Replies

Ok, I hear ya.
Good argument.
But do other mammals have the option of putting their offspring up for abortion?

Pardon me, my bad...

What I meant to say was...
Do other mammals have the option of putting their offspring up for ADOPTION, not abortion.

Realistically, adoption is a good option for healthy white infants, but still no women should be forced to carry a baby to term if she doesn't want to -- pregnancy and childbirth are not without risks and often permanent health consequences, especially for very young mothers and mothers with pre-existing health problems. What happens to many of the non-white and non-healthy unwanted babies is truly awful. It is a myth that there are plenty of good adoptive homes waiting for all these babies. Have you adopted any black babies with fetal alcohol syndrome? Are you really going to?

And frankly, there is certainly a strong genetic component to many cases of unwanted pregnancy. Impulsive behavior and lack of intelligence are not something we want multiplying in the human gene pool -- there's far too much of it already, and it leads to a great deal of suffering, and to a further dangerous skewing of the ratio of helpers to helpees, which will inevitably lead to wholesale socialism. If all the unwanted pregnancies were carried to term and the babies adopted by good parents, the good parents would certainly have to cut back on their own genetic reproduction. This is not a scenario I want to encourage.

I'd a lot rather make contraceptives and early abortions (especially RU-486) free and readily available with no questions asked, and get the message across to irresponsible girls and women who are not prepared financially or otherwise to raise a child, that they will get no support whatosever from society for having one (or more!). Too many of these women are using their babies as hostages to extract money from taxpayers, and since many are too irresponsible to avoid getting pregnant even if they want to avoid it, contraception availability alone is not the answer.