Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Abortion

The Troubling Meaning of the 'We Will Adopt Your Baby' Meme Wars

The debate isn’t a panorama of the whole American abortion war, but it is a snapshot of a key battle after a surprise victory, and it shows no path to peace.

Bonnie Kristian | 7.7.2022 12:00 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

You may have seen this meme going around Twitter. It started with a couple of photos from demonstrations marking the end of Roe v. Wade (1973). In each, a smiling couple holds a sign that speaks directly to women considering abortion: "We will adopt your baby."

My favorite sign yesterday. pic.twitter.com/6UsmNy8Q9r

— Noelle Fitchett (@NoelleFitchett) June 25, 2022

Well, that's how it started, anyway. Soon things took a turn, with Twitter users posting modified versions or captioning different images entirely with that same line. Pro-lifers offering to adopt unwanted babies, the memes suggested, are pedophiles. Or cultists. Or "sadistic Christian nationalis[ts]," or likely abusers, or kidnappers, or enslavers, or rapists, or "treating people like livestock," or "TERRIFYING" horror movie monsters, or serial killers, or at least "vaguely creepy-looking." Even Bette Midler and Mark Hamill got in on the action, though the apogee of the genre is probably the cats:

It will be fine pic.twitter.com/FTePuOc7kP

— Jorts (and Jean) (@JortsTheCat) June 28, 2022

Next, of course, the hot takes began. "'We will adopt your baby' is the meme we wish we didn't need," explained a piece at Mic. From McSweeney's came a "short imagined monologue" by the pictured couple. "We want that baby when it's nice and cute and fully formed, but we aren't planning on adopting anything else," they assiduously explain. "Obviously, we can't adopt your morning sickness, so when you wake up at 5 a.m. to puke your guts out before work, and when you also puke your guts out at work in the employee bathroom, we won't adopt that."

I've watched the spread of "we will adopt your baby" with a morbid fascination. The meme itself is a curious thing, with a sort of M.C. Escher logic that makes perfect sense to its creators and not a whit to its critics. ("This [offer of adoption] is beautiful. Am I missing something?" asked one sweet summer child in response to the "vaguely creepy" post.) But beyond the meme itself, the way pro-life and pro-choice Americans look at the same image and see something wholly different is striking. Each comes away sincerely convinced the other is not merely misguided or ignorant but evil—and I can see how they arrive at those conclusions, but I can't see how they'll find a way to work together around abortion post-Roe.

Let's start with the logic of the meme. Were I to steel-man its meaning, I'd say the concern here is that expressed in the McSweeney's piece: It's about the (unpictured, unmentioned) pregnant women more than the pregnancy or would-be adopters. "It's that they're offering to adopt children resulting from fetuses women do not want to give birth to," as writer Phoebe Maltz Bovy argued, adding: "They're telling a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant how to spend the next 9 months."

And maybe that is the message, but if so, it's remarkably poorly expressed. The more obvious meaning of the hundreds of instances of this meme isn't about the invisible women at all. It begins with the premise that these couples must have nefarious motives. They might want a child to abuse, enslave, or kill, or maybe they want to brainwash more babies than they can biologically produce into sharing their religion and politics. But regardless of the exact accusation, the course of action for anyone of conscience is clear: Don't let those people get babies. It would be immoral to let them adopt—you wouldn't do it any more than you'd give a helpless bird to two cats. The couples are "automatically predators" and the babies their prey. Protect the babies. Abort them instead.

Of course, in this line of thought, what you're aborting generally isn't a baby, not yet. It's an embryo, a fetus, a clump of cells, maybe a potential baby. Still, whatever you deem the subject of the abortion, the underlying logic of destruction-for-protection-from-destruction remains. Better never to exist than be raised by crass Republican rubes. And if you start with the twin assumptions that abortion doesn't kill someone, but some of these couples well might (particularly if the kid doesn't turn out as anticipated), this is all reasonable, moral, glaringly obvious. Only someone evil could disagree. Who would willingly expose a child to abusers?

But it will never be reasonable or moral to the couples, nor to other pro-lifers for whom this meme feels like a cruel trick. For decades, pro-choice Americans told their pro-life neighbors they must adopt unwanted babies themselves if they insist those babies be born. But when pro-lifers tried to do exactly that—and research shows practicing Christians, a group with significant overlap with pro-lifers, are more than twice as likely as the average American to adopt—this too was met with disdain.

but also these people are responding to a specific request. They were told "well if you hate abortion so much, why don't you adopt?" and they say "ok, if you're thinking of an abortion we will 100% adopt your baby" to which the response is "fuck you, you monsters"

— PoIiMath (@politicalmath) July 3, 2022

Bafflingly, it was met with simultaneous calls for adoption as well. Why do you specifically want a baby? asks one viral tweet after another. Why not adopt a child from foster care? Never mind that there are plenty of people equipped to raise a child from infancy but not to appropriately care for children living with trauma or disability; or that the primary goal of the foster system is safe reunification with the family of origin; or that—if we accept the premise of the meme—foster care adoption should be off-limits for predators, too. The message remains steadfast: You should want to adopt, but your wanting to adopt is deeply suspicious. You shouldn't be allowed to adopt, but why aren't you adopting, you hypocrite?

And if you start with the twin assumptions that abortion does kill someone, and that these couples are normal, well-intentioned people trying to save one life and ease another, then their offer of adoption is generous, moral, beautiful. Only someone evil could disagree. Who would willingly take a child's life, and a life with loving, eager parents at that?

ngl, i find this kind of shit flat-out evil

people looking to adopt are some of the most long-suffering, vulnerable people who consciously chose pain over comfort for the sake of a child

mocking them is evil. It is (appropriately enough) what cartoon villains do https://t.co/8po0OI6hLK

— PoIiMath (@politicalmath) July 3, 2022

Twitter is overrun with brain worms, yes, and offline most of us have messy views on this issue, and even those with clearer positions often hold them with more forbearance for our political opponents. Yet Twitter is not not real life. It's where political hobbyists tend to lurk and where many news articles are conceived. The "we will adopt your baby" meme isn't a panorama of the whole American abortion war, but it is a snapshot of a key battle after a surprise victory, and it shows no path to peace.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Biden Celebrates $90 Billion Bailout of Private Union Pension Plans

Bonnie Kristian is the author, most recently, of Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community.

