# Opposing abortion does not, necessarily, require support for babies or mothers after birth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602 "2019-05-27T18:05:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/161 "2019-06-01T23:47:56Z")
Keep in mind that the 70 percent we’re talking about is for a ban on elective second and third trimester abortion. It would not touch the first trimester, where about 90 percent of elective abortions already occur. I think the argument about “bodily autonomy” becomes much weaker when you account for that. ---
**Author:** ![Tomyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/858c86/32.png) [@Tomyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tomyros)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/162 "2019-06-02T05:03:30Z")
Everyone talks of the fetus as being the only victim of an unplanned pregnancy. Try looking into the eyes of a mother whose 13 year old daughter was raped by her 17 year old son and tell me abortion is always wrong. Mother sees the whole disintegration of their life. Son faces the weight of the law and is on suicide watch. Daughter sees nothing past “Does it hurt when the baby comes out” Father disowns son one day and supports him the next which is his form of denial. After discussing it with all the family, they choose to end the pregnancy. Adoption is less easy when there is incest involved. The girl was upset as she would miss out on all the ‘girly’ times with her peers. Mother worried about leaving a 13 year old to care for the baby alone while she worked. Thank Heavens my State went through this in the 1970s and free abortions have eliminated the back street operators with their deaths and maimed for life statistics. Children at school are gradually introduced to ‘relationship’ classes where they learn respecting themselves and others. The anatomy and physiology comes into it as well. Women seeking abortions numbers have dropped (although I can’t quote statistics), We look to USA , the land of Nobel prize winners. leaders in so many fields and say “What were they thinking?” ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/163 "2019-06-02T17:57:39Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > Why do so many arguments supporting abortion seem to be based on an assumption that all children from unplanned or unwanted pregnancies will have a life of misery so that they should be aborted to prevent that? I think that you’re not actually listening to the arguments. I am certain that there are many, many people who have wonderful lives even though they were originally unwanted and many, many women who ended up being fulfilled by being mothers and had trouble free pregnancies even though that was among their original concerns. However, there are also many, many who have not and did not. In hindsight, we can know what will happen - but before that, the argument is that the person best placed to make that decision isn’t me, sitting at my computer (or you), it is the person who is closest to the situation and can talk. As far as adoption -there are over 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted in the US right now. “Giving up a baby for adoption” doesn’t mean a great home; it is, at best, a crap shoot given the issues with the foster care system. Again, go back to my previous post - lets see more work on the demand side. Increase taxes going to social services so that foster care is fully funded and the prospective mother can/will envision their child being fully supported rather than the current nightmare stories out of foster care. Increase support for babies and mothers (e.g., the title of this thread) so that when she imagines raising a child, it doesn’t look like misery to her. I’m not the person you should be trying to convince. She is. Social support for mothers, babies, and children go a long way in that convincing. ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/164 "2019-06-03T01:36:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Because it’s not their body that’s involved so it shouldn’t be their choice to make. > > If you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, you might believe blood transfusions are wrong. You have the right to refuse to receive a blood transfusion. But you don’t have the right to tell other people they can’t have a blood transfusion because you think they’re wrong. And that’s true even if you’re a medical professional. A nurse refusing to participate in an unnecessary abortion isn’t preventing someone from having one. The hospital can accommodate employees’ beliefs and have another nurse work. But that’s not good enough for many. Better to destroy a nurse’s career than let her/him practice her/his religion. The same mindset that treats a human life as disposable would believe they can force another person to provide a service unwillingly. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/165 "2019-06-03T03:03:12Z")
And if all the nurses in a conservative county refuse to assist in them? (Perhaps, in some cases, not personally having a problem with it, but not wanting to be ostracized.) All the pharmacists in a hundred mile radius refuse to fill birth control prescriptions? What then? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/166 "2019-06-03T04:35:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Let’s take away the labels of “murder” and “pro-life” and look at it for what it is. > > The argument is that a person might take action X which will save them a lot of money in the long run. Therefore if someone supports a law which makes it illegal for a person to take action X, then that person is responsible for paying the first person the money that they lose in the long run. > > I’m not sure why it matters if X is already illegal and the second person supports keeping the law, or if X is now legal but the person supports changing the law. The money is lost in any event. It matters not if we call X “murder” or “non-murder” and it doesn’t matter if we call those opposed to X “pro-life” or “anti-choice.” > > So, IMHO, if the argument is that a person who prevents someone from having an abortion and this costs the person money, then the first person must pay the money, I’m not seeing why that shouldn’t apply more generally to any law which costs a person money. In the case of “applying more generally to any law which costs a person money,” isn’t there a principle about recompense due to someone adversely affected by “takings,” I believe it’s called? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/167 "2019-06-03T05:07:31Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > A nurse refusing to participate in an unnecessary abortion isn’t preventing someone from having one. The hospital can accommodate employees’ beliefs and have another nurse work. But that’s not good enough for many. Better to destroy a nurse’s career than let her/him practice her/his religion. > > The same mindset that treats a human life as disposable would believe they can force another person to provide a service unwillingly. Do you have a problem with the hospital being required to be able to provide one? If not, do you have a problem with the hospital asking in the interview if they have any objections to any of the procedures performed by the hospital, and use their refusal as a reason to not hire them? I have no problem if the hospital wants to make accommodations with its employees, that’s up to the administrators of that hospital. But, that would be up to the hospital to determine whether or not those accommodations would be reasonable for them to make. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2019, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/168 "2019-06-03T11:03:38Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > A nurse refusing to participate in an unnecessary abortion isn’t preventing someone from having one. The hospital can accommodate employees’ beliefs and have another nurse work. But that’s not good enough for many. Better to destroy a nurse’s career than let her/him practice her/his religion. > > The same mindset that treats a human life as disposable would believe they can force another person to provide a service unwillingly. They can be nurses in schools, or old folks home - sure to not have to do no 'bortions there. But that’d be inconvenient to them, wouldn’t it ? Probably pays less too, so, that’s a big no from the choir. If their religion is so near and dear to their heart, they can join a fucking convent. Abortions being legal isn’t exactly a newfangled gizmo. They knew going in what they were going to be asked to do. They didn’t care, or expected special treatment. Now watch them climb on the cross they made for themselves. Besides, how would you react to a nurse getting her career “destroyed” because she didn’t want to participate in treating a gay patient ? A black patient ? I mean, shouldn’t we cater to the whims of the haters ? Is it so big an ask to let people practice his/her racism ? It’s not preventing black people from getting help, there’s other nurses surely, what’s the big deal ? I mean we surely couldn’t FORCE that person to treat non-whites, that’d be very wrong. ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/169 "2019-06-04T17:13:33Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > They can be nurses in schools, or old folks home - sure to not have to do no 'bortions there. But that’d be inconvenient to them, wouldn’t it ? Probably pays less too, so, that’s a big no from the choir. > > If their religion is so near and dear to their heart, they can join a fucking convent. Abortions being legal isn’t exactly a newfangled gizmo. They knew going in what they were going to be asked to do. They didn’t care, or expected special treatment. Now watch them climb on the cross they made for themselves. > > Besides, how would you react to a nurse getting her career “destroyed” because she didn’t want to participate in treating a gay patient ? A black patient ? I mean, shouldn’t we cater to the whims of the haters ? Is it so big an ask to let people practice his/her racism ? It’s not preventing black people from getting help, there’s other nurses surely, what’s the big deal ? I mean we surely couldn’t FORCE that person to treat non-whites, that’d be very wrong. Do you know of any nurse who has refused to treat any of these? If not, it’s a strawman. There’a huge difference between bigotry and refusing to end a human life for no good reason. But now, believing all human life is sacred is HATE? You don’t know anything but what you get from pro-abortion media and “activists.” ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/170 "2019-06-04T17:15:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Do you have a problem with the hospital being required to be able to provide one? If not, do you have a problem with the hospital asking in the interview if they have any objections to any of the procedures performed by the hospital, and use their refusal as a reason to not hire them? > > I have no problem if the hospital wants to make accommodations with its employees, that’s up to the administrators of that hospital. But, that would be up to the hospital to determine whether or not those accommodations would be reasonable for them to make. Do you have a problem with hospitals that refuse to do abortions except to save the life of the mother? ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/171 "2019-06-04T17:16:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > And if all the nurses in a conservative county refuse to assist in them? (Perhaps, in some cases, not personally having a problem with it, but not wanting to be ostracized.) All the pharmacists in a hundred mile radius refuse to fill birth control prescriptions? What then? Good luck finding that geographical fantasy land. ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/172 "2019-06-04T18:01:25Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > I think that you’re not actually listening to the arguments. > > I am certain that there are many, many people who have wonderful lives even though they were originally unwanted and many, many women who ended up being fulfilled by being mothers and had trouble free pregnancies even though that was among their original concerns. However, there are also many, many who have not and did not. In hindsight, we can know what will happen - but before that, the argument is that the person best placed to make that decision isn’t me, sitting at my computer (or you), it is the person who is closest to the situation and can talk. > > As far as adoption -there are over 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted in the US right now. “Giving up a baby for adoption” doesn’t mean a great home; it is, at best, a crap shoot given the issues with the foster care system. > > Again, go back to my previous post - lets see more work on the demand side. Increase taxes going to social services so that foster care is fully funded and the prospective mother can/will envision their child being fully supported rather than the current nightmare stories out of foster care. Increase support for babies and mothers (e.g., the title of this thread) so that when she imagines raising a child, it doesn’t look like misery to her. I’m not the person you should be trying to convince. She is. Social support for mothers, babies, and children go a long way in that convincing. There are far more parents on adoption waiting lists than children up for adoption. 62% of infants up for adoption are adopted within a month, but only 4% of women with unwanted/unplanned pregnancies give the child up for adoption. If more women would give their child for adoption, more babies would be adopted by families on waiting lists. Foster care is not equivalent to adoption. Many children in foster care cannot be adopted because parents have not lost or given up custody rights. Children in foster care have baggage that not all adoptive parents want to take on. Adopting a teenager has far different issues than adopting a baby. Then there’s the issues of trans-racial adoptions. There are more African American children in foster care, waiting for adoption. They are often 6 years old or older. I don’t see the African American community stepping up to adopt those children, but I do know of families that were denied adoption of African American children because they were white and wouldn’t know how to raise the child. There are stories of white families being denied the adoption of Native American children because of Indian Child Welfare laws, as if sending a child to live with a non-family total stranger would be better than being adopted by foster parents. We would have lived to adopt a child, but the cost is also prohibitive. My best friend and her husband adopted a baby. They had to practically rebuild their house to get approval from the state. We could never afford that.\ Some information about adoption: [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/31/adoption-why-system-ruining-lives](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/31/adoption-why-system-ruining-lives) [https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics](https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics) Now, share with me the source that says that the majority of adoptions are so bad that the child would have been better off dead. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/173 "2019-06-04T19:13:21Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > There are far more parents on adoption waiting lists than children up for adoption. > 62% of infants up for adoption are adopted within a month, but only 4% of women with unwanted/unplanned pregnancies give the child up for adoption. If more women would give their child for adoption, more babies would be adopted by families on waiting lists. True for ‘more,’ but only for limited values of ‘more.’ > [@](#): > > Some information about adoption: > [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/31/adoption-why-system-ruining-lives](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/31/adoption-why-system-ruining-lives) > > [https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics](https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics) The ‘adoption statistics’ link says that in the U.S., there are 135,000 adoptions per year, and 1,300,000 abortions each year. I realize, having been there, that there are always parents on the waiting list who want to adopt but haven’t found a child yet that they can adopt. But 1,165,000 of them? I don’t think so. And once the backlog is taken care of, if all the women considering abortions decide to give birth and give up their babies, there’s 1,300,000 to adopt the next year. And the year after. And the year after that. Better start building orphanages. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/174 "2019-06-04T19:18:41Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > Good luck finding that geographical fantasy land. We had something like this for blacks in the Deep South until federal troops busted it up. What a shocker that it’s the same region pulling this crap now. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/175 "2019-06-04T21:09:48Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Besides, how would you react to a nurse getting her career “destroyed” because she didn’t want to participate in treating a gay patient ? A black patient ? I mean, shouldn’t we cater to the whims of the haters ? Is it so big an ask to let people practice his/her racism ? It’s not preventing black people from getting help, there’s other nurses surely, what’s the big deal ? I mean we surely couldn’t FORCE that person to treat non-whites, that’d be very wrong. Women seeking abortions are not a protected class. