>Are you going to care for the unwanted babies that now get born? Are you going to pay for their upbringing?
As an adopted child born prior to Roe v. Wade (and likely would not have been born post Roe v. Wade), I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child.
Also as an adoptive parent, post Roe v. Wade, I can assure you there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child.
Also as a person who knows many people who cannot conceive children, including same sex couples, I can assure you that there are people who will gladly pay for the right to bring up and love a child.
I’m pro-choice, but no offense, you need to drop that argument. It makes an assumption that other people share your attitude about raising children who are not biologically your own. Many of us out there who realize that simply having shared biology may be the least important thing between a parent and a child.
> It makes an assumption that other people share your attitude about raising children who are not biologically your own. Many of us out there who realize that simply having shared biology may be the least important thing between a parent and a child.
No, it makes the argument that the people forcing women to give birth are not also willing to care for them.
And you didnt say that you personally would adopt all of these forced births so you made my point.
> And you didnt say that you personally would adopt all of these forced births so you made my point.
Interesting…So your point is now that a single person who is both pro-adoption and pro-choice should be willing to literally adopt the 600k children that may now become available every year due to possible abortion restrictions? So you are saying that your ridiculous standard was not actually hyperbole? You actually meant it? Wow.
Well I guess I am going to have to get a second job.
I am not an opponent of abortions in general. I find it very hard to find a line when it's acceptable. Killing a 9 month old fetus is clearly evil to me (it's no different than killing a newborn), and killing a day old fetus is clearly not evil to me. The line is somewhere in between.
Your question about raising them doesn't affect me much. We have families who want to adopt, we have state facilities. It's clearly a better way to spend tax dollars than some overpriced military crap.
The bill was written to ban discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for any age - not just K-3.
> Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
I suspect not but you will happily force others to do just that.