This link goes to Reddit, however, we have used a direct video link to avoid giving them ad revenue.

    • BigToe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny you should ask I work in a fostering program and have much more experience I’d wager with foster children both those taken from homes and those given up for adoption. However just because a child isn’t wanted and is in foster care does not mean you should be able to kill it.

      • nukeworker10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, once they are a child. But before that point wouldn’t it be great if they never wound up in the system? Anti-abortion people always bring up the "well put the baby up for adoption " idea, and my point is that’s not really a viable solution in America. Also, you didn’t answer my question. How many have You adopted? Because if it’s not at least 1, and probably should be more, your a hypocrite. You don’t want to care for a child, or judge you don’t have the means or capacity to, so you don’t adopt. Which is the same decision these women have come to in many cases.

        • BigToe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look into the statistics of age ranges for foster care/adoption, I think you will be very surprised at the data. But unfortunately regardless of how many children are left in poor life circumstances because of a failure by the government to give adequate incentives to promote fostering/adoption as well as funding to foster care organizations that does not change the morality of killing a healthy baby that would, if left to nature, be born. As I responded to another person, want and convenience does not dictate morality. Just because we don’t have the perfect solutions doesn’t mean we can stop playing the game.