Some of you have a very distorted view of what would happen to unwanted children who would be born if abortion was banned. Very, very few would be brought into the world and lead a good life with their biological parents. People who don't want children aren't gonna miraculously change their mind and treat their kids like a child that is actually wanted. Others just say put them up for adoption, like that would fix the problem. I've been reading some stats and they aren't pretty. More than 60% of the children in foster care spend 2-5 years in the system. That number gets exponentially larger for disabled and minority children. 20% spend over 5 years in the system and over 17,000 kids a year exit foster care without ever being adopted. On any given day, there are over 125,000 kids in foster care. The majority of which can never return to their biological families. In 2020 the government spent over $5 billion on foster care.

We also see story after story of the abuse cases of unwanted children and children in foster care. It's a never ending cycle, because there aren't enough case workers in America. It's a thankless job that pays next to nothing, you see horrendous things and workers are overloaded to completely unreal amounts of case loads. If abortion is made illegal again, the numbers of abused and murdered children will skyrocket and the foster care system will become even more broken than it is now. Which I didn't know was possible. You will see more deaths from back alley abortions, more children murdered, more children abused and more children abandoned. That's simply a fact. IMO, it's selfish to force children into such existences. Sure, a small percentage will go onto be adopted and live good lives, but given how many children are already in bad situations, adding to that amount just seems cruel.

I know some of you say abortion is murder, but the fact is, not everyone sees this as a reality. This country is completed divided over when a person actually becomes a person. That is never gonna change. You'll never convince some people to agree with you no matter how right everyone believes they are. It's just pushing your belief system onto other people and I'm completely against that. That is something the Taliban would do. They are inflicting their beliefs on everyone in Afghanistan and I think we can all agree that this is a bad thing. Why is it ok to inflict your beliefs on people in this situation and not in that one? As I said, not everyone views when a person becomes a person, in the same way. It's an individual belief, but some people want to force others into abiding by their beliefs by banning abortion.

No one likes abortion. I wish it wasn't necessary, but you will NEVER force people into being responsible, no matter how much you try to make them. That is just a fact. By forcing them to carry the children, only the kids will suffer. Many will be born to parents that see them as a burden and they will either be treated poorly by their biological parents/parent, will be abandoned by a parent, murdered by a parent or will be placed into an already broken system, that can't handle the amount of children that are already there. I just don't understand how these are good options? To me, it's a necessary evil. People are given free will. In that, some people will make good decisions and others will make many poor life choices. That's just how life is. When you have free will, you must take the good with the bad.

Ok, let me tackle this. There are currently 12 million couples on the adoption waiting list. There are 36 families wanting to adopt for every child available. If every person that had an abortion were instead required to put their child up for adoption, it would take 10 more years to match every family to a child, and this is with no other family being added to the list. To make this worse, one quarter of all adoptees come from outside of the US, which is a direct result of parents not being able to adopt children in the US. There is no shortage of people wanting to adopt. 

Furthermore, the narrative that every child would be unwanted or unloved is unproveable. Just because a person doesn't want a child at the time of conception, doesn't mean they won't want it when it's born. This happens all the time to adoptive couples. A young woman doesn't want the child, so she puts it up for adoption. After carrying and birthing it, she decides to keep it. While I concede that it's not even a majority of the time, it's evidence that people change their mind. 

The bottom line is that this argument has merit, but it's probably not to the degree that you think. It's a manageable problem that can continue to be driven down by proper sex education, free contraceptives, and the morning after pill. All concessions that could given by the right to keep the amount of adoptions in line with the demand, while still giving a woman a say in the matter.

As to the murder part, America has an apathy problem. Killing a baby in the womb at a certain age is murder, and, even though we have a difference of opinion at when that starts, we all start to draw the line somewhere.  Some people say that you can abort a baby until birth, but the VAST majority of Americans don't agree with that. We know by then the baby can hear, feel, think, and respond to their parent. We also can prosecute people for a double murder if the mom is killed. I agree that the standard will end up being somewhat subjective, but I'd always rather err on the side of caution. 

