Roe v Wade

[ApatheticNoMore]

They seem to be opposed to many--if not all--contraceptives, as well.
I suspect they're mostly latter-day Puritans at heart.

It probably works (as well as anything does, there is no single right way to live) in a certain cultural context where you are supposed to be married quite young and sure pump out some kids (but really how many kids does anyone want, 6 of them or something? That's why of course even most Catholics use some form of *birth control*, and world population and resource limits being what it is these days, 6 kids for everyone on the planet is a really bad idea anyway).

But also also we don't live in that cultural context!! Few in the modern world do, and the attempt to force us back to it culturally by gunpoint kicking and screaming as is being done .... yea, and it's not even going to work. Outlaw birth control and you still wouldn't get everyone back to marrying at 18 or something, but there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancies.

[JaneV2.0]

Well thank God for our loosely-interpreted Second Amendment, or they wouldn't have enough guns for the job!

[bae]

IOutlaw birth control and you still wouldn't get everyone back to marrying at 18 or something, but there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancies.

Doesn't the draft decision mention problems with "the domestic supply of infants"?...

I bet there's some unpacking to be done there...

[JaneV2.0]

Doesn't the draft decision mention problems with "the domestic supply of infants"?...

I bet there's some unpacking to be done there...

There are thousands and thousands of kids in foster care, but I suspect these people want "new" children.

Also, Alito's source (Sir Matthew Hale) promoted witch burning. Do you suppose they're planning to bring that back?

"Alito relies on sources such as Hale without acknowledging their entanglement with legalized male supremacy.... Hale was a man who believed women could be witches, assumed women were liars and thought husbands owned their wives’ bodies. It is long past time to leave that misogyny behind."

More appalling backstory on Maddowblog: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...tiny-rcna28085

[ApatheticNoMore]

And he's not even American, didn't we have a revolution about that? I have no idea if anyone would be any worse or better under British rule, just it's completely irrelevant to the country we actually live in. If you have to reach back before the start of this country for legal precedence ... and btw abortion may have some limits but is far from illegal in the UK, so even they aren't going on that precedence in that country!

[JaneV2.0]

I fear we're rapidly hurtling backwards toward a third-world tin-pot dictatorship. I hope I'm wrong.

[iris lilies]

There are thousands and thousands of kids in foster care, but I suspect these people want "new" children.

oh please, that tired old chestnut.

First of all, the percentage of children in foster care who are available for adoption is not nearly as high as you think. Just because they are wards of our government doesn’t mean that they can be adopted.
their crappy parents still have rights to them. Current social work practice calls for everything under the sun to be done to get parent and child back together into the dysfunctional family. And then of course there are the race based requirements that black children be placed in black homes. And etc. These impede adoption.

Secondly, so many of these children are damaged, So you blame someone who doesn’t want to take that on.? And the damage is not even apparent or diagnosable in the littlest kids.

Unfortunately used children are not used dogs, and we can’t give them a temperament test and put them down when they’re not adoptable. Unlike the majority of dogs that come into our rescue program, these foster children do not come from a strong loving family home. So many of my rescue dogs come from a home where they’ve been well treated. They’re good dogs. I’ve said many times that the dogs who come in to my house as foster dogs are often better behaved than my own dogs. They come from a home that has a shake up of some sort that causes them to have to give up their family dog.

That is simply not true with children, they have traumatic experiences that throws them into foster care. That’s too matic experience says cause lasting damage.

I’m all for parental rights trumping most things but it really is too bad, all of it.

[jp1]

So what is the answer for the "damaged" children? Just let them age out of foster care and whatever happens to them as they stumble through life happens?

[ApatheticNoMore]

So what is the answer for the "damaged" children? Just let them age out of foster care and whatever happens to them as they stumble through life happens?

I don't know, but I suspect they should definitely be given more social help when they turn 18 (as in programs to get them into apprentice training/college/pay expenses while they get job training etc.).

It's one of the populations (like veterans) that has a disproportionate chance of ending up homeless. And all duties to support them end at 18. As they do for other children of course, but many get parental help well past 18 obviously, and even when they don't usually had more functional childhoods (that hopefully somewhat better prepared them for adulthood). Kids noone really cared for, dumped into the deep end of the adult world, at 18.

[bae]

I believe it is considerably cheaper to educate them, provide them other essential services, and get them into productive lifestyles, than to end up directing them to the prison system.

And it's cheaper to start this process very early.