care are at significantly increased risk for suicidality, depression, PTSD, anxiety, behavioral difficulties, and many other mental health challenges, which can add increased stress to the adopting family’s household.  Factors such as older age at adoption, specialized medical needs, and male gender all lead to an increased risk of needing significant mental health treatment after adoption.  According to foster care adoptive parents, the biggest barriers to successful adoptions are the behavioral challenges of the children and the lack of mental health providers who are adequately trained to treat issues of attachment.  There may also be significant challenges for children from minority groups such as racial and ethnic minorities or gender and sexual minorities that acts as an additional barrier for children looking to be adopted and may deter well-equipped and eager adoptive parents.  There is a need for better  trainings on parenting skills from mental health professionals that includes a focus on providing psychoeducation surrounding what to expect behaviorally and emotionally from their adopted child(ren), as well as how to implement behavior strategies to manage more challenging behaviors.

Still a grim and challenging issue, and still plenty for us to work on.  But this comes across as an example of the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," explained here:

Quote

Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.

Here, you seem to be implying something along the lines of "You can't oppose elective abortion because there are foster kids who aren't getting adopted, so come back after you fix that problem and we'll talk."  Or am I misreading you?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

why should we believe this will change in the future?  

Perhaps because, per the above article, we are improving already in terms of adopting kids in foster care?  ("{A} 92% adoption rate {in 2019}, a significant increase from an 81% adoption rate in 2010...").

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What indication is there that promises a woman if she tries and fails, her child won’t go through hell in the foster care and state ward system?

The same promise that my children, or yours, won't go through that.

Which is to say: There is no such promise.

But the implication here, that children are better of being aborted than possibly ending up in foster care, is a troubling one.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If there is no change in adoption rates of older children, then there will be even more children waiting to be adopted, not less with these laws, correct?

Not correct, I think.  We already have a huge waiting list of ready-and-waiting adoptive couples: 

Quote

There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption.

The likelihood of adoption out of foster care is highest when the children are younger, with the likelihood trending downward as they get older.

Meanwhile, I suspect that the likelihood of women giving up unwanted children (abortion becoming a more limited option) will likely result in that decision made either at birth or within the first few years (that is, when the likelihood of adoption is highest).  

In other words, these two trends may compliment each other.  

We'll see, I suppose.  Meanwhile, the number of children electively killed in utero will, hopefully, go down.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2022 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Obehave said:

Sounds like the only thing we should worry about is sinning intentionally, then.  If we can sin in ignorance, no worries, that would be covered by the atonement. Maybe we should try to remain ignorant for as long as we can?

Sure.  , growth is very rewarding.Ignorance is bliss right? I know plenty of people who refuse to grow and develop. I know plenty of people who refuse the mirror. I know plenty of people who would rather not know. There are some areas in my life where I do choose this but overall, growth is very rewarding.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have long heard (and I lack statistics at the ready to back this up; it’s just what I’ve heard) that the greater problem is not unwillingness to adopt but the inability of willing couples to meet the onerous requirements. For years I’ve heard anecdotes about the heartache of childless couples who cannot adopt because of lack of availability. 

Including older children?  Babies certainly, everyone wants babies.

If you do foster care, it can make it easier to adopt older children, especially if they are old enough to be required to consent to the adoption. 
 

That was the route a couple of couples used in our ward in Canada. Iirc on family had the kids for three years before adopting, another four (that was due to the bio parents not making up their mind about giving up parental rights.). That way they were able to see if the children meshed well enough with the families and they could handle their special needs (both sets of kids came from parents with addiction issues, who they had originally had contact with on occasion while in foster care before the parents decided they wanted to give up parental rights) before the first steps of committing and then changing their mind halfway which could traumatize the kids and the wannabe new family. 

We were going to do the same when we figured out there wasn’t going to be a third child for us, just had to wait till my health stabilized enough to apply…25 years later…

We did some unofficial foster care along the way though, kids from church getting kicked out of their home by abusive parents, taking in my son’s best friend while his mom took that last semester needed to get her degree (that was so fun, made me sad my son didn’t have brothers, but he always had very close best friends except for two years in Kansas).

Edited July 2, 2022 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Chum said:

Just FYI that shaming people has an earned history as a shameful activity. Before publicly shaming someone, I suggest taking the time to consider it from every angle.

I couldn't care less what you think, though I recognize that others' mileage varies.  That's fine.  To each, his or her own.

[Calm]

Looks like older kid adoptions are easier or at least quicker:

”A common misconception about adoption is that it’s an expensive process. Not only are older care adoptions quicker, but adoptions from foster care are also much cheaper than private and international adoptions.

