HOME | DD
SaritysAnimation β Struggle For Control
Published: 2013-04-10 02:46:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 18778; Favourites: 1000; Downloads: 106
Redirect to original
Description
I'll leave it at that.Related content
Comments: 1121
I don't give a damn about your religion. Its not something to base your argument on, whatever it is. Unless the argument actually pertains to your religion, don't use it to debate.
Sources, please. I cited mine, and I refuse to listen to anything you say unless you provide facts.
π: 0 β©: 1
I used plain and simple logic, bud. And I know how this game is played. I bring up a source, you say it's not credible.
I'm not in the mood for games. The burden of proof is on you since you began this little discussion.
On a bad foot, I might add.
π: 0 β©: 1
What a great way to chicken out.
Show me your sources. I showed you mine, didn't I?
If you're not going to show me your sources, I'm going to say I won this argument. Bottom line, women deserve the choice. It doesn't matter your beliefs. If someone was raped, or is going to die in childbirth, or is unable to financially/physically raise the child, then they deserve the right to an abortion. If you're really willing to take someone's rights to a medical procedure away because of your opinion, then you fucking suck.
Good day.
π: 0 β©: 1
Look at the *rest* of my responses in this column, you ninny. It covers all of your concerns on this matter.
π: 0 β©: 0
An embryo is aΒ gelatinousΒ group of cells that cannot survive outside the womb of a mother. Furthermore, you are taking that woman's right to her life away if you force her to carry through with an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy can be traumatic, is physically stressful and can even kill the mother if there are serious complications during childbirth. You don't seem to have considered the issue of pregnancies caused by rape, either. Regardless of that, though, the fact that you place the non-self-sustainable "life" of an embryo above the mental and physical health of an adult with consciousness, sapience and emotions is truly concerning.
π: 0 β©: 1
Good Lord... It's like I'm being attacked by all the cliche talking points at once!
Heh heh... wow... I've heard literally ALL of them.
'Religion sucks because it teaches that men and women shouldn't be careless with sex!'
'Rape and incest are my only ways of conveying that abortion is okay, never minding the 95% of other abortions that are unrelated to that, so even though you've mentioned that you think abortion for cases of rape and incest are acceptable, I'll still harp on about that!'
'You place more value on a child who doesn't have a voice, but whose life hangs in the balance over the emotions of the mother and father who decided to do the dirty dance anyway? SHAME ON YOUUUU!'
Fuck... I keep on explaining to each of you cretins and each of you keep ignoring points I make on conversations with others and harping on and on and ON....
I've gone on the record as saying that rape, incest and danger to the mother's life are perfectly reasonable grounds for abortion. On the rape one though, I would urge the mother reconsider, but in the end its her choice. I've got friends who are the product of rape and their mothers have coped.
So I would appreciate it if you didn't lump me in with others you've argued this with, because I assure you, I'm not black and white on this matter.
π: 0 β©: 0
Trillions of potentional lives now hang in my balls. Does each one of them have individual human rights? And is blowing them all into a tissue an act of genocide?
π: 0 β©: 1
Are they living cells, yes or no?
Don't strain that public education of yours, I'll help you out. Yes.
Next question, and the more important one, once they are fused with an egg, do they begin to develop into a person? I'll help you out again, yes.
Thirdly, at what point does an unborn child's heart begin to beat? Look it up on your own for once...
Next, at what point is there brain activity? Won't help you on this one either.
Last but not least... What constitutes a human being?
π: 0 β©: 5
(late but w/e)
So you would much rather a child be born into a financially unstable family, perhaps only be raised by a single mother who works full time; be fed meagerly and live in a sub-par home because it's mother can't provide for it; drop out of school in their early teens and statistically turn to crime, live out their days on the streets or commit suicide at a young age.
And judging by your smug attitude towards the allegedly "EVIL sub-par public education system", you're one of those rich white fuckers that also want the government to refrain from giving them financial assistance, I mean all that matters is that the kid was not aborted. I mean who gives a fuck that the kids now fully-developed brain understands true misery. Fuck if pro-lifers care that the life you people fought so hard for this kid to have sucks absolute balls.