As to your last point, this is almost certainly going to hold true in some instances. However, there are often other recourses available for the child that tends to get overlooked. Where there is a will, there is a way. I have been unloved at times... I have been unwanted at times... but I have never wanted someone to kill me. Don't underestimate the resiliency of the human spirt. Many kids grow up in broken homes to achieve great success. Again, I think this problem is manageable with good programs and more awareness directed at this issue. Will it result in some kids growing up in broken homes and replicating that behavior? Almost certainly. However, it won't be the majority of them. 

The ultimate goal of restricting abortions is for our society to maintain an healthy view of human life. I'm literally giving a slippery slope argument that is rooted in fact. When Roe v. Wade was first decided, abortions were supposed to be safe, legal, and rare. Then abortions were used to allow a woman the freedom to choose her career, then became a form of birth control. Fast forward 30 years and you have politicians talking about giving a 10 day grace period for a woman to decide. It doesn't matter if they are in the minority, because we are seeing the paradigm shifted to one that doesn't value human life. This isn't even counting the talk of euthanization. As our healthcare becomes socialized, you are going to hear more talk about the usefulness of people. Utilitarianism will supersede humanism. Look how much we are already otherizing one another. 

The last point I made is my weakest from a data standpoint, but not a logical one. If you want to dismiss it, go ahead, but I don't think it's unworthy for consideration. Imo, the higher the standard we hold for each other, the better our society will become. If we keep lowering the bar, our societal expectations will also drop. You can see it already.

---

This is a pretty good discussion. I've read all 4 pages of it.

Believe it or not, I actually don't have an opinion on abortion. I can see both sides of the argument.

If I was forced to come to some sort of conclusion on it, I think I would have to answer the question, when does a fetus become a human life? If it's a human life, then to me, "my body, my choice" goes right out the window. I would probably come down on the side of those who say that a woman has no right to kill a baby, even if it's inside her body. Unless, of course, that baby is about to kill her.

And what about rape and incest? That would have no bearing on the question. If it's a human life, it's a human life. How it got there has no bearing on whether it's a human life or not.

But... when is that fetus a human life? I'm not sure about that.

---

I am curious how many abortions result from incest. It is disgusting to think about, but I am curious how prevalent this is.

---

This is a pretty good discussion.  I've read all 4 pages of it. 

Believe it or not, I actually don't have an opinion on abortion.  I can see both sides of the argument. 

If I was forced to come to some sort of conclusion on it, I think I would have to answer the question, when does a fetus become a human life?  If it's a human life, then to me, "my body, my choice" goes right out the window.  I would probably come down on the side of those who say that a woman has no right to kill a baby, even if it's inside her body.  Unless, of course, that baby is about to kill her. 

And what about rape and incest?  That would have no bearing on the question.  If it's a human life, it's a human life.  How it got there has no bearing on whether it's a human life or not. 

But... when is that fetus a human life?  I'm not sure about that.

21 weeks and 5 days is the earliest on record and anything in the mid 20's requires neonatal intensive care.

6 weeks is a joke.

---

I'm surprised that some of y'all are pro-choice. 
Why would you vote Republican if you think it should be left to a woman and a doctor with no government interference?

Being a Republican or a Democrat isn't all about just one issue. Very few people if any agree with ALL platform issues of the party they belong to. Most people weigh them overall, as a whole and see which ones best align with their own values. Myself, I choose not to align with either. I look at each individual candidate on their own merits and see which one I think would do the best job. I never just use one specific issue to choose or eliminate which candidate I would vote for.

---

I'm surprised that some of y'all are pro-choice. 
Why would you vote Republican if you think it should be left to a woman and a doctor with no government interference?

Our tax dollars fund the biggest abuser of abortions. There is no such thing as no government interference.