AbortionFamilyChildrenAdoptionReproductive FreedomMemes
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (235)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Dillinger   4 years ago

    Luke Skywalker ... still a terrorist.

    1. LachlanHislop   4 years ago

      I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/

      1. Rob Misek   4 years ago

        Maybe your abandoned baby will grow up to murder you like you were going to do.

        Whatever it take for you to act responsibly.

        1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

          The responsible thing to do is to deny the Holocaust, right, right-wing wrong-nut?

          1. janefoster154   4 years ago

            I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (ebt-09) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.

            >>>>>>>>>> http://dollarspay12.tk

    2. Its_Not_Inevitable   4 years ago

      Rebel scum.

      1. Stacey W. Anderson   4 years ago

        Are you in dire need of a career change? Isn’t it frustrating to have to create budgets for everything in life? What if I told that up to $500 can be earned daily without stepping outside of your home, would you be interested? In fact,
        .
        soft skills supposedly suffice to make:>>>>> https://yourjobs85.blogspot.com/

    3. Metis   4 years ago

      As an adopted person who has known many adoptees and birth mothers in my life, the creepy thing about the photo is the obliviousness of the potential adopters to the trauma adoption causes to the birth mother and adoptee. They are performative and making a political point. Adopters are too often the heedless beneficiaries of others' suffering. It is this lack of empathy and awareness that bodes ill for the pictured couple's capacity to parent well.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

        Why do you hate adoptive parents so much?

      2. rferris   4 years ago

        So a evil and shallow person would say.......

      3. Benitacanova   4 years ago

        Amen.

  2. Overt   4 years ago

    Mindy Pro-Choice: I'll support your restrictions on abortion when you hypocrites actually sign up to support and care for these unwanted babies.

    Jenny Pro-Life: I find your terms acceptable.

    Mindy: Whoah there. We can't have people offering to care for unwanted babies. What are you? Sick? Pedophile?

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

      Overt, I'd say you just about have that 142% correct.

    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

      I've seen Joe, Shrike and Sqrlsy all make the first claim several times.

      It must appear on some talking-points list. Because anyone who thinks about it knows that adoption lists are miles long and there's hundreds of thousands of charities and institutions set up for dealing with unwanted children.

      1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

        "I will adopt your unwanted eggs and sperms! That means you must STOP bitching about me outlawing your birth control!"

        1. Libertariantranslator   4 years ago

          Boris and Natasha weal too!

        2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

          See what I mean, everyone?

          1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

            Are the below lies from the Lizard People, and if not, then WHY are they still in foster care, with ALL of these uber-benevolent folks waiting to adopt?

            https://www.childrensrights.org/newsroom/fact-sheets/foster-care/#:~:text=On%20any%20given%20day%2C%20there,for%20five%20or%20more%20years.

            On any given day, there are nearly 424,000 children in foster care in the United States. In 2019, over 672,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care. On average, children remain in state care for over a year and a half, and five percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.

            1. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

              Because every single one of them already have families. They're pulled out of fucked up homes, but they can't just be handed over to be adopted by someone else.
              Kids who are eligible to be adopted, are adopted.

              I know that you actually know that was the case. In your own fucking link it says only 71,000 of those 424,000 kids were eligible for adoption, and the link it provides says half of the eligible were between 15 and 20. No 19-year-old needs to be legally adopted.

              You were trying to be a tricky fuck again, misrepresenting the situation and hoping we wouldn't read your link.

              1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                "...but they can't just be handed over to be adopted by someone else."

                Why NOT? Because authoritarians like Mammary-Fuhrer SAY so, right? You like to be compassionate with other people's wombs... With their web sites... With who may and who may not be adopted... Who should commit suicide... Whose ID should be stolen... Is there ANYTHING that you do NOT feel competent to micro-manage and boss around?

                1. Bloodaxe   4 years ago

                  The reason why not is because of what Mother's Lament said, these kids mostly already have families and the goal of foster care is, generally, to reunite them with that family. If they could just be handed over to be adopted by someone else that would go against that idea and it would essentially negate any idea of parental rights. I don't think this is a good libertarian take.

                  1. DesigNate   4 years ago

                    It’s not a good libertarian take because SQRLSY isn’t a libertarian.

            2. Bloodaxe   4 years ago

              I will answer this a bit more constructively. Mother's Lament is right, most of these kids are not eligible for adoption and about half of those in the system in any given year will leave the system that year anyway (mostly returning to their birth families). Moreover, the number eligible for adoption includes those in the process of being adopted, a process that takes 9-18 months on average, and sometimes longer. Plus, if you drill into the data, you will see that for FY 2019, it shows that of those that left the system 64,415 were, in fact, adopted.

              You also have to consider that many who wish to adopt a foster child may be blocked by the agency and not because they are unwilling. Also these are people who believe that abortion is murder and so are trying to prevent this by saying they will adopt babies that would otherwise have been aborted. This is just not an issue with those in foster care.

        3. rferris   4 years ago

          Non sequitur and nonsense.

    3. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

      Except lefties seem to think pedophilia is fine and dandy now.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

        Gayle Quinn, a fat dyke who basically invented queer theory in the early 80s, euphemistically called those "cross-generational relationships" in her promotion of pedophilia as part of a spectrum of non-hetero sexual relationships to subvert capitalist society.

    4. A Thinking Mind   4 years ago

      "And why aren't you offering to pay for pre-natal care, and to feed and clothe the babies after they're born? Are you going to buy maternity clothes for the woman, too?"

      "That's exactly what 95% of Crisis Pregnancy Centers offer to do."

      "Those places are vile!"

      1. Nardz   4 years ago

        Burn them!

      2. Brett Bellmore   4 years ago

        It's really hard to understand the phenomenon being described, unless the point of abortion actually IS to produce a dead baby.

        1. Michael Ejercito   4 years ago

          Indeed it is.

  3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

    "It's that they're offering to adopt children resulting from fetuses women do not want to give birth to," as writer Phoebe Maltz Bovy argued, adding: "They're telling a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant how to spend the next 9 months."

    So... this is interesting steel-manning. It's not that they don't want the child and the pressures that come with 18 years of raising the child... they merely don't want to go through the birthing procedure? It's not... the child at the end of it they object to?