Surely with that amazing education of yours you would bother to look up some relevant statistics, such as the fact that the vast majority of abortions are preformed in the first trimester, third trimester pregnancies are both illegal and performed only in emergencies, in fact many women that need an abortion to save their fucking life are denied one due to pro-life protests, causing both the mother and the fetus to die. Oops??
So, you fucking rube, stop with the dogmatic pro-life bullshit because I'm fairly sure that you and all other "pro-lifers" don't give a shit about kids anyway
π: 0 β©: 1
Heh heh heh... wow. Late indeed. Let's dissect this one paragraph by paragraph...
You use a lot of 'perhaps' and 'maybes' in your words. You are, in effect, judging and condemning a child to death due to their class and a supposition of what their life *MIGHT* be like.Β And *I* am the high and mighty asshole? Check yourself, friend, before you open your mouth.Β And as long as there's a culture that glorifies all the crass, free-sex nonsense that's led to many believing abortion's the only way out.
As for the smug attitude, heh, sure. Right. My parents who homeschooled me (And I was an ACCIDENT), who worked extra hours just to afford it, who juggled looking after me and my siblings, who had to personally teach me to read, write and perform math were just brimming with wealth. And if you think for a moment that I'm a stranger to misery, then you may go ahead and have that assumption. I won't try to sway you with a story that you have no reason to believe. But I will tell you that I've experienced crushing despair. And you know what? I'm still here and I'm stronger for it. I didn't need some ill-informed chump pop out of the woodwork and declare me a lost fucking cause. I got over my problems. More problems will come, but I will tackle them too. Pain is inevitable in life. Suffering though is purely optional.
I've made it clear in journals I've posted that I believe that if the mother's life is in danger or if the child is the product of rape or incest, the woman should have a right to both the abortion and discretion. I'm not against contraception, condoms, the day-after pill or anything of that nature. But for the THOUSANDS of other abortions that are done as an avoidance of responsibility when the mother has the capability and wherewithal to raise the child, I have no reservations calling it murder. (You'll also notice I don't use cowardly, de-humanizing language to distance myself from the gravity of the topic. I say child. Not 'fetus'.) Further, I'd like to point out that the statistics are a fucking joke. Let's think critically about this for a minute... The statistics say that poorer homes are more likely to produce criminals. But proportionately, the number of poor people outnumber the sum of rich people, right? So that renders the statistic meaningless. That's as obvious as saying 'Climates with high precipitation are more likely to experience rainfall!' Besides, there are percentage-wise, criminals in all walks of life, be they rich or poor. It all comes down to upbringing. And if you're going to come out and say that lower income families have poorer parents, I'd LOVE to get that from you in writing, you elitist jackass.
The only dogma at work here is the notion that taking responsibility for your actions is for 'rubes', as you artfully put it. And actually, I'll have you know, that I love kids. I'm great with kids. I have two nephews and a niece who I love very much and even though they too were disadvantageous to a happy-go-lucky lifestyle, my brothers and their wives still chose to have them.
And ready or not, when fatherhood is one day upon me, I will not shirk my responsibility.
π: 0 β©: 1
The "maybe"s that I used in my argument were representing the whole, not individual situations. I wasn't saying that one person may or may not be able to raise a child, but rather that out of many people, some of them will be unable to raise a child. I hope you understand how different my argument is contextually based on how you chose to read it....you chose wrong.
Great for you that your parents decided not to abort you--that was their choice. Just so we're clear, I don't think abortion should be mandatory in any normal situation. If the potential parent chooses to raise their child, that is their choice and they have the right to make it. The hole in your argument emerges when you mention your parents worked hard for you to be homeschooled---keyword is parentSSS. Do you expect a single mother to have the time to teach her child/ren while while working to support said child/ren? That is even hard for two parents if they are as you claim having to work extra hours. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to mock public education. You assume that your situation is universal.
Another hole is discovered where you claim that you've experienced hardship and overcome it. Good for you, but not every child is so fortunate to have the willpower and/or support to be able to overcome anything that may prove troublesome in their young life. Again, you assume that your situation is universal.
Protip: anecdotes make poor arguments.
I suppose there isn't anything wrong with your excusing abortion in cases of rape, seeing as you apparently view pregnancy as a punishment for having sex....sheesh, and you thought that I wasn't respecting the unborn?
I'd like to know what you deem as "capability and wherewithal to raise [a] child", because that statement is rather vague...do tell.
