> Then how do you know anyone feels that way? Where do you get your information?
Google for "I hate my children".
> [social safety nets]
One solution to children growing up in poverty is a safety net - a solution that is strongly advocated against as being "socialist" by our current government. i.e. It ain't happening in our lifetime.
Since that solution is not currently feasible, not having children if you can't afford them (i.e. it will put you into poverty, either from normal costs or advanced costs if the child is known to have a birth defect) is the next best solution. There are four well known methods for this, abstinence, contraception, abortion, and adoption.
Abstinence is not a realistic solution, this has been shown to be the case through the centuries.
Reliable contraception does not exist (or is effectively unavailable: see the crap women have to go through to get their tubes tied). It's also next up on some of the SC justices' hitlist.
That leaves abortion and adoption. The first is much more affordable and less likely to kill the woman than the second. And that doesn't count the already overloaded foster care system and adoption rosters we're subjecting the children to.
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?
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††.
> If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.
Why don't we consider the combined probability of condoms + birth control (heck, even + vasectomy, etc.)? It would seem a lot more reasonable to me to take that as a more appropriate measure of real-world risk.
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.
Here I thought we were talking about protecting lives in the world as it is. Not just babies in an idealized world that doesn't reflect the US' current or projected state.
That's what I am discussing. And I'm saying that literally millions of people are waiting to adopt. Pretty sure most of them would be more than happy to pay $5k for the birth. If not, adoption agencies should be obliged to cover it.
I'm sure you don't think that it's acceptable that women would kill their unborn children because they can't afford the cost of birth?
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?
Google for "I hate my children".
> [social safety nets]
One solution to children growing up in poverty is a safety net - a solution that is strongly advocated against as being "socialist" by our current government. i.e. It ain't happening in our lifetime.
Since that solution is not currently feasible, not having children if you can't afford them (i.e. it will put you into poverty, either from normal costs or advanced costs if the child is known to have a birth defect) is the next best solution. There are four well known methods for this, abstinence, contraception, abortion, and adoption.
Abstinence is not a realistic solution, this has been shown to be the case through the centuries.
Reliable contraception does not exist (or is effectively unavailable: see the crap women have to go through to get their tubes tied). It's also next up on some of the SC justices' hitlist.
That leaves abortion and adoption. The first is much more affordable and less likely to kill the woman than the second. And that doesn't count the already overloaded foster care system and adoption rosters we're subjecting the children to.