I think you got your answer Mike.  It comes down to money.......cha-ching

---

This is a pretty good discussion.  I've read all 4 pages of it. 

Believe it or not, I actually don't have an opinion on abortion.  I can see both sides of the argument. 

If I was forced to come to some sort of conclusion on it, I think I would have to answer the question, when does a fetus become a human life?  If it's a human life, then to me, "my body, my choice" goes right out the window.  I would probably come down on the side of those who say that a woman has no right to kill a baby, even if it's inside her body.  Unless, of course, that baby is about to kill her. 

And what about rape and incest?  That would have no bearing on the question.  If it's a human life, it's a human life.  How it got there has no bearing on whether it's a human life or not. 

But... when is that fetus a human life?  I'm not sure about that.

In the spirit of compromise, I would pick 10 weeks. Personally, I would never allow it, but considering where we are as a nation, I'd take anything that is a step backwards. 10 weeks works because it gives ample time for a woman to realize she's pregnant, but it's the last week the baby is in the embryo faze. Week 11, it becomes a fetus, and this is when it has most of its human body parts.

---

I'm surprised that some of y'all are pro-choice. 
Why would you vote Republican if you think it should be left to a woman and a doctor with no government interference?

Our tax dollars fund the biggest abuser of abortions. There is no such thing as no government interference.

You've been very clear that all you care about is low taxes. I understand you. It's some of the other folks I don't understand.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Some of you have a very distorted view of what would happen to unwanted children who would be born if abortion was banned. Very, very few would be brought into the world and lead a good life with their biological parents. People who don't want children aren't gonna miraculously change their mind and treat their kids like a child that is actually wanted. Others just say put them up for adoption, like that would fix the problem. I've been reading some stats and they aren't pretty. More than 60% of the children in foster care spend 2-5 years in the system. That number gets exponentially larger for disabled and minority children. 20% spend over 5 years in the system and over 17,000 kids a year exit foster care without ever being adopted. On any given day, there are over 125,000 kids in foster care. The majority of which can never return to their biological families. In 2020 the government spent over $5 billion on foster care.

We also see story after story of the abuse cases of unwanted children and children in foster care. It's a never ending cycle, because there aren't enough case workers in America. It's a thankless job that pays next to nothing, you see horrendous things and workers are overloaded to completely unreal amounts of case loads. If abortion is made illegal again, the numbers of abused and murdered children will skyrocket and the foster care system will become even more broken than it is now. Which I didn't know was possible. You will see more deaths from back alley abortions, more children murdered, more children abused and more children abandoned. That's simply a fact. IMO, it's selfish to force children into such existences. Sure, a small percentage will go onto be adopted and live good lives, but given how many children are already in bad situations, adding to that amount just seems cruel.

I know some of you say abortion is murder, but the fact is, not everyone sees this as a reality. This country is completed divided over when a person actually becomes a person. That is never gonna change. You'll never convince some people to agree with you no matter how right everyone believes they are. It's just pushing your belief system onto other people and I'm completely against that. That is something the Taliban would do. They are inflicting their beliefs on everyone in Afghanistan and I think we can all agree that this is a bad thing. Why is it ok to inflict your beliefs on people in this situation and not in that one? As I said, not everyone views when a person becomes a person, in the same way. It's an individual belief, but some people want to force others into abiding by their beliefs by banning abortion.

No one likes abortion. I wish it wasn't necessary, but you will NEVER force people into being responsible, no matter how much you try to make them. That is just a fact. By forcing them to carry the children, only the kids will suffer. Many will be born to parents that see them as a burden and they will either be treated poorly by their biological parents/parent, will be abandoned by a parent, murdered by a parent or will be placed into an already broken system, that can't handle the amount of children that are already there. I just don't understand how these are good options? To me, it's a necessary evil. People are given free will. In that, some people will make good decisions and others will make many poor life choices. That's just how life is. When you have free will, you must take the good with the bad.