I do not kid myself, a fetus is alive and when a pregnancy is terminated, yes, the fetus has been killed. However I do not consider the word "fetus" to be dehumanizing; it is both the proper scientific and technical term for what occupies the womb. For at least the first two trimesters of pregnancy the embryo-->zygote-->fetus cannot survive outside the womb, so if you reject my last statement I believe that is enough evidence to say that a fetus is not the same as a baby. Keep in mind that the majority of abortions are preformed in the first trimester, in the first few weeks of pregnancy. I'd also like to see a fetus make a decision for itself, develop opinions, you know, like people do.
Clearly you have no understanding of how statistics work.
Say I have 10 000 "poor" people in a certain area. Of those 10 000, 5000 have engaged in criminal activity.
Conversely we have 5000 upper class people in that same area, of which say, 25 are criminals.
We divide subset "b"(criminals in the area) by set "a"(total residents of the area) and we get a decimal that can be converted into a percent:
5000/10 000= .5, or 50%
25/5000= .005, or .5%
If you don't understand, what I'm saying is that the size of the sample group has no bearing on statistics.
I could make a joke about homeschooling here but I'm not that mean.
I might be mistaken, but most older criminals started young.
I suppose we really disagree here, as I do understand that human sex is for pleasure in addition to procreation. You can't stop an adult or most teenagers from having sex unless you want them to be incredibly unhealthy in the mental realm. Yes, a baby is a by-product of pregnancy so to say, but so is orgasm, sexual pleasure and bonding. Not every human who needs sex in some way(the majority of human beings) is capable of, has the resources to, or is in the proper situation the raise a child. Sure, there's adoption, but that would be a LOT of babies/kids going through the system until they turn 18....which takes us back to the whole misery thing.
Good for you for liking kids, let me know when you donate the majority of your time and money to making sure that all the kids that go up for adoption are living happy lives.....you fought for them, after all, perhaps we should see some responsibility for your actions.
Again, their choice for having kids. They're allowed.
Your choice for having kids. You're allowed.
Ding dong.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't appreciate your making vast assumptions about me based on several conversations and one stance, which I have already laid out, is not as black and white as the rest of the doddering, misled masses.
But for all the good it will do, assume away.
I've said my piece and I stand by my words. Life is sacred.
But hell, let's remove spirituality and religion from the equation altogether...
The law states that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is culpable for both deaths, regardless of trimester.
Thus, logically speaking, abortion is *selectively* sanctioned murder.
That's not semantics. That's hard logic. No anecdotes.
And I never said pregnancy was a punishment. I never said sex is sinful. Culture is oversexed, in my opinion, but that doesn't make sex itself evil.
But just like money, sex can be abused for the wrong reasons.
Something that's lost on the fucking braindead losers of this day and age is that sex is not some fleeting whim. When you have sex with someone, you're *bonding* with them. And since any spiritual significance is *clearly* lost on you, I'll put it in purely psychological terms... You never forget your first, and you *bond* psychologically with your partner. Emotionally as well.
I had a girlfriend for a full year, but she was always withdrawn. There were numerous opportunities to have sex. Protected sex too, no less. But protection or not, when you lay down with someone, you make an unspoken commitment. So I held back. I broke up with her due to unrelated matters and I do not, for an instant, regret my abstinence. Prior to her, the girlfriend I'd had in Tulsa, I laid down with three months into the relationship because she was open and I could trust her. No regrets about bonding with her either. But she died and I had to move on.
But please, by all means, do go on and try to excuse the animalistic behavior that leads to so many children being put to the butcher's block or, as you pointed out, growing up to be criminals.
I don't blame abortion in and of itself, Grind. You seem to misunderstand me.
I blame the cultural inclinations that led it to become a perceived necessity in the first place.
π: 0 β©: 0
I suppose I'll have to take your silence as a realization that you were in over your head, and an acceptence of defeat. Grats on being one of a million prolife idiots who preach, condescend, then tuck tail and run at the slightest hint of common sense like the brainless cockless lepers you are. Go crawl back into your inbred mother and insist that it isn't too late for an abortion.
π: 0 β©: 2
Ohhh, right... that bilge-ridden series of asinine platitudes that failed to catch my attention since I tend not to pay it to such intellectual dishonesty. ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
What didn't I answer, O Evenhanded One?