    1. Dillinger   4 years ago

      always call Phoebe Maltz Bovy when goalposts require moving.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        You know, I don't identify as a womxn so it's hard for me to say... and while I'm sure there are a number of womxn who may object to the part where they say "owie" during the birthing procedure and would prefer to avoid that... I would take the bold guess that most don't want the disruption to their Eucalyptus-infused towels, Chai lattes and All-hands-Mama-mia-singing meetings at their low stress, low work LinkedIn job that comes along when you have to... you know, raise a kid. I'm assuming that's why people want abortion rights preserved.

        1. Dillinger   4 years ago

          2022 literally first time "the 9 months is the rub" mentioned.

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

          I would take the bold guess that most don't want the disruption to their Eucalyptus-infused towels, Chai lattes and All-hands-Mama-mia-singing meetings at their low stress, low work LinkedIn job that comes along when you have to... you know, raise a kid.

          The vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience, and while a lot of minorities abort their kids, the most vocal abortion maximalists tend to be white women and Hollywood celebrities.

          The latter in particularly always sound like they sacrificed their kid to Moloch to get the blessing of a successful career whenever they talk about their abortions. Hamill, being of this class, would have the exact same belief system that anyone would be nuts to adopt a baby rather than just have the pregnancy be aborted.

        3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 years ago

          Some of them are seriously fearful of the damage to their junk drawer.

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

            From personal experience I can tell you it ain't the junk drawer that's a problem... it's the two supporting actors upstairs that suffer the longer term damage.

            1. Zeb   4 years ago

              Results may vary. Squeezing a couple o kids through there definitely has it's effects.

              1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 years ago

                How dare you talk about my wife like that.

          2. Ajsloss   4 years ago

            Reminds me of Francine giving birth on American Dad and she screams, "Ohhh! I feel like I just tore from my V to my A!" and the doctor tells her she's doing great, while whispering to the nurse, "she's ruined."

            Later Francine checks her parts in the mirror and decides that, "it's not ruined... it's not good, but it's not ruined."

    2. Zeb   4 years ago

      Well, if one doesn't find abortion morally unacceptable, why would one go through the discomfort of a pregnancy and birth and end up with nothing but a more worn out body?

      1. Cronut   4 years ago

        They've spent decades building their arguments for abortion around women not being able to raise unwanted kids, or unwanted kids being more prone to shitty lives or whatever, because it allows them to avoid having to say, "I think killing a human fetus in order to avoid personal hardship or inconvenience is morally acceptable." It's a pretty hard sell when you put it that way, which is why they've constructed all these other arguments to justify it.

        1. Zeb   4 years ago

          I guess if they made the argument on the basis of bodily autonomy they'd have to allow people to do all sorts of things they don't like.

          1. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

            Jay Inslee hardest hit.

            https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/jay-inslee-clowns-himself-again

          2. Heresolong   4 years ago

            Saw an article earlier about how upset some pro-abortion folks were that their "my body, my choice " slogan was "hijacked" for the anti-vaccination movement

            1. Seamus   4 years ago

              Also, Dr. Seuss was pretty cheesed that the pro-lifers took seriously his bit about how "A person's a person, no matter how small."

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

        I don't agree with the "every sperm is sacred" stance, but I'll give those folks credit for taking a hard line in the sand on when they think life begins.

        Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

        1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          The current 'abortion' debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with late term abortion. And never-mind the rate of late term abortion is staggeringly small... Pro-Life whack jobs will play the ever living sh*t out of it.... Why it's the whole ball-game...

          1. Cronut   4 years ago

            That's retarded. It's like trying to justify the death penalty based on the fact that there are only a FEW mistakes, so it's not a problem.

            The procedure is vile whether it's one or a million.

            1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

              Never-mind you're playing an entirely different ball park...
              Over-turning Roe v Wade had ZERO effect on what you speak of.

              1. NOYB2   4 years ago

                Overturning Roe had the effect that people in states who oppose abortion can now express their will about what their government should do, instead of having an unelected group of judges impose their will on them.

                Their choice may or may not be libertarian, but it is clearly a free and democratic choice.

                1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                  Overturning Roe had the effect that [WE] mobs in states who oppose THOSE PEOPLE from having abortion can now express their Tyrannical Power-Mad will about what their empowered Gov-Guns should do to THOSE PEOPLE, instead of having a U.S. Constitution interpreted by judges UPHOLDING Individual Liberty...

                  Your response without the B.S. propaganda...

                  1. NOYB2   4 years ago

                    Thanks for affirming again that you prefer fascism to democracy.

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      The U.S. Constitution is NOT fascist!!!
                      Democracy and a failing economy is what put Hitler in charge.
                      Germany 1933: From democracy to dictatorship
                      https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/

                    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                      You sure hate affirming the rights of both people involved in abortion.

                      You pushed an old girlfriend to kill your child, didn't you? And now if you acknowledge biological reality you'll have to deal with that horrible fact, so you cling to your ghoulish ignorance.

                    3. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      100% Individual Liberty for all pregnant Women to OWN their bodies.
                      100% Freedom of life for babies. (i.e. Fetal Ejection)

                      UR not doing anything but pretending your B.S. propaganda indoctrination is a 'person' with 'rights'... Well, lets MEET that person - set it FREE!

                  2. Sansos   4 years ago

                    Dude you literally believe in baby murder so fuck off with your moral high ground

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      what "baby"???
                      Your baby unicorn of B.S. propaganda??

                      If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
                      UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

                    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                      TJJ2000 has to ignore biological reality, so he can pretend he's not a fucking monster.

                      This retard goes so far as to argue there's a recent conspiracy by all the world's dictionaries to change the meaning of "child" and "baby" to include the unborn.

                      Never mind that "with child" has been a pregnancy euphemism since the middle ages, or that "mommy has a baby in her belly" was used to explain pregnancy to kids for the last hundred years. According to TJJ2000 it's all a recent Catholic conspiracy.

                      I'm not even kidding. Ask the freakshow.

                    3. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Yet all of your "biological reality" still cannot produce a "baby" pre-viable. Seems your "biological reality" is just a crutch with no substance. And when you start calling your "biological reality" a "baby" UR doing nothing but lying and pretending it's actually true (i.e. B.S. propaganda spreading).

                    4. DesigNate   4 years ago

                      TJJ, if it doesn’t exist then it doesn’t need to be aborted.

                      Noodle on that one for a hot minute.

                    5. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Your point (as I said all along); FORCE them by Gov-Guns to reproduce...

              2. Cronut   4 years ago

                If it had zero effect, then what's the problem?