Foster care adoptions usually range in cost from $0-$2,500, and can also be partially funded by your state. If you choose to adopt through Adoption STAR’s Adopt an Older Kid program, no placement fees are associated with older child adoption.”

https://www.adoptionstar.com/8-things-you-might-not-know-about-adopting-an-older-child/

There is also a lot of support systems out there for older kid adoptions. Most of the older kid adoptions I know of in the states were by low middle class families. I don’t know if that is a general trend or not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Including older children?  Babies certainly, everyone wants babies.

OK, but isn’t the question at hand whether a reduction in availability of abortion will lead to a surplus of babies?

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So . . . 400,000 "waiting for adoption right now" versus 5,500 ("out of 71,500 children awaiting adoption a total of 66,000 were adopted by families in 2019 indicating a 92% adoption rate").

This is good to see. Let’s hope this stat is truly better than the one I saw (which I later found…and you did as well I see…to be from 2015, so out of date…and the original site I read did not pull the 100,000 out of the rest of foster care…won’t be using that site for research again).  I have been using the 100,000 for awhile iirc.

I may see if I can find other sites confirming this, because I am interested in this, but head is out of whack tonight so I am going to take it easy and try and phase out earlier, so avoiding serious discussion. I appreciate the better stats, but still need to withdraw from discussion at least for tonight, but probably the weekend.  We are in the last part of the house updating and I really don’t want to blow it by inducing a stretch of the spins (which are peeking out from around the corner, snickering as they just know I can’t stop myself from overdoing it).

Edited July 2, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK, but isn’t the question at hand whether a reduction in availability of abortion lead to a surplus of babies?

 

Not for me. Why only limit the concern to babies?  For me the question has always been will the abortion restrictions lead to more children of all ages have better or tougher lives with the secondary question of moms having better or tougher lives because if Mom’s (and Dad’s if he is involved in caregiving) life gets tougher, kids suffer big time even with support systems in place. Without support systems…

I also have my doubts abortion numbers will actually drop country wide much given both out of state access (reminds me of gun laws actually, so am a bit hopeful abortions drop as apparently firearm homicides and suicides do), but also abortions may go up in the pro choice states with the total number of abortions being higher (because I foreseen the pro choice states increasing positive abortion messages so that abortion becomes even more acceptable in those states while in prolife states there will be a lot of resistance such as companies offering to pay for employees to go out of state, so at best I think attitudes in prolife states will stay about the same unless these states kick support systems efforts into high gear so there can be a lot of positive messaging going out rather than just the “do not” messages of abortion restrictions).

Edited July 2, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Not for me. Why only limit the concern to babies?  For me the question has always been will the abortion restrictions lead to more children of all ages have better or tougher lives. …

I don’t advocate limiting the concern to babies. But a greater number of adopted babies would, after all, lead to a reduction in the aggregate of children needing adoption and would result in that many children not growing older without parents. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I also have my doubts abortion numbers will actually drop country wide much. …

Maybe not. But isn’t it pro-choicers who are raising the alarm about a surplus of children without parents?

[Calm]

“But a greater number of adopted babies would, after all, lead to a reduction in the aggregate of children needing adoption and would result in that many children not growing older without parents.”

Why would having more unable to care for babies who are then added to adoption availability who are then adopted and possibly instead of the older children already in the system (how many wannabe parents would consider getting older children if a baby was readily available? serious question, I am wondering about this) lead to less children in the system?

“But isn’t it pro-choicers who are raising the alarm about a surplus of children without parents?”

Missing your point, sorry.  Are you saying the pro choicers are assuming abortions will drop with more live births so chances are I am wrong? (I hope I am)  Or something else?

You can have more live births with even more abortions and therefore end up with an increase of abortions over all.  It is not a closed system with only so many pregnancies around. 
 

The trend has been less sex per capita iirc and that might keep dropping, resulting in less of both abortions and live births.  I want to see changes if any of how the percentage of abortions relates to amount of sex in the next ten years or more. Someone somewhere is going to research that surely. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

“But a greater number of adopted babies would, after all, lead to a reduction in the aggregate of children needing adoption and would result in that many children not growing older without parents.”

Why would having more babies who are then adopted rather than the older children already in the system lead to less children in the system?

Not saying it would unless something were to change to make it easier for competent couples to adopt — which is what I would favor. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not saying it would unless something were to change to make it easier for competent couples to adopt — which is what I would favor. 

Absolutely.  That is part of the infrastructure I wish states would have put into place before their abortion bans kicked in.  It seems a real nobrainer. 

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  That is why I have been providing context.  Repeatedly.  

I'm sorry, but I dont' understand what you are saying here.

I am not denying that pregnancy is a substantial burden.  At all.  What I am saying is that it is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, and that absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, a woman has the capacity to either A) avoid or B) accept that risk.

I am also saying that if and when that risk materializes, then the calculus changes because another person's life is at stake, a life that merits acknowledgement and attention and consideration.

With respect, I do not think you are addressing these points.

I do not agree with his reasoning, so I do not feel obligated to defend it.

Okay.

I think we all should care.

What does this have to do with elective abortions?

