[kcplate]

>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.

[digsy]

> 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.

[kcplate]

> 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.