                1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                  It gave States authority to pull out Gov-Guns and FORCE Women to Reproduce... It cancelled Individual Liberty and EMPOWERED the State.

                  1. Cronut   4 years ago

                    Step away from the CAPS LOCK.

                    1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                      Stop being "compassionate" with other people's wombs!

                    2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

                      Stop being "compassionate" with other people's lives, Ghoulsy.

                    3. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Set other people's innocent lives FREE!!!!!!
                      FREE the Fetus... There is no reason to use Gov-Guns to ENSLAVE both the baby and a women. Set them both FREE!!! Don't ENSLAVE them both...

                      Oh yeah; Your B.S. propaganda won't let you do that because your B.S. propaganda is a thwart of *reality*.

                  2. Tionico   4 years ago

                    HOW is anyone FORCED to reproduce? The reproduction process already began when SHE spread her legs and het HIM in to make his deposit. NO ONE is prohibiting that. But once that new life has begun, there is no right to kill him/her. THAT is what the new ruling says. At least, not from a federal perspective. NOTHING in the US Constitution addresses this issue in any way. Except that ALL have the RIGHT to life.... Can one Mohter to be kill the baby inside another Mother to Be? Of course not. Neither cah she kill the one inside her.

                    1. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

                      Ass one Mohter fukcer to another, ah sez, pick that GIANT Nosenheimer-Buttinski other-people's-business-minder out of your own eye, before ye pick the tiny little fartilized egg smell out of your sister's eye! W/O that YUUUUGE other-people's-business-minder (AKA "punishment boner") in your eye, you'll be able to see MUCH better!

                    2. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      No that isn't what the new ruling said. If you don't want doctors intentionally killing a fetus then make that the law... THAT wouldn't require any changes in the Supreme Courts rulings.

                      But stopping the "killing" isn't what Pro-Life is after.
                      They are after FORCING women to reproduce.

                    3. Marshal   4 years ago

                      They are after FORCING women to reproduce.

                      Stupidly wrong.

                    4. Leizl   4 years ago

                      "new ruling" says nothing of the sort. You have a comprehension problem if you think abortion has been outlawed and are a flat out retard if you think any debate about "right to life" has been settled with the fetus as winner.

                    5. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Why did Roe v Wade not stand then? You can claim all you want that State's ?won't? do that by your 'faith' alone. But the whole point was to ALLOW the State to do exactly that. It EMPOWERED the State Gov-Guns over people's PERSONAL LIFE'S. And frankly; *reality* has already thrown your 'faith' in the mud.

                  3. Heresolong   4 years ago

                    So, like, federalism.

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      VOIDING the U.S. Constitution for Tyrannical Federalism...
                      How predictable from a Power-Mad [WE] mob.

                    2. CLM1227   4 years ago

                      If there was ever a better example of leftist totalitarianism, it is definitely TJ.

                    3. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Sure, sure; Because Individual Liberty (PERSONAL CHOICES) is sooo leftist totalitarianism... /s Give me a F'En break with the retarded-ness.

          2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

            The question isn't the rarity of a late term abortion, it's about the morality. I've lived in this house for 35 years and I only killed ONE neighbor the entire time!

            If you have a moral objection to sticking an ice pick in the back of a healthy baby whose head just crowned, then that's a moral principle. But if you're ok with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, then a 12-15 week limit might seem reasonable. But if you say it's legal to shove an ice pick into the skull of your newborn as long as the umbilical cord hasn't been cut, then you have no moral objection to that, regardless of how rarely it happens.

            1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

              You see; Two responses and not a single one can acknowledge that Roe v Wade didn't change a G.D. thing for what they're talking about....

              Pro-Life people and there denial of what Roe v Wade actually addressed is just another one of their propaganda games...

              HELLO!!! Does anyone exist in *reality* when the battle of Roe v Wade comes into play?

              1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

                Oh pipe down. Dobbs reverted abortion control back to the states, and it is now illegal in many states where it used to be legal.

                Some of the arguments here are from the moral perspective of abortion is murder, that pro-abortionists / pro-choicers show their acceptance of this murder-a-fetus-is-ok by showing that they believe abortion should be legal up until the umbilical cord is cut.

                You ignore that moral equivalency and shift the subject to the legal argument that such abortions are not affected by Dobbs because the states where umbilical abortion is legal keep it legal, and thus claim that nothing has changed.

                Sorry, bub, changing the subject doesn't address the original subject. You have done nothing but change the subject in your comments, which is irrelevant to the comments you claim to be responding to.

                1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                  Dobb's EMPOWERED the GOVERNMENT and cancelled Individual Liberty.

                  More B.S. propaganda... Endlessly.

                  1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

                    The government that said that a woman's bodily autonomy was not unlimited, citing Buck V. Bell? That government?

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Pro-Life supports Gov-Gun FORCE sterilization too!!!
                      How proud you all must be... /s

                      Yeah; that UN-Constitutional government.

                  2. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

                    Sending abortion back to the states is empowering government, in this moron's pea-brain.

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      And where was that 'abortion' decision before????

                      With "The People" (PERSONAL CHOICE).............. The State's weren't allowed to OWN People until Dobb's which specifically called out ('potential life') as the determining factor on who was OWNED by State Gov-Guns and who wasn't...

                      Now the state can pimp out Women's bodies against their will like medical equipment to "save" the "potential life's"...

                      U either don't recognize this from all the B.S. propaganda or your being an ignorant pea brain on emotional factors.

                    2. JesseAz   4 years ago

                      The child never made the choice.

                    3. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Your 'Child'-ish B.S. Propaganda (LIES) never made that choice???

                    4. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

                      Literally nothing you wrote refuted what I posted.

                    5. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      "Sending abortion back to the states is empowering government"
                      Sending it from where????

                      It sent it from "The People" into the State's Gov-Guns...
                      It EMPOWERED the State Governments over "The People".

                      The Supreme Court NEVER gave the 'feds' any authority to legislate pregnant women Pre-Viable. It was determined to be "The People's" CHOICE...

                      What you are essentially manipulatively (LYING) and trying to sell is an idea that People having Individual Liberty (Personal Choices) is "federal over-reach" because it came from the U.S. Constitution instead of from State Constitutions...

                      It's like you're so in-love with Gov-Guns you cannot even acknowledge or even see a person anymore and with that goes Individual Liberty.

                    6. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

                      More hand-waving from the pedophile Thomas J. Jones.