I believe I have elsewhere acknowledged these things. 

I think we need to focus on education and resources, including emphasis on personal responsibility, availability of contraceptives, proper use of contraceptives, etc.

I have long been in favor of "Safe Haven" laws. 

If and when we end up with a surplus of babies who would have otherwise been killed in abortions, I think it is incumbent on private citizens to step forward and adopt them.

I think we need to continue to attempt to persuade mothers away from aborting their babies, as opposed to principally relying on governmentally-imposed prohibitions.

I think state laws governing abortions need to include (limited) exceptions for rape, incest, competent medical determination that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Meanwhile, Meadowchik, I also think it is incumbent on people like you to meaningfully address things like

• (A) the personhood of the child,
• (B) society's interest in protecting the rights attendant to such personhood,
• (C) the "assumption of the risk" and "personal responsibility" issues,
• (D) the tension between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, and
• (E) proposals, short of a my-way-or-the-highway "abortion-on-demand" approach, that addresses items (A)-(D).

I cant' speak for the entirety of the "prolife" side, as there is too much diversity of opinion there, some of which I don't think is defensible.  As for me, myself and I, however, I have given substantial time, study and thought as to the foregoing issues.

• (A) the personhood of the child, - I think the child is a person.  I think personhood is essentially congruent with "human life," such that it (personhood) begins at conception (fertilization).  Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the in utero child, though a "person," is nevertheless uniquely situated in terms of physical location and means of living, and that this unique situation has a necessary and substantial impact on the physical and emotional well-being of another person, namely, the mother.  
• (B) society's interest in protecting the rights attendant to such personhood, - I think the State has a rational and reasonable basis for intervening to preserve the health and life of an unborn child, though again, the circumstances of this intervention are unique, and hence are not without limits or exceptions.
• (C) the "assumption of the risk" and "personal responsibility" issues, - I think that absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, avoiding or accepting the risks associated with and arising from participating in sexual behavior is within the capacity of women.  I also think that because pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, voluntary assumption of that risk carries with it some measure of a personal responsibility, and even a legal obligation, to endure the consequences of having assumed that risk.  I also think that the State can, within constitutional parameters, identify the scope and breadth of that obligation.
• (D) the tension between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, - I acknowledge the tension.  I account for it by advocating (very limited) exceptions to an otherwise general prohibition against elective abortion (the reasonable exceptions, in my view, pertaining to rape, incest, competent medical determination that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth).  I also account for it by advocating that the mother should, broadly speaking, be obligated to accept some measure of personal responsibility for, and deal with the natural and foreseeable risks arising from, her decision to engage in sexual activity.  I also account for it by advocating for "Safe Haven" laws, increased education/persuasion efforts, facilitating adoptions, etc. 
• (E) proposals, short of a my-way-or-the-highway "abortion-on-demand" approach, that addresses items (A)-(D) - This is where you come in.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have addressed all of those things, many times, and the proper resolutions that should be available for E.

But regarding E, abortion should be available on demand, period.  Just because it is available, legal, and safe, however, doesn't mean it will be chosen. Our collective responsibility in addition to ensuring that right, is to do our best to prevent the need (or perceived need) for it.

The cost of forcing the pro-life way onto women's and children's bodies will have deleterious effects on the whole system which will undermine any other possibilities for remedies.

Specifically, abortion bans treat women as sub-human. It's harder for people to flourish when they're being treated as incubators. But, as you say, atleast you're saving babies, so there's that overall perceived benefit. But now those babies are babies of women who are being mistreated by society. 

Also, abortion bans don't tend to come along alone, they are typically joined by more measures underpinned by the sexism that drives abortion bans. SCOTUS has just emboldened misogyny and women and everyone they care for will bear costs of that. 

 

[Ragerunner]

This is so wrong on all levels.

As Ohio restricts abortion, 10 year old girl travels to Indiana for procedure

“On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.“

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/

[Ragerunner]

Note: None of the State money goes to this research it only goes for instate tuition cost. If this passes it will increase instate tuition by $12,000 per student.

All of this is so over the top extremism.

Pa. House puts Pitt's funding on the line unless it stops its fetal tissue research

“HARRISBURG — If the University of Pittsburgh wants its annual $151 million appropriation from the state, it will have to stop its fetal tissue research.”

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2022/06/27/pennsylvania-state-house-republicans-approval-for-university-of-pittsburgh-funding-hinges-on-fetal-tissue-research/stories/202206270082

Here is some of the medicines that were created with fetal cells. If they are so against this I hope they stop taking any of these drugs and more.

 “The list includes acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, Preparation H, Claritin, Prilosec, and Zoloft.”

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210918/some-medications-also-tied-to-religious-vaccine-exemption

[teddyaware]

A little reality check for those who are allowing themselves to gradually slip over to the side of the death cult propagandists who stand beckoning at the windows of the large and spacious building.