Ok, let me tackle this. There are currently 12 million couples on the adoption waiting list. There are 36 families wanting to adopt for every child available. If every person that had an abortion were instead required to put their child up for adoption, it would take 10 more years to match every family to a child, and this is with no other family being added to the list. To make this worse, one quarter of all adoptees come from outside of the US, which is a direct result of parents not being able to adopt children in the US. There is no shortage of people wanting to adopt. 

Furthermore, the narrative that every child would be unwanted or unloved is unproveable. Just because a person doesn't want a child at the time of conception, doesn't mean they won't want it when it's born. This happens all the time to adoptive couples. A young woman doesn't want the child, so she puts it up for adoption. After carrying and birthing it, she decides to keep it. While I concede that it's not even a majority of the time, it's evidence that people change their mind. 

The bottom line is that this argument has merit, but it's probably not to the degree that you think. It's a manageable problem that can continue to be driven down by proper sex education, free contraceptives, and the morning after pill. All concessions that could given by the right to keep the amount of adoptions in line with the demand, while still giving a woman a say in the matter.

As to the murder part, America has an apathy problem. Killing a baby in the womb at a certain age is murder, and, even though we have a difference of opinion at when that starts, we all start to draw the line somewhere.  Some people say that you can abort a baby until birth, but the VAST majority of Americans don't agree with that. We know by then the baby can hear, feel, think, and respond to their parent. We also can prosecute people for a double murder if the mom is killed. I agree that the standard will end up being somewhat subjective, but I'd always rather err on the side of caution. 

As to your last point, this is almost certainly going to hold true in some instances. However, there are often other recourses available for the child that tends to get overlooked. Where there is a will, there is a way. I have been unloved at times... I have been unwanted at times... but I have never wanted someone to kill me. Don't underestimate the resiliency of the human spirt. Many kids grow up in broken homes to achieve great success. Again, I think this problem is manageable with good programs and more awareness directed at this issue. Will it result in some kids growing up in broken homes and replicating that behavior? Almost certainly. However, it won't be the majority of them. 

The ultimate goal of restricting abortions is for our society to maintain an healthy view of human life. I'm literally giving a slippery slope argument that is rooted in fact. When Roe v. Wade was first decided, abortions were supposed to be safe, legal, and rare. Then abortions were used to allow a woman the freedom to choose her career, then became a form of birth control. Fast forward 30 years and you have politicians talking about giving a 10 day grace period for a woman to decide. It doesn't matter if they are in the minority, because we are seeing the paradigm shifted to one that doesn't value human life. This isn't even counting the talk of euthanization. As our healthcare becomes socialized, you are going to hear more talk about the usefulness of people. Utilitarianism will supersede humanism. Look how much we are already otherizing one another. 

The last point I made is my weakest from a data standpoint, but not a logical one. If you want to dismiss it, go ahead, but I don't think it's unworthy for consideration. Imo, the higher the standard we hold for each other, the better our society will become. If we keep lowering the bar, our societal expectations will also drop. You can see it already.

Almost all of those couples want a healthy, white baby though. That is why the waiting list is so long. Many of the unwanted children who go into the system are minorities, disabled or they are born with issues such as being addicted to drugs or alcohol, thanks to the birth mother's drug addiction. I know several people on the adoption waiting list and the reason it took so long was that they wanted a white baby with no health issues and they just aren't that easy to come by, considering how many people are on the waiting list. Many people are now resorting to overseas adoptions for babies, rather than adopting disabled, black or older children within our own system. 

If someone is willing to abort the child, I would see that as undeniable proof that they are unwanted by the parents. Deciding to put the child up for adoption and deciding to abort are two very different things. Terminating the pregnancy is final. Putting the child up for adoption and knowing that kid is still out there in the world and wondering about what their life is like later on and wishing you would have contact with them are two very different issues. 