                  3. JesseAz   4 years ago

                    True if you believe a baby isn't an individual. Since you compare them you warts it is easy to see why you are confused.

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
                      UR supporting FORCED reproduction...

                      *reality* is really that simple.

              2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 years ago

                RvW never meant what you seem to think it means. If we had an actual right to privacy then vaccine mandates would be unconstitutional.

                You don't get to have your cake and jab me with a needle too.

                1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                  Pro-Vaccine = Pro-Life (both tyrannical dictation from Gov-Guns)
                  Both are unconstitutional.... Using one UN-Constitutional to support another UN-Constitutional isn't a winning game for this nation.

                  1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   4 years ago

                    You are just spouting bullshit. Do you know of any cases where RvW was used as a precedent that were not specific to abortion? Are there other any other choices that are off the table now solely because RvW is overturned? Why are your panties all twisted up over this one when it demonstrable that it does not pose a significant burden on abortion. Anybody in the country can get an abortion with less than 10 hours of travel.

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      It's a Supreme Court "supposed" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that picked and chose which Individuals gets rights and which one's down on a keyword 'potential life'.... It gave the State Gov-Guns the POWER to FORCE women to keep reproducing against there will....

                      You're right; I have no vested interest in the subject at hand except not sitting idly by while the next line gets slaughtered of their Individual Liberty... I'm sick of it; Rn't you?

              3. Dillinger   4 years ago

                >>>The current 'abortion' debate

                is over.

                1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                  UR dreaming.... It just got put on high-heat.

                  1. Dillinger   4 years ago

                    everybody else seems to be pretty clear.

                  2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

                    Right, because after 1974, the whole thing went cold.

                    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                      Right, because before Roe v Wade it was cold...

                      If Roe v Wade was ruled a bad judgement because *ALL* people deserved to OWN themselves over State Gov-Guns enslavement - then maybe the debate could be put to rest. But claiming *ALL* pregnant women are but slave's of the State isn't going to end it anymore than accepting State powers during the Black Slavery times.

              4. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

                Haha, thanks for proving my point:

                Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

          3. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

            The current 'abortion' debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with late term abortion.

            That's not true, but whatevs.

            1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

              Roe v Wade/Casey allowed all Post-Viable (21-week) pregnancies to be legislated by the State. The only thing over-turning Roe v Wade accomplished was allowing State's to legislate every F'En pregnancy in the entire U.S.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

                Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

              2. rferris   4 years ago

                I guess you are not aware that courts have moved the date to 10 seconds before birth.

                If the original Roe guidelines had not been expanded to the point of any time for any reason, the battle against it would not likely been fought so long and so hard.

          4. JesseAz   4 years ago

            The court case the ussc took was literally about post 15 weeks. Do you know anything about this discussion?

            1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

              The Supreme Court didn't even recognize pregnant women having a day to own themselves before becoming pawns of State Gov-Gun dictates due to "potential life". So yes; State's CAN and have ALREADY entirely banned abortions. Some are even flirting with BANNING the day after pill... And with Pro-Life pushing it's Power-Mad puritan dictation it'll probably pass without resistance. So long LIMITED government and Individual Liberty for pregnant women.

          5. Seamus   4 years ago

            Sure, it has NOTHING to do with late-term abortion, yet the pro-choicers get apoplectic about laws that would ban late-term abortions.

            1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

              Retaliation circus theater is all that is... Frankly; It's probably Pro-Life operatives working the other side for their own ends.

              It wasn't the Pro-Choice crowd who was threatening 50-Years of Individual Liberty for pregnant women. Pro-Life is the aggressors on this subject and their MORE, MORE, MORE never ever satisfied Power-Mad Gov-Gun usage is undeniable.

          6. rferris   4 years ago

            How many atrocities do you support?? Once in a while is fine???

            If you only murder once in a while it is fine???

      3. Libertariantranslator   4 years ago

        Fur Hitlerjugend und Deutscher Mädel?

    3. Ayuleen   4 years ago

      It is both. Neither forced parenthood nor forced pregnancy is compatible with liberty.

      1. rferris   4 years ago

        The choices are all the woman's, after her choices she wants to have a mulligan and do it over.

        Getting pregnant is a choice, killing your baby should not be!

        With great powers come great responsibilities............

  4. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

    "The people wanting to adopt your baby look like Hollywood movie serial-killers, so let's kill your baby"

    I really have a hard time with how Democrat logic works. Can someone help me out?

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

      Nope. Not even a Democrat could explain it.

    2. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      Either make it illegal for doctors to intentionally kill a fetus..
      Or just Shut the F'Up with your B.S. propaganda... (i.e. "kill your baby")

      1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

        Either shut up, or quit responding to what was not said.

        1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          I responded to exactly what was said, "so let's kill your baby"...

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

        Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

    3. Minadin   4 years ago

      The Left: Still can't meme
      Also the Left: Always projecting

    4. SQRLSY One   4 years ago

      "The people wanting to hijack your womb look like Hollywood movie authoritarians, so let's tell them to fuck off!"

      Now THAT one works for me!

    5. Seamus   4 years ago

      Logic is racism.

  5. Marshal   4 years ago

    "They're telling a woman who's 6 weeks pregnant how to spend the next 9 months."... And maybe that is the message, but if so, it's remarkably poorly expressed.

    It's worse than poorly expressed, it's poorly reasoned. They are not telling women what to do at all, they are offering to solve the most common problem women who want abortions cite for doing so. That this translates to telling them what to do is not logically supportable, which is why such claims only exist among ideological extremists who suspend logic and rationality when attacking their enemies. The rest of their accusations are similarly nonsensical, signifying only their unrelenting hatred of their enemies.

    1. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

      Ding ding ding! And Reason pretending not to understand this is disgusting.

  6. Brian   4 years ago

    "Pro-lifers offering to adopt unwanted babies, the memes suggested, are pedophiles. Or cultists. Or "sadistic Christian nationalis[ts]," or likely abusers, or kidnappers, or enslavers, or rapists, or "treating people like livestock," or "TERRIFYING" horror movie monsters, or serial killers, or at least "vaguely creepy-looking.""

    Do they drink the blood of the children for the Adrenalchrome, too?

    BlueAnon is real.

  7. Cal Cetín   4 years ago

    "Protect the babies. Abort them instead."

    I didn't expect to find Reason so clearly taking such perfect aim at a stupid abortion-fancying talking point.