π: 0 β©: 0
Are you going to answer me or not, you condescending little shit?
π: 0 β©: 0
"do they begin to develop into a person?" No. They don't become a person until the brain "turns on" and becomes an active organ in the body, which is around 22 weeks of life. Well AFTER abortion is no longer legal. Personhood is not a viable excuse to be against legal abortion because it has nothing to do with it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I would say after the development of brain activity, but that would declassify people like you as human beings. No personal problem with that though.
And you still didn't answer my question. You just asked me instead. If you're dumb enough to argue for the 'potential' life, you have to specify where the potentiality begins. Which truthfully is in the balls. But idiots like you always say it begins when the burden transfers to the woman. How convenient.
Either never allow yourself another orgasm without the intention of creating a child, or shut the fuck up, you self righteous empty headed hypocrite.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ha! Glad someone enjoyed my burst of righteous fury.
π: 0 β©: 1
I sure did, gotta be thankful for the few astute left in the world.
π: 0 β©: 1
I certainly know what you mean. Thanks for the reply. Insignificant as you may have found it, its nice to hear something affirming for a change.
π: 0 β©: 0
Why you would choose to comment in such a manner un-befitting of this piece is beyond me. If you're going to comment, at least relate it to the art, not your own opinions, which, frankly, don't matter, seeing as how this is a site for art, not political issues.
π: 0 β©: 1
So if the art makes a political statement, I'm supposed to ignore that element?
π: 0 β©: 1
This is not a political forum. Judge the art, not the political statement it makes. if you want politics, go to another website. We are artists, it is our duty - our obligation - to be open minded of opinions and look at things differently - not look at this piece as a statement, but as art that may or may not be implying a statement. I personally try to think of it not as a blatant statement, but more of an artistic element almost..something that contributes to the piece as a whole.
π: 0 β©: 1
Using that logic, I could make a simple piece of artwork depicting the male symbol on the left, this symbol in the center > and the female symbol on the right and if anyone accused me of sexism/chauvinism/misogyny/etc., I could simply say it's not a blatant statement but an artistic element.
This image above seems pretty darned clear in its statement to me.
π: 0 β©: 0
Depends on when you call life life.
π: 0 β©: 1
So you're telling me that life isn't life until it's popped out? Before that it's dead mass?
π: 0 β©: 1
Not at all. I am entirely against late term abortion as well as aborthion used as birth control.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, cool, likewise!
π: 0 β©: 1
I love this, the design is perf. I simply agree, from the Church and beyond to all who think women shouldn't control their own biology. What I hate tho, is that I do actually go to a catholic school and they simply state to use protection and they won't shun you if you become pregos, they just whisk you off to the councilors and continue on.
π: 0 β©: 0
When I saw this, I didn't like of abortion. I thought of how the church tries to tell women that they have a certain role and aren't equal to men. After all, a men can have sex before marriage countless times, but if a women does once, she's an automatic whore.
π: 0 β©: 3
Where did you hear this? 0_o I mean about men can have sex but women can't.
π: 0 β©: 2
It's how society is, mostly. Men are encouraged to go out and bang as many women as they can and are clapped on the back and rewarded for being promiscuous. Likewise, if a woman has sex with just ONE MAN, she's shamed, humiliated, told she'd destroyed her body, etc etc. Women are expected to be virgins until marriage, men are expected to fuck every woman he sees.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's how society functions, and religion plays a huge factor in this view.
π: 0 β©: 0
From an entirely artistic standpoint, I like this. I like how you elegantly used a simplistic style to illustrate a much larger issue. The stark contrast, the faceless silhouettes, the symbolism -- this was well executed, and kudos on that. While I don't 100% agree with the message you're trying to send, I respect your artistic skill in being able to invoke so much emotion with so little. (I could go on about my 1208123 reasons for disagreeing, but I assume your inbox has already been flooded with it, so 
π: 0 β©: 0
I got to ask all the people who said Abortion is murder. I want to think real hard. And when I meant real hard, I mean actually think outside of your bubble.
Do you really want to put the kid through hell? Do you really want to let a irresponsible person who can barely take care of themselves to birth and raise a kid? Do you really want to shove a kid into an already crowded foster care system where they have barely a chance to get adopted or put with abusive parents?