I just don't see this as having any merit. You can educate people all you want, but if a kid, drug addict, drunk or just a completely irresponsible person who just drifts through life with no job or responsibilities wants to have sex and doesn't have or use protection, they will. That's just a fact. There are a lot of dregs of humanity out there in the world and education is never going to change them. Some people are just burdens on society and nothing will change that. 

That is a miniscule population of society. 

Everyone is different. I am sincerely happy you have never felt that way. I wish no one ever felt like they didn't want to live. As someone who has lived with depression for a very long time, I can tell you that many times people wish they had been terminated in the womb, rather than go through certain horrors that they are subjected to in life. I agree some kids overcome horrible conditions and grow up to do great things, but for every kid who does this, many, many more do not. Instead, they grow up in a life of mental illness, addiction and violence. That is an undeniable fact. There is good and bad in the world and some people like to pretend that the bad never exists or that it can be overcome. That is not always the case. Not everyone is born with a strong "human spirit."  Some people are so torn down by life that their spirit is essentially broken. I've seen it. 

I totally agree with you that people in general don't value human life anymore. It is a sad and disturbing trend. The level of violence and depravity shown on the news nowadays is stomach churning. Euthanization is an entirely different issue though. That is meant to relieve people of their suffering. I've had to do that to a few of my dogs due to cancer and I certainly didn't do it because I wanted them gone. I did it because I didn't want them to experience the pain anymore. If anything, I did it because I loved them. That is an entirely different issue. 

I agree with your last point to a degree, but at this point our bar has been lowered so much, that people are used to the status quo and almost see that they have a "human right" as an American to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. I sincerely believe we have given people too many freedoms in this country and people have taken advantage of that. They keep pushing the boundaries further and further and instead of the government pushing back, they keep allowing people to lower the bar. Now, we've gotten to a point of no return. If you start really pushing back at this point, people will revolt and all hell will break loose. It's sad we have gotten to this point, but any type of push back now, could end in disaster. We've given people so much and they just keep wanting more and more. Nothing is never enough. That is the price of freedom. If your gonna call yourself "the land of the free," you'd better set up some reasonable limits and stick to them. If not, people will keep pushing those limits further and further away from what they were originally intended to be.

---

Not true about the color of the child. They do want healthy babies, though. Shouldn't be a problem with that if pregnancies are paid for.

I don't agree with your second premise. Having a child is scary. It's easy to wonder if you're making a mistake. It's not that hard, though. Also, I think a culture that values career over human life can exacerbate this issue. We could try to destigmatize working mothers and make it easier for people with children to lead fulfilling lives. One example is in work daycares. I would love to see parents being able to take breaks to visit their children throughout the day.

It does have merit, and the proof is in the pudding: Abortions have been steadily going down for the last 10 years (although I'm not sure California allows their abortions to be tracked anymore, so that could be the reason).

I agree with that, which is why I included that in my post.

Fair point.

I didn't expand on the euthanization bit. I assumed my jump to utilitarianism would suffice. There is a difference between a person wanting to end their suffering, an socialized medicine making choices for the greater good. I was attempting to connect those ideas in the same way I did with abortion.

I hear what your saying, but civilizations seem to only thrive when people are free to make mistakes or when people are completely bought into an ideology (like war) with a strong leader. Of those two options, I prefer the former. That doesn't mean we can't achieve something, but I prefer to err on giving people as much freedom as possible until they harm one another. This means people need to assume their risk. I'm cool with agreeing to disagree here, because it's somewhat tangential, but I'm not sure we are pushing for more freedom.

---

If it has a heartbeat, it is a living person

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Our tax dollars fund the biggest abuser of abortions. There is no such thing as no government interference.

You've been very clear that all you care about is low taxes.  I understand you.  It's some of the other folks I don't understand.

Your gibberish doesn't change the fact of how well funded PP is with our tax dollars.

---

Not true about the color of the child. They do want healthy babies, though. Shouldn't be a problem with that if pregnancies are paid for.

