Monday, April 21, 2025

Women of MQ: To those of you who have aborted your babies, why did you not opt to put them up for adoption instead?

 

r/morbidquestions icon
Go to morbidquestions
•

Women of MQ: To those of you who have aborted your babies, why did you not opt to put them up for adoption instead?

They could've been the next Harvard or MIT scholar. They could've invented a cure for cancers and even aging-related diseases themselves. They could've invented a way to make self-driving cars practical and flawless. Same for flying cars. They could've brought world peace someday.

All those bright futures, gone as soon as you aborted them.

If they had been adopted instead, they could've gone on to do great things to improve the world we live on.

So why deny humankind a better future by aborting your kids when giving them away for adoption would've been the more humane, wholesome thing to do to your children?

PS: If you aborted them due to them having birth defects discovered in an ultrasound (Down Syndrome, etc.), do you realize they could've furthered scientific research by being clinical test subjects of clinical research efforts to develop new, groundbreaking medications and treatments? There could've been a new treatment to enhance your developmentally-delayed child's cognitive abilities that you would've been fine about submitting your child to in order to improve their intelligence, so that's also how an abortion would've been unnecessary.

 

all 40 comments
sorted by: 
best
disable inbox replies
 (?)

[–]morbidquestions-ModTeam[M] [score hidden]  stickied commentlocked comment 

Hey, thanks for submitting to r/morbidquestions. Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):

Rule 6: Mod discretion. This is a place to ask questions, not to go on thinly disguised rants.

Mods reserve the right to remove posts or comments at their discretion, regardless of the written rules, for the good of the subreddit. If you have a question regarding this removal, please contact modmail.

[–]thesoupisburning 26 points  

lmao bro thinks that disabled people are only valuable for being test subjects and women are only incubators

[–]Lacy_Laplante89 8 points  

I love that this person is so clearly a man talking about women's rights. Like fuck right off. I wonder how many kids OP has adopted?

[–]wthevenisthatthing 3 points  

pretty much smh

[–]vivisectvivi 18 points  

"They could've been the next Harvard or MIT scholar."

They could have also become the next Hitler or Pol Pot, so there is that to also consider before using this type of dumb argument

EDIT: ill just assume this is karma farm because even the most outspoken anti abortion people i live with know how dumb of an argument that is.

[–]wthevenisthatthing 15 points  

they couldve also become dictators or serial killers 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️ the “they couldve invented the cure for cancer!” argument is so stupid

[–]Rredhead926 1 point  

Any infant placed privately for adoption in the US isn't going to be in the system. There are far more waiting adoptive parents than there are infants available for adoption. Even within the foster system, people want infants and toddlers.

[–]PyrrhuraMolinae 3 points  

That is not true. While childhood trauma certainly plays a role, it is not the only factor that determines whether or not someone will be violent as an adult.

You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of adopted children face abuse and neglect in their new homes, Just because they're adopted does not guarantee fairy-tale childhoods. You wanna guess how many murderers were adopted? It’s a lot.

[–]wthevenisthatthing 1 point  

them go adopt them!

[–]Lacy_Laplante89 14 points  

Because pregnancy is awful. If your fetus isn't getting enough calcium it will suck it out of the mother's bones and teeth like a parasite.

Also I have two genetic diseases that I would rather kill myself than pass on to somebody else.

[–]Expensive-Cycle-416 3 points  

Ah, see, that doesn't really fit with OP's ridiculous argument, so we will just casually ignore that and move on...🙄🙄🙄🙄

[–]Rredhead926 1 point  

Infants in the US aren't going into foster care or group homes. There are more adoptive parents waiting for infants than there are infants to adopt.

[–]archaeosis 1 point  

Well then it's a good thing I didn't say I was specifically talking about the US isn't it?

And even then we still cycle back to what I said about some adoptive parents not being fit for the job, to put it lightly

[–]PyrrhuraMolinae 5 points  

When cis men can suffer the permanent. debilitating, sometimes deadly physical, psychological, and emotional effects of pregnancy and birth, they can have a say on abortion.

You cannot, so you do not.

[–]Rredhead926 3 points  

We don't need OP to adopt an infant. There are plenty of families waiting for infants to adopt. I don't think he should really be anywhere near kids.

[–]wthevenisthatthing 1 point  

i was saying it more in irony i agree

[–]faerieW15B 7 points  

Why is the cure for cancer always in the mind of an aborted fetus and not in the mind of one of the hundreds of thousands of babies born every day?

Do you not think that the cure for cancer lies with the impoverished child who can't afford to go through medical school? Or that the formula for flying cars is trapped inside the neglected child who'll never believe in themselves enough to make their ideas a reality?

We can play around with whataboutisms all we want, the point will always be that people deserve access to safe abortions no matter what. No woman should have to endure a pregnancy she doesn't want to go through, for ANY reason. Saying she could have helped advance science by becoming a test subject is quite heinous.

[–]Rredhead926 3 points  

Nobody aborts a baby; they abort a fetus.

Nobody who uses the term "put up for adoption" has any clue what adoption is actually about - like how it works or why people choose it.

[–]Rredhead926 1 point  

Children who are put into adoption, are fostered, live in group homes, shelters, unstable situations etc, have a much lower shot at being in Harvard and MIT and curing cancer, pal.

Yeah, that's not true. You're painting with a really broad brush.

[–]ive-made-a-mess 1 point  

That's great to hear, I'd genuinely love to be wrong about this. Do you feel most children who go through these care systems have a high admittance rate to universities like those?

[–]Rredhead926 1 point  

First, you're combining several groups of people:

  • Individuals in the foster care system, but not adopted
  • Individuals who are adopted privately
  • Individuals who are adopted through foster care
  • Individuals who live in "unstable situations"

Outcomes for children who are adopted privately are similar to outcomes for children who remain in stable biological families. When a child is adopted actually does seem to matter in terms of what they generally go on to accomplish. There aren't a lot of studies that differentiate between types of adoption or reasons for adoption, though, which are both very important.

You're also assuming that any child who isn't aborted is going to fall into one of those groups, which is a huge assumption and likely inaccurate. People choose abortion for many reasons, and that doesn't mean if they don't have abortions, then those kids are going to end up being in one of those four groups.

[–]ive-made-a-mess 1 point  

We are on the same page, pal.

[–]Overlook-237 2 points  

I’d imagine because they don’t want to remain pregnant or give birth. If it was only about parenting, everyone would choose adoption.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)