Do you really want that kid to feel unloved knowing that their mom put them up for adoption? Do you?
π: 0 β©: 3
Okay, I'm thinking real hard, I promise.
1) So, every woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly can't take care of herself and is unfit to raise a child? I know a few mothers who would like a word with you about that.
2) Adoption is an option, no one is forcing the mother to care for the child.
3) "where they have barely a chance to get adopted or put with abusive parents" -- four of my siblings were adopted at various ages. Two were adopted at age 4, one at age 7, and the other at 16. Yes, there are lots of kids in foster care. No, that doesn't mean they "barely have a chance" to get adopted. Obviously they have all felt some degree of hurt over their biological parents not raising them, but they all know that your family members are the people who raised you and love you, not necessarily the ones who are related by blood.
4) I won't deny that there are kids who get placed with abusive families, but let's not forget a few things here. First of all, there are significantly more kids abused by their biological parents than there are kids by their foster/adoptive parents. There are thousands of loving adoptive parents. Second of all, tons of kids end up in foster care regardless, and it's not just women who give up their unwanted newborns. Third, private adoptions are an option to the mother. There are couples who look for surrogates without going through the foster care system and that way, the mother can even choose the people whom her baby's family will be.
Honestly, I think you need to "think outside of your bubble" as well.
π: 0 β©: 2
Sorry, I just want to throw in my two cents here.
1) Not true, but there are some that are unfit to raise a child or cannot afford to.
2) Except during the pregnancy, which is 100% on the mother. If the woman doesn't get all the necessary vitamins and supplements during her pregnancy she can start to lose vital nutrients because the fetus is sucking it all away from her, and generally she does have to pay for whatever doctor visits she accumulates. Your visit to the doctor is not cheap, and giving birth...well "The charge for an uncomplicated cesarean section was about $15,800 in 2008. An uncomplicated vaginal birth cost about $9,600, government data show." And that "Women who have individual health insurance policies often find that maternity care coverage is completely excluded," [link] Also, just being pregnant might be risky to her health.
3) Depends on how healthy they are, the chances of a healthy child are greatly improved than a child with health problems. But I'll let this break it down on the chances of being adopted are: [link] Sorry that it's a 2011 year, but that's the most recent I could find. But what it says is that between 1-4 years is the most likely to get adopted at the respective rates of 11%, 14%, 12%, and 10%. Every other year is 8% or lower.
4) I actually did a report on this in high school and children are more likely to be abuse in foster homes than by their biological parents.
"In Maryland, a 1992 study found that substantiated allegations of sexual abuse in foster care are four times higher than that found among the general population." and "A 1986 survey conducted by the National Foster Care Education Project found that foster children were 10 times more likely to be abused than children among the general population. A follow-up study in 1990 by the same group produced similar results." From [link]
"For example, a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that 12% of children in care had not received routine health care, 34% had not received any immunizations, only 10% received services to address developmental delays," That sounds a lot like neglect to me.
"Under the 1993 amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), states are required to create external review boards to evaluate foster care policies. However, to date, no comprehensive evaluations of the role, function, or effectiveness of foster care review boards have been completed." Both from [link] I literally could not find any statistics outlining how many kids get abused inside the foster care system, all the abuse statistics were how many kids came from abusive homes.
π: 0 β©: 1
1) I totally get that, but the OP's way of stating it annoyed me because of how shallow it was.
2) That's why I think private adoptions/surrogates are a great idea. (I believe it's the right terminology, but I could be wrong?) Basically the prospective family meets the mother, pays at least partly for medical bills, stuff like that. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world and that doesn't happen often enough. But again, everything you listed is another reason to take precautions in your sex life. Sex is so glorified in American culture that it's warping kids' minds, and it's honestly sickening. If sex ed and safety were encouraged more than getting laid, we'd probably have far fewer unwanted pregnancies and irresponsible parents.
3) Yeah, health and age are huge factors. So again, private adoptions would be a huge deal since the adoptive parents would be entirely up to date on the kid's health, and be able to get the child early on, which is when most parents want to adopt them.
4) Well, you have me there. It's still baffling to me that this kind of abuse happens, because the system that my dad went through to adopt my siblings was really strict. Granted, he went through it many years ago, but still, if one of my siblings had so much as a runny nose, they came down on my dad pretty hard. It makes me wonder how the abusive parents retained custody, let alone why so many couples would bother spending the money and effort to adopt/raise children and then abuse them.