I don't agree with your second premise. Having a child is scary. It's easy to wonder if you're making a mistake. It's not that hard, though. Also, I think a culture that values career over human life can exacerbate this issue. We could try to destigmatize working mothers and make it easier for people with children to lead fulfilling lives. One example is in work daycares. I would love to see parents being able to take breaks to visit their children throughout the day.

It does have merit, and the proof is in the pudding: Abortions have been steadily going down for the last 10 years (although I'm not sure California allows their abortions to be tracked anymore, so that could be the reason).

I agree with that, which is why I included that in my post.

Fair point.

I didn't expand on the euthanization bit. I assumed my jump to utilitarianism would suffice. There is a difference between a person wanting to end their suffering, an socialized medicine making choices for the greater good. I was attempting to connect those ideas in the same way I did with abortion.

I hear what your saying, but civilizations seem to only thrive when people are free to make mistakes or when people are completely bought into an ideology (like war) with a strong leader. Of those two options, I prefer the former. That doesn't mean we can't achieve something, but I prefer to err on giving people as much freedom as possible until they harm one another. This means people need to assume their risk. I'm cool with agreeing to disagree here, because it's somewhat tangential, but I'm not sure we are pushing for more freedom.

I know two couples currently on the waiting list who specifically asked for healthy, white babies. If I personally know two on the list, it has to be a lot more prevalent. As for the costs, having a disabled child just isn't about cost. It's about the constant health care that child will require, the constant worry about their health issues and how that may effect their life or mortality down the road and the wear and tear on the adoptive parents, having their entire lives revolve around the 24 hour care some of these children will require. It's not just about the costs. 

I think in many cases, this is a myth. It all started with people like Gloria Steinem and her ridiculous feminists agenda. In real life, very, very few abortions are performed simply because the birth mother chooses career over a child. In most all cases, the unwanted pregnancies are a result of much more complicated issues. I know the right likes to use career women who chose their freedoms over children as an example against abortion, but that is a microscopic percentage of the reasons for abortion. I don't blame the right for propagandizing this though. It was all started by the feminists movement. 

As far as daycare and childcare, the main issue with this is costs. My cousin has 3 little boys and her daycare costs per month is as much as her house payment. Luckily, she has a master's degree and has a very good job as a speech pathologist. Her husband was recently laid off though and has had to take low paying retail position and things are getting very tight. For people who don't have a job as good as hers, daycare isn't even an option. It's not a high end daycare either. It's pretty basic. I know many countries offer free daycare for working mothers. Some people don't like this idea, but what is worse, having free daycare or having mother's stay at home and collect welfare or having latchkey kids with no supervision, running the streets and joining gangs just to feel a part of a family? It's a double edged sword. 

That is a good thing. We can all agree on that. 

I see this largely as a myth. Maybe it happens in some other 2nd and 3rd world countries, but I don't see that ever happening here. 

Convincing people to enter a war is a helluva lot easier than convincing people they have too many freedoms and we need to "reign it in" a bit. We have passed the point of no return. That should've happened long ago. Americans are completely spoiled and we don't even realize it. They just assume that what we have, everyone has. I know this is a bit off topic, but my sister watches this show called 90 Day Fiance. These Americans fly to other countries to find love, because in many cases, they can't find a mate in the U.S.A., because no one here can tolerate them. Anyway, she's shown me several instances on the show where the Americans go to these poorer countries and do nothing but complain about not having toilets, running water, certain foods, clean facilities, how they have to dress, as well as a myriad of different issues. It's embarrassing. Instead of being grateful for what they have and feeling lucky for all the luxuries we take for granted, they just assume everyone in the world has the same thing and they complain when they don't have it, even for a short period of time. No wonder so many foreigners think Americans are spoiled. We are, but we won't acknowledge it. Just try convincing people in this country that there should be expected limits on certain freedoms. It won't end well.

