R
Rothchild
Guest
I suspect that most southern states would ban abortion. I would be shocked if my state of Tennessee didn’t fall into the list above.
- Status
L
Lorik
Guest
I’m happy to say (at least for now) Missouri would be on the ban list.
I think one of the most important fronts to combat in the fight against abortion is drugs. Drug use in the US attributes to poverty and a general break down of the family unit.
I’d be willing to bet a majority of abortions have drugs at the root.
I think one of the most important fronts to combat in the fight against abortion is drugs. Drug use in the US attributes to poverty and a general break down of the family unit.
I’d be willing to bet a majority of abortions have drugs at the root.
A
ArdenB
Guest
Any ideas on what states would absolutely not ban it?
Q
quiet52
Guest
Statistics for surgical abortions will most likely decline as women increasingly resort to using chemical abortions (“morning after pills”), which are private and undocumented for the most part.
G
gam197
Guest
My guess is that blue states are the most likely states to retain it.
Colorado, Hawaii, California and New York I believe passed state abortion laws before the federal Roe. vs Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions so I would imagine that they may keep it.
I would add Oregon because of it’s euthanasia law and Washington State would be iffy.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine would probably retain it and in the Midwest, Illinois would have trouble banning it.
There are approximately 361 abortion, anti-contraception, and obscenity laws on the books and the question will become, are these laws still applicable or not as each state looks at its own laws.
D
Dameedna
Guest
You would have even more babies to feed and needing homes.
It’s not a state thing, it’s a human one.
Let’s not lose humanity in the face of politics.
It’s not a state thing, it’s a human one.
Let’s not lose humanity in the face of politics.
A
ArdenB
Guest
And there would be more than enough couples wanting to adopt them.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
NJ wouldn’t ban it. They might put some restrictions, but I think it would be fairly easy to continue to get one pretty much on demand here.
J
jc-servant
Guest
Then why are so many non-white and disabled babies languishing without adoptive parents in the US right now? Let’s be real and acknowledge that many people want only “perfect” babies of a certain race. They will accept some compromises such as going to Guatemala for an almost white baby, but there is not such a demand for any baby that all will be adopted here. I’ve heard people discuss it openly and it is quite shocking in this day and age but not completely surprising to me.
We have a long way to go in this country before we can get all children adopted and before we can stop all abortions. Merely having laws on the books does not change hearts. If Roe is gone then we go right back to the patchwork of state laws that we had in the past.
Look how many years it took after the Civil War to end Jim Crow in all states and to get people to stop spitting on children merely trying to attend the public schools paid for in part by their parents’ tax money. It took time and some concerted action to change people at a deeper level. We are still not there completely.
We need to genuinely address the reasons that people seek abortions and abandon their children or the cycle will never end.
A
ArdenB
Guest
There is no shortage of people wanting to adopt babies of any race. It’s older children in foster care who are harder to place. If they were put up for adoption as infants they would’ve been adopted right away.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Actually, there is a real problem with placing disabled infants (my wife and I do a lot of work in that area).
Also, bear in mind that the math would mean that 1 in about 50 couples would have to adopt to absorb current abortion rates in the US. We could increase the desire to adopt by getting rid of some other evil practices, like IVF, but it is still a lot of extra adoptions.
Ideally, we should reduce unwanted pregnancies and foster stable family environments, to keep the strain on our ability to absorb foster children and adoption as low as possible.
A
ArdenB
Guest
S
SoCalRC
Guest
That was my point, illicit practices like IVF keep the number of these couples choosing adoption artificially low. And, of course, the negative impacts of globalization that the Pope highlighted during his recent visit help make it financially impractical for many of these couples to meet the criteria for adoption in quite a few states.
Actually, the rate of physical and developmental disabilities is higher among children up for adoption than their peers. There are a lot of causal factors behind this, but when you look at the demographics of where many of these children are coming from, higher risk factors make sense.
A
ArdenB
Guest
Probably less people would turn to IVF if there were more babies available for adoption. IVF is usually only successful in women under 35, and not everyone can afford or wants to try it. The majority of couples who are conceive with fertility treatments use fertility drugs and surgery that are not prohibited by the church. Would banning those be a good step in increasing the adoption rate? I’m not sure if you’re suggesting IVF be outlawed to lower the abortion rate, but I don’t see how it would be realistic or even work. Even with IVF, more than 1 in 50 couples can’t have children…
Does this include children who weren’t put up for adoption as infants?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
The rate is higher either way.
Please don’t interpret my comments as a rejection of adoption. I just think that reducing unwanted pregnancies is important.
Remember, for an adoption to occur, the pregnancy must be carried to term. If a woman is a sole supporter, and we, as a society, do not demand things like maternity leave and basic health care as rights, there are obstacles to this occuring.
Yes, there are couples out there who will financially subsidize prenatal care, the medical costs of delivery, even time off work. But if only wealthy couples can afford to adopt, the pool of prospective parents gets smaller.
On the other hand, if we work on reducing occurances of these sorts of situations up front - ie, no unwanted pregnancy, then we are doing more than just reducing abortions, we are also moving society more in line with natural law in other areas as well.
A
ArdenB
Guest
I agree that reducing unwanted is a good thing as long as it is done in the right way.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Agreed.
FWIW, I just found a couple of studies I’ll read through later, but it seems that most adoption households turn to it as a last option, so I do not think that more babies available for adoption would reduce IVF usage. The drive to biologically reproduce is pretty intense.
M
mapleoak
Guest
You would have more people surviving to infanthood and then on to adulthood. More adults to take care of more babies. More adults to grow, make, and prepare food. More adults to build homes. Etc.,
And we can accomplish the goal of not losing our humanity by not killing our own.
- Status