That 34% without immunizations is pretty staggering. To play devil's advocate, I would say to the results of the stats by the GAO, how do those kids compare to kids being raised by their biological parents? Also, are those stats recent or are they also from the early 90s as well? If so, I wonder how they would compare to recent stats. Thanks for the links, I think I'll be looking through that Princeton site tonight.
Unwanted pregnancies, abortion, overcrowded foster care -- they're all linked to the glorification of sex in the US and in the end, both adoption AND abortion are bandaids on a much bigger problem. Neither of these would be necessary (in most cases) if there was a bigger emphasis on sex ed, safety, and responsibility.
π: 0 β©: 1
1) I'll give you that.
2) Did you mean surrogate like 'Please give birth to my baby'? I think if proper Sex Ed were pushed instead of this abstinence-only stuff the unwanted pregnancy rate would be far lower.
3)Yes, that would be true I suppose.
4)Do you live in a more rural area or a more populated one? It seems to me that kids in foster care systems often get more abuse if they live in a larger city with higher populations. I read somewhere that the recommended case load for a social worker is 17 and most are doing 3 times that easily so that probably contributes.
"how do those kids compare to kids being raised by their biological parents?" Good question. I couldn't find anything. Google failed me, I either got statistics for abused kids nationally, kids that abuse previously before foster care, or statistics for kids when they get out of foster care (but that last one was success in life, it wasn't pretty). The Princeton link says it was updated in the last month, but it is a bit of a dull read.
All that in your last paragraph I agree with, with the added bonus that I think that a greater access in women's contraception and less stigma about female sexuality will also go a very long way in getting those numbers down.
π: 0 β©: 1
2) For surrogates -- yeah, basically. Abstinence-only is a bit ridiculous unless the target audience is, say, teens who've barely reached sexual maturity and feel that they need to screw anything with a pulse. In general, yeah, sex ed would go much further than some religious figure or another preaching abstinence.
4) Suburbs. That makes sense, now that you mention it. I can hardly even imagine trying to be a social worker with 50+ cases, so I can see how some kids would slip through the cracks. Not that it's really an excuse.
Now I'm interested in finding out. I didn't get much from googling it either, but I'm curious to see how it compares especially with so many low income families with kids. Meh, even if it's dull, I might try to go through it.
"greater access in women's contraception and less stigma about female sexuality will also go a very long way in getting those numbers down"
Absolutely agree with you. Personally, I think contraception should be readily available for women so that abortion doesn't become what a pregnant woman may feel is her only option.
π: 0 β©: 1
2) Actually, they've proven that abstinence-only sex ed increases the rate of teen pregnancy. It doesn't work.
4) Not a great one, but overworked is still pretty valid. I've gotten to the point where I think there isn't any statistics on abuse inside the foster care system. I know it happens, I've seen the news stories, but they don't seem to be publishing any rates.
π: 0 β©: 1
2) well, damn. In a way, that doesnt surprise me much. Then we need wiser, more responsible teens. (Like that will happen, but we can hope)
4) this is true. I imagine the numbers probably wouldn't be an accurate reflection anyway if the social workers are so flooded that they can't even address the abuse they find in the first place.
π: 0 β©: 0
1. And how many did it one ther own?
2. Adoption is an option. That constantly get pushed as the end all choice.
3.They got lucky. They was fighting a 1 in 100,000 chance. But guess what, if more kids were put in the system, they would've lost their chance to be adopted.
4. Let's break this down:
First of all, there are significantly more kids abused by their biological parents than there are kids by their foster/adoptive parents.
So, why would you keep pushing for that to happen? Why would you want them to be born in that situation?
There are thousands of loving adoptive parents.
Then where are they? Why are they not adopting American children instead of foreign one? If there are a bunch, the adoption quota will drop.
Second of all, tons of kids end up in foster care regardless, and it's not just women who give up their unwanted newborns.
Due to irresponsible parents or parents that gipped by the CPS.
There are couples who look for surrogates without going through the foster care system and that way, the mother can even choose the people whom her baby's family will be.
So, instead of adopting, they decide to bring more children into the world. Is that even logical at all?
π: 0 β©: 2
<= Prev | | Next =>