---

Couple stats that might adjust your thinking:

• 59% of international adoptions are of children who have a non-Hispanic Asian decent.
  
• In the area of foster care, 35% of the adoptions are of non-Hispanic black children, just two percentage points behind Caucasian children.
  
• The majority of children who are adopted are non-white, but 73% of these children are adopted by parents who are white.
  
• Some 84% of international adoptions are interracial.
  
• Among all non-Caucasian children who are adopted, 73% of them are adopted into Caucasian families.
  

So, I can agree that a certain percentage of families are looking for white babies only, but that's not a majority, and race, by and large, doesn't seem to play a role. Generally speaking, people who want to adopt don't make race a high priority. 

As it pertains to abortions, what I posted is not a myth. Here's a few more stats to consider:

• 1.14% are done to save the life or physical health of the mother.
  
• 1.28% to preserve the mental health of the mother.
  
• 0.39% in cases of rape or incest.
  
• 0.69% for fetal birth defects, or eugenics.
  

This makes a total of 3.5% for all of the "hard" cases when  you combine them. Even the research arm of Planned Parenthood only lists "hard" cases at 7%, so it's safe to say these numbers aren't far off. 96.5% of all abortions happen for social or economic reasons. Not for any other reason. I would much rather focus on eliminating those variables than eliminating the children.


The only other point I feel I should address is the daycare one. I don't really want free daycare. I want companies to be more flexible about allowing parents to take their children to work. I think it's bad to have our kids separated from us for so long. Making society more accepting of children is one of the ways we can combat the social pressures of having a child. It's more of an idea than any hard fact I'm making here.

---

Oh, the idea that there is a myth of utilitarianism is not as far off as you think. While I agree that it's not common, you definitely can find many examples of it in socialize medicine. I'm just saying we need to be humanitarians first. Having those as basic values that uphold our civilization is paramount. The sad part is that it's not commonly found in human history, so I don't think it's a stretch to think it could fade in the near future if not rigorously protected.

---

You've been very clear that all you care about is low taxes.  I understand you.  It's some of the other folks I don't understand.

Your gibberish doesn't change the fact of how well funded PP is with our tax dollars.

2 years of trump with a republican majority in the house, the Senate, and the supreme Court didn't change that fact either!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Couple stats that might adjust your thinking:

• 59% of international adoptions are of children who have a non-Hispanic Asian decent.
  
• In the area of foster care, 35% of the adoptions are of non-Hispanic black children, just two percentage points behind Caucasian children.
  
• The majority of children who are adopted are non-white, but 73% of these children are adopted by parents who are white.
  
• Some 84% of international adoptions are interracial.
  
• Among all non-Caucasian children who are adopted, 73% of them are adopted into Caucasian families.
  

So, I can agree that a certain percentage of families are looking for white babies only, but that's not a majority, and race, by and large, doesn't seem to play a role. Generally speaking, people who want to adopt don't make race a high priority. 

As it pertains to abortions, what I posted is not a myth. Here's a few more stats to consider:

• 1.14% are done to save the life or physical health of the mother.
  
• 1.28% to preserve the mental health of the mother.
  
• 0.39% in cases of rape or incest.
  
• 0.69% for fetal birth defects, or eugenics.
  

This makes a total of 3.5% for all of the "hard" cases when  you combine them. Even the research arm of Planned Parenthood only lists "hard" cases at 7%, so it's safe to say these numbers aren't far off. 96.5% of all abortions happen for social or economic reasons. Not for any other reason. I would much rather focus on eliminating those variables than eliminating the children.


The only other point I feel I should address is the daycare one. I don't really want free daycare. I want companies to be more flexible about allowing parents to take their children to work. I think it's bad to have our kids separated from us for so long. Making society more accepting of children is one of the ways we can combat the social pressures of having a child. It's more of an idea than any hard fact I'm making here.