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/176 "2019-06-05T05:28:20Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > Some information about adoption: > [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/31/adoption-why-system-ruining-lives](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/31/adoption-why-system-ruining-lives) > > [https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics](https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics) > > Now, share with me the source that says that the majority of adoptions are so bad that the child would have been better off dead. Your own cite confirms my earlier figure - there are over 100,000 children available for adoption. And again, I’m not the person that needs to be convinced - as I’m not pregnant. The women that could be convinced are imagining two futures - one where the pregnancy comes to term and one where it doesn’t. Right now, for many of them, the one where it doesn’t looks better. It seems to me that “the baby won’t completely derail your education and career!” “You won’t have to live in your car or on the street!” “The child won’t be abused or neglected!” and “Don’t worry about pre- and post-natal healthcare costs!” are more compelling cases than “It’s black people’s fault!” “‘Cultural Genocide’ isn’t really as bad as it sounds!” (YMMV of course) Again, if someone wants to end abortion, it would behoove them to look into the reasons why someone would choose to have one and look to mitigate those. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/177 "2019-06-05T18:32:24Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > If pro-choice is really about choice, why do supporters fight tooth and nail any legislation that gives legal protection to healthcare workers who oppose abortion and demand they be compelled to participate in abortions? Why should a pharmacist be forced to choose between their career and supplying a drug that is not necessary to save a life? Why should a nurse be forced to choose between her livelihood and refusing to assist in an optional surgery? (not talking about the life of a mother here). Pro-choice really is about choice, as your own post re-enforces: if your religious dogma prevents you from doing your job, you have the _choice_ to get a different job. > [@CelticKnot](#): > > Do you know of any nurse who has refused to treat any of these? If not, it’s a strawman. There’a huge difference between bigotry and refusing to end a human life for no good reason. > But now, believing all human life is sacred is HATE? You don’t know anything but what you get from pro-abortion media and “activists.” [Discrimination prevents LGBT people from accessing health care.](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2018/01/18/445130/discrimination-prevents-lgbtq-people-accessing-health-care/) [Pediatrician refuses to treat 6 day old baby because of lesbian parents.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/19/pediatrician-refuses-to-treat-baby-with-lesbian-parents-and-theres-nothing-illegal-about-it/?utm_term=.68210a44c57c) [Robert Eads, a transexual man, died of ovarian cancer because no doctor in his area would treat him.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eads) And, of course, [racial segregation in the US.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States) ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/178 "2019-06-07T11:35:28Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > True for ‘more,’ but only for limited values of ‘more.’ The ‘adoption statistics’ link says that in the U.S., there are 135,000 adoptions per year, and 1,300,000 abortions each year. > > I realize, having been there, that there are always parents on the waiting list who want to adopt but haven’t found a child yet that they can adopt. > > But 1,165,000 of them? I don’t think so. And once the backlog is taken care of, if all the women considering abortions decide to give birth and give up their babies, there’s 1,300,000 to adopt the next year. And the year after. And the year after that. > > Better start building orphanages. There’s a weird worldview that believes human behavior won’t change despite change of circumstances. People behave differently when they know they have there are possible unpleasant consequences for certain behaviors or situations. Before 1973, there weren’t millions of illegitimate children born every year, and there weren’t millions of back-alley abortions. Fewer people chose to indulge in behavior that produced unwanted pregnancies, and if a child was conceived, some people got married and some gave the child up for adoption. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/179 "2019-06-07T11:38:39Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > There’s a weird worldview that believes human behavior won’t change despite change of circumstances. People behave differently when they know they have there are possible unpleasant consequences for certain behaviors or situations. Before 1973, there weren’t millions of illegitimate children born every year, and there weren’t millions of back-alley abortions. Fewer people chose to indulge in behavior that produced unwanted pregnancies, and if a child was conceived, some people got married and some gave the child up for adoption. OK, so you’re NOT saying adoptions can be an alternative to more than a small fraction of abortions. Just want to ascertain what you’re really claiming here. ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/180 "2019-06-07T21:50:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, so you’re NOT saying adoptions can be an alternative to more than a small fraction of abortions. > > Just want to ascertain what you’re really claiming here. I’m saying that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies if there is no easy way out of one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602.md?page=10)