    1. Cal Cetín   4 years ago

      And I guess Mark Hamill is some kind of method actor who has to keep his Joker character maintained even offscreen.

      1. Pear Satirical   4 years ago

        Apparently he tried to force a woman his son had knocked up to abort the kid.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

          One of the more vile things that came out about Joss Whedon is that he tried to browbeat Charisma Carpenter in to aborting her kid when she got pregnant, then passive-aggressively fucked with her character on Angel when she refused to do so.

          Carpenter's a turbo-shitlib, but apparently she still follows the Catholic teaching that a pregnancy should be brought to term.

    2. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      What F'En Baby???

  8. Zeb   4 years ago

    That's just bizarre. I'm all for legal abortion, but I also find the pro-life position to be pretty consistent and respectable. Why would people think that there was some nefarious design behind people expressing willingness to adopt unwanted infants?

    1. Cronut   4 years ago

      Because it ruins their argument that pro-lifers don't care about the babies, just the fetuses.

    2. Illocust   4 years ago

      Because they spend all their time on Twitter working themselves up with fellow ideologues until they have literally no conception of what people who disagree with them actually believe. If your only interaction with people who disagree with you is from a carefully curated feed of out of context excerpts meant to make you feel good about yourself for opposing them, then your going to end up with some pretty twisted views of the world.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

      Why would people think that there was some nefarious design behind people expressing willingness to adopt unwanted infants?

      Because the children are unwanted... UNWANTED! If someone pops up saying they "want them" then they're no longer UNWANTED!

    4. A Thinking Mind   4 years ago

      They don't want Republican, pro-life parents to have kids. Because they hate them.

    5. Nardz   4 years ago

      Confession via projection.

      Leftists don't see babies as little people, they see them as objects to be either discarded at whim or used as dolls/tools to fulfill the guardian's fantasy/ideology.

      1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

        Or maybe they just don't buy the Pro-Life's propaganda that has indoctrinated far too many into believing that every fertilized egg is a golden unicorn that requires Gov-Guns mandating its full creation.

        If you cannot support ?little people? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
        UR supporting FORCED reproduction.

        *reality* to a T.

        1. Junkmailfolder   4 years ago

          "every fertilized egg" has a unique set of DNA and has everything it needs to live, except nutrition and an environment conducive to life. Just like you and me.

          Taking that life out of the environment it needs will kill it, just like you and me.

          1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

            but, but, but........ "My science is more important than *reality*!"
            Climate Change Power-Mad [WE] mobs argument to a T.

            And frankly your science is so much B.S. propaganda you want to pretend the modern medical technology cannot even create this environment. That this environment you speak of is only available by ENSLAVING women as medical equipment.

            You cannot even acknowledge that women are people who should have Individual Liberty.. And that is the base line of Pro-Life. Women are but SLAVE'S to their B.S. propaganda induced golden unicorn of imagination.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

              Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

        2. rferris   4 years ago

          Biology is a bitch, wanting to bring the baby just created by a mutual consented sex act to term, versus interfering with the convenience of merely killing the baby so there is no hassle.

          Consequence free sex, an idiocy only selfish immoral and lazy people dream for.

    6. NOYB2   4 years ago

      That's just bizarre. I'm all for legal abortion, but I also find the pro-life position to be pretty consistent and respectable. Why would people think that there was some nefarious design behind people expressing willingness to adopt unwanted infants?

      Same here. In principle, I think abortion should be legal within the first trimester, with counseling and a brief waiting period, just like in Europe. However, most of the pro-choice activists are nutcases and their arguments are bullshit.

      Women, minorities, and gays/lesbians have just become pawns upon which neo-Marxists are trying to grab power and build their utopia. They had to do that because they got no traction anymore with the classical Marxist class divide: American workers were happy and wealthy enough not to want a revolution.

      1. Zeb   4 years ago

        That's why I say "pro legal abortion" rather than "pro-choice" even though I am pro choice in just about everything. I don't want to associate myself with that movement, even if I narrowly agree on the broad question.

    7. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

      "Why would people think that there was some nefarious design behind people expressing willingness to adopt unwanted infants?"

      "I'm such a great person, I will happily adopt your baby. Never mind that I used the state to hold a gun to your head to force you to have the baby in the first place."

      1. Zeb   4 years ago

        I'm not saying it's going to be a convincing argument for a lot of people. It certainly isn't convincing me that it would be just fine to ban abortion completely. But if people are justifying abortion on the basis of not wanting to produce unwanted children, it's not a bad response and to attack their character like that is just nasty.

      2. Sansos   4 years ago

        Oh boo fucking hoo im using the state to not allow you to murder a person which last time i checked is the states only proper function

        1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          what "person"???
          OMG... Will you propaganda indoctrinators ever stop with your blatant LIES?

          1. DesigNate   4 years ago

            Look, I get your whole narrative falls apart if you acknowledge that fetuses exist and are colloquially referred to as babies once people know the woman is pregnant, but goddamn man it’s just pathetic at this point.

        2. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          If you really wanted to use the state to "not allow you to murder"; you'd be passing State laws that make it illegal for doctors to "murder" a fetus instead of trying to THROW-AWAY Individual Liberty of every pregnant woman and use Gov-Guns to BAN everything except FORCED reproduction.

          If you cannot support ?person? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
          UR supporting FORCED reproduction...

          That is the *reality* of it.

  9. Cronut   4 years ago

    This is because, in pro-abortionists' minds, "caring for the unwanted baby" does not mean adoptions. It means cradle-to-grave social welfare. Most of the memes about pro-lifers not wanting to care for the children after their born don't have anything to do with adoption. They're all about free health care, paid maternity leave, free day care, etc.

    But it's bullshit anyway. If we all of a sudden decided, "Hey, you know what, we WILL pay for cradle to grave social welfare if that means you won't abort," they would just make up another excuse. They're not "pro-choice." They're pro-abortion.

  10. MatthewSlyfield   4 years ago

    "We want that baby when it's nice and cute and fully formed, but we aren't planning on adopting anything else," they assiduously explain.

    This is just bizarre. even if the original couple were willing, it's not possible.

    1. Cronut   4 years ago

      A lot of adoption agencies offer financial assistance and medical care to pregnant women who are giving their children up for adoption. So, again, it's bullshit.

    2. NOYB2   4 years ago

      There is a kernel of truth in it: the ability to place kids for adoption declines rapidly as they get older. That's because people intuitively know that early childhood is critical for deciding whether a kid turns into a functioning adult or a dysfunctional sociopath.