---

Oh, the idea that there is a myth of utilitarianism is not as far off as you think. While I agree that it's not common, you definitely can find many examples of it in socialize medicine. I'm just saying we need to be humanitarians first. Having those as basic values that uphold our civilization is paramount. The sad part is that it's not commonly found in human history, so I don't think it's a stretch to think it could fade in the near future if not rigorously protected.

I'm not disputing those figures. Most actual adoptions are done by white families to non-white children. They are much easier to adopt, but in many cases the reason the list of potential adopters is so large, is because of their desire to have a baby that looks as much like them as possible. In some cases I know, part of the reason was done to put off telling the child they were adopted until they were much older, (which I completely disagree with.) That just seems like a cruel thing to spring on a child in their teenage years when they have so many other things to deal with. My cousin (the same one that I used as an example for daycare) was a foster parent. Her first foster was a baby who was half white/half Mexican. He was born to a drug addicted mother and an MS-13 gang member. He was taken away, because at less than 2 weeks old, he was beaten severely by the father and his orbital bone was broken. Luckily, he suffered no long lasting effects. Physically, he could pass as my cousin and her husband's birth child. He is now 8 years old and my cousin ended up finalizing his adoption right before Covid got really bad. He's a great kid. She went on to then foster a severely disabled black baby who was addicted to crack and born to a crack addicted prostitute. By this time, my cousin had 3 young boys under the age of 6. The system ended up sending this child to her maternal grandmother who didn't know her butt from a hole in the ground. I shudder to think what that child's life ended up being. Finally, the last foster she did was a white brother and sister who were both toddlers with severe mental disabilities that caused violent outburst. They were born to heroin addicted parents who played video games all day and were taken out of filthy, neglectful conditions. Luckily, they were eventually taken in by their paternal aunt, who although she didn't have much in the line of money, was a very nice lady who genuinely wanted the children. After that, my cousin had to say she could take no more children. With the Covid epidemic, having 3 young children of her own and her husband's work situation, she just couldn't do it anymore. Sadly, these are the faces of today's children in foster care. The drug epidemic, especially heroin, has created a influx of kids into the system with a myriad of different mental and physical issues that potential adopters don't want to deal with. 

Good luck getting companies to pay for daycare and as far as bringing kids to work, no way. Nothing would ever get done. In one of my former jobs, they allowed a "bring your kid to work day" once a year and it was basically play time. Nothing got done. The kids were bored and constantly pestering the other workers too. It was a disaster. It's a nice notion in theory, but in practicality, it's a terrible idea. Being accepting of children and trying to accomplish a task when they are constantly around is two completely different ideas. 

I agree that people should be humanitarians. But Americans have become very selfish, thanks to the freedoms we take for granted and take advantage of. The idea of putting others before yourself, has largely become a thing of the past. It's every man and woman for themselves now in most cases. I know many people view Capitalism as strictly working hard to get ahead and make a nice life for yourself, but it involves a certain level of selfishness and greed as well. They don't accept that some people are in bad situations beyond their control and just expect all people to pick themselves up by their own "boot straps", yet some people have no boot straps to hang onto. Too many people today lack empathy. I'm not saying this as knock against Capitalism, just pointing out a fact.

---

To your last paragraph, I agree that we are an apathetic bunch. I find it odd that so many conservatives care about abortion, but never think twice about our drones bombing the [BLEEP] out of other nations. I think conservatives are slowly waking up to the abuse of the government, but it just speaks to your point about American ambivalence. I am not sure it has anything to do with capitalism, outside the fact that capitalism creates the comfort that leads to apathy. I think this is what you mean we you speak to human freedom, but I don't think comfort = freedom. In this regard, it is why I find the modern application of abortion so out of bounds. It primary function is more comfort, and it lowers the bar.

---

You men sure have a lot of opinions about something that doesn't concern you.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You need to concern yourself with getting back into that covid thread.

---

You need to concern yourself with getting back into that covid thread.

I'm on vacation and doing my best to stay away from medicine for a full 14 days.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato