I agree in principle, but circumstances can change during child-rearing, too, and nobody suggests painlessly culling any you can't feed.
Past six months, you probably have a viable human being. That's the sticking point, whether the circumstances change or not.
Sarah, could I request some of that evidence? 
Not doubting at all, but I am interested.
Quote:
People's situations change. A mother might have ample opportunity and all the necessary resources to raise and care for the child at first, but something could happen during the next six months to change that.
That's why here in Minnesota, we have a "safe haven law". Anyone can leave a newborn at a hospital, up to 72 hours after birth, with no questions asked.
I'm bringing this up not because I want to join in this pointless debate, but rather because a teenage girl here in Minnesota just stabbed her newborn daughter over 130 times...ONE HUNDERED AND THIRTY TIMES.
That's why here in Minnesota, we have a "safe haven law". Anyone can leave a newborn at a hospital, up to 72 hours after birth, with no questions asked.
Considering the state of foster care in North America adoption remains, in my opinion, a far worse fate for a child and a much greater burden on the system than abortion.
With our current rate of population growth, by 2050 we will need twice the Earth's resources to survive as a species. So the fewer babies people have, the better.
Read the first post of a thread if you want to know what it's about!
Thanks Vec for understanding my desire, Cooki for your kind words, and Cycle (and others) for the sympathy.
Locking this now as it's gone away from my original intention.