      And you can bet that mothers who got pregnant unintentionally and don't want the kid are going to raise their kids to be dysfunctional sociopaths with pretty high probability, if not for any other reason than that they are dysfunctional sociopaths themselves.

      1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

        There are 6,000 babies waiting for adoption...

        1. Zeb   4 years ago

          And there are tons of people who want to adopt babies. Maybe the problem is with the adoption system.

  11. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

    Wait... McSweeny's... fuck, yeah, McSweeny's... that's the magazine that Saturday Night Life sarcastically referred to as "explosive comedy". When Saturday Night Live thinks you're unfunny... you're un-fucking-funny.

    1. Overt   4 years ago

      Hm. That's Clever.

  12. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

    "We want that baby when it's nice and cute and fully formed, but we aren't planning on adopting anything else," they assiduously explain. "Obviously, we can't adopt your morning sickness, so when you wake up at 5 a.m. to puke your guts out before work, and when you also puke your guts out at work in the employee bathroom, we won't adopt that."

    Yeah, the goalpost just got dragged five miles down the road, tied to the back of a nitro-powered funnycar.

  13. sparkstable   4 years ago

    So abortion is needed, not to a oif being g a parent and the disruptions that come with that, but to simply avoid pregnancy and birthing.

    So all these kids are wanted... just not the process. Which means all these women getting abortions should also be in line for adoptions... because they still want to be a mom... just not pregnant.

    And we are supposed to accept this claim with what proof?

    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      [WE] don't have to accept anything in OUR OWN PERSONAL LIFE'S....
      And [WE] shouldn't need Gov-Guns to FORCE others to reproduce.

      1. Sansos   4 years ago

        Forcing people to reporduce at gun point is literally forcing them to have sex, abortion is murder

        1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
          UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

          That is the *reality* no matter how much you cannot face it.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

            Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

      2. sparkstable   4 years ago

        Thanks for not even playing.
        [YOU] could try being less retarded so [WE] could stop having to read your pointless rambling that never actually addresses the things others people here are saying.

  14. Bill Dalasio   4 years ago

    Sorry, you'd have to be pretty much the sort of abject retard abortion fanatics think should be aborted to misunderstand what this couple is saying. And I say this as someone who is moderately pro-choice. The constant and loud refrain from the pro-abortion camp has been that unwanted children ruin a woman's life and create a hell for the child. "Okay," this couple is saying, "we'll be happy to take the problem off your hands. We'll be happy to raise the child." No, there's no nefarious intention. There's no indifference to the woman's struggle. Or at least there's no reason for any sane person to assume there is. They're responding precisely to the struggle as abortion fanatics have framed it for years. The reason the abortion fanatics are casting this couple as monsters is because they put challenge to their narrative. Willing adopters mean the kids' lives and the mothers' lives won't be ruined absent abortion. And as at least one responder responded, even the stakes of morning sickness and nine months of inconvenience are a price they're unwilling to pay. And, I'm somewhat okay with that position, as I don't believe that most aborted fetuses are humans, per se. But, let's be honest, it's hardly as flattering a narrative as that those mean old fundies want to ruin your life and make you have a child whose life would be miserable.

  15. Nobartium   4 years ago

    It must be said consistently and often, they were never pro-choice, they were always pro-abort.

    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      Well I'm Pro-Fetal Ejection... Is that Pro-Choice or Pro-Abort?

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

        Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

      2. Barfman9000   4 years ago

        *barf*

  16. n00bdragon   4 years ago

    I'm lost. Is this just a Twitter thing? Does this have anything to do with the real world? Can someone provide me some kind of stats on what percentage of pro-choice people hate crisis pregnancy centers and what percentage of pro-life people are card carrying members of NAMBLA? Someone might almost get the idea that the fringe 1% from both sides are dominating the airwaves trying to make it sound like it's a 50% vs 50% battle. Or maybe it's less than 1%. I don't know how many people who shout a dumb thing on Twitter would say it in real life.

    Twitter isn't real, and we debase the concept of public discourse by pretending that it is.

    1. NOYB2   4 years ago

      Twitter isn't real, and we debase the concept of public discourse by pretending that it is.

      Neither is Reason. Most people in the US have no idea what "NAMBLA" is, but nutcases here bring it up whenever the topic of homosexuality or the letters "LGBTQIA+" or whatever appear.

      Face it, you're part of the fringe as well.

      1. Zeb   4 years ago

        Sure, we're all a bit fringe. But his questions are valid. I don't really know how many people really take up the extreme positions.

        1. Nardz   4 years ago

          "Sure, we're all a bit fringe"

          Except regarding abortion, apparently

          https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/07/harvard-poll-72-percent-support-15-week-limit-on-abortions/

          A poll conducted after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade found that 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy. That transcends party affiliation. Even 60 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be prohibited after the 15th week.

  17. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

    at this point I now equate "pro-abortion" with "totally batshit insane"

    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      And I've equated Anti-Choice as Power-Mad bullies packing around Gov-Guns trying to force every Woman in the USA to reproduce.

      And frankly; Mine carries a heck of a lot more water than urs does.

      1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

        You are anti-choice yourself unless you actually support infanticide while in labor.

        At some point, it becomes wrong to kill the baby and everyone knows. Yes, there's arguments to be had about when that happens but unless you tell me you believe a woman can decapitate the baby on its way out, you too are "Anti-Choice"

        Being "pro-abortion" is becoming a death cult as far as I can tell.

        1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          I am not Anti-Choice at all. Women should be able to chose what happens inside their own bodies w/o Gov-Gun interference (Pro-Choice).

          The only Anti-Choice I'd support is Doctors choice to intentionally murder said Fetus (late-term) without a reasonable cause.

          On the subject of the Woman I'm 100% for Individual Liberty...
          On the subject of a Baby I'm 100% for Life...

          But B.S. repeated propaganda has turned this into nothing but a 'wedge' issue within itself and who's only purpose is to cut Individual Liberty and EMPOWER Gov-Guns.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

            Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

          2. Seamus   4 years ago

            I am not Anti-Choice at all. Women should be able to chose what happens inside their own bodies w/o Gov-Gun interference (Pro-Choice).

            Including with respect to vaccines?

            1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

              Definitely!! MORE Gov-Gods packing Gov-Guns isn't going to save this nation from its National Socialist (Nazism) government path... LESS (U.S. Constitutional LIMITED) Gov-Gods packing Gov-Guns is the ONLY path that will restore the USA.

        2. Bill Dalasio   4 years ago

          unless you tell me you believe a woman can decapitate the baby on its way out, you too are "Anti-Choice"

          Hey, what's so special about the magic birth canal? Everybody knows life begins at 40!

          1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

            If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
            UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

            1. Barfman9000   4 years ago

              *barf*

      2. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

        Well that's just one reason you're an idiot who deserves to be laughed at.

  18. NOYB2   4 years ago

    "We want that baby when it's nice and cute and fully formed, but we aren't planning on adopting anything else," they assiduously explain.

    Not quite. People are also happy to help out pregnant mothers before birth; we have massive government programs for that. However, if you get to raise the baby during the critical period of the first year or two, people are much less likely to want to adopt it.

    "Obviously, we can't adopt your morning sickness, so when you wake up at 5 a.m. to puke your guts out before work, and when you also puke your guts out at work in the employee bathroom, we won't adopt that."

    You should have thought about that before you had unprotected sex without birth control.

    Incidentally, people also can't adopt your HIV infection, your herpes, or your cervical cancer. You're stuck with that, and no abortion doctor can get rid of those.

  19. TJJ2000   4 years ago

    Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute....
    There's 437,000 children in foster care looking to be adopted...
    So what are you grand standing for??? Go adopt...

    Let's face it; those protesters are egging on a war to begin with. No; There not really there to adopt a baby. They're there to get support for Gov-Guns FORCING women to reproduce.

    1. NOYB2   4 years ago

      Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute....
      There's 437,000 children in foster care looking to be adopted...
      So what are you grand standing for??? Go adopt...

      People are rationally reluctant to adopt kids in foster care. See above for why.

      Let's face it; those protesters are egging on a war to begin with. No; There not really there to adopt a baby.

      Yes, they are happy to adopt a baby, right after birth, assuming the mother didn't take drugs.

      There is a much smaller group of people who are willing and able to adopt kids with disabilities and/or raised in a dysfunctional home.

      1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

        6,0000 of those are babies... Ya; they are just grand standing.

        1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

          You've actually convinced yourself that the adoption backlog in america is an act of "grandstanding"

          Again, you are yet another example convincing me that pro-abortion fanatics are batshit insane.

          1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

            According to Kids Count Data Center, between 2007 and 2016, approximately 4,000-6,000 babies were waiting for adoption under the age of 1 in the U.S. from the foster care system.
            https://adoption.com/babies-waiting-for-adoption

            1. Illocust   4 years ago

              From your own link "roughly 2 million couples are waiting to adopt in the United States."

              Oops, that pretty much destroys your narrative.

              1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                Fair enough... So maybe they are that desperate.. Must be even desperate enough to ENSLAVE women by Gov-Guns into reproducing... That's pretty tyrannical of them...

                1. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

                  The next thought you have will be the first.

                2. sparkstable   4 years ago

                  They never forced the woman to get pregnant.

                  They merely reject murder as a justifiable act in the name of convenience and are offering a way to mitigate the cost of someone's regretted life choices while still saying murder isn't an acceptable alternative to alleviate those burdens.

                  There is exactly zero choices made by the pro-life camp regarding the reproduction of a human. Only ethical/moral claims about what to do once that already happened.

                  That you don't understand this indicates you are quite plainly dumb. Just full on stupid.

                  1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

                    If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
                    UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

                    Welcome to *reality*.

                    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

                      Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

              2. markm23   4 years ago

                I suspect that's 2 million white couples wanting to adopt and a few thousand black babies without adoption prospects - not because the white couples won't adopt blacks, but because many "woke" adoption agencies refuse to process adoptions of black babies to white couples.

        2. NOYB2   4 years ago

          There are 135000 adoptions every year. 6000 babies likely mostly represent babies that have just been offered for adoption.

          And as I indicated, it is difficult to find parents capable of adopting and providing for kids with special needs.

  20. Flaco   4 years ago

    I find it surprisingly refreshing to see Reason publish something from an overtly christian point of view.

    And I say that as a pro-abortion atheist, who thinks the decision to overturn Roe was correct, because the original decision was just pulled out of their butts.

    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      A right for people to "own" themselves isn't something "pulled out of their butts"...

      Pro-Life's favorite thing to do is Cancel the U.S. Constitution. Be it via "pulled out of their butts" claims to "federal over-reach" claims to "leftards don't see a Constitution; so it's all okay"...

      1. Flaco   4 years ago

        Dude, right now there are 90 comments, and 21 of them are yours. Take a chill pill!

      2. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

        the right to 'own yourself' was not the finding of roe v wade.

        I would say that I'm sure you know that you're just being disingenuous because no one could be that uninformed about something they seem to be passionate about but... you have proven yourself otherwise.

        1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          A "right to privacy" establishes just that by the 4th Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" and what really is a right to privacy? PERSONAL CHOICES for PERSONAL LIFE'S w/o unreasonable Gov-Gun interference. To actually OWN one's self in their PERSONAL LIFE'S.

          Alitos majority ruling specifically addresses that and CANCELS that Individual Right because (exact phrase; "potential life") as an excuse.. Where is it said people who carry "potential life" are excluded from Individual Liberty?

          People who run around pretending to be against murder while compulsively insisting ENSLAVEMENT of the woman and ?baby? instead of ACTUALLY addressing what they say they are addressing by making doctor's intentional killing of the fetus illegal are entirely disingenuous....

          And they will come up with every manipulative, propaganda, B.S. fantasy land excuses to justify stuffing Gov-Guns into PERSONAL LIFE'S... They have proven without any doubt to be a [WE] Power-Mad mob after Gov-Gun dictation over the people and their never-ending thirst for MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Gun dictation is undeniable. Roe v Wade was as reasonably Pro-Life as any common-sense could get.. But that wasn't enough for the Pro-Life [WE] Power-Mad mob of tyrannical dictation. MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Gun interference.... Never F'En ending.. Never satisfied...

          1. DesigNate   4 years ago

            It didn’t find a right to privacy in any regard except abortion. So you’re still fucking wrong.

  21. CindyF   4 years ago

    Once you understand that the left actually gets a thrill out of the thought of killing babies, it makes sense. To have the child born and then adopted takes away that thrill. They would much rather the child be butchered and sacrificed to their climate change "gods".

    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      Or maybe it's just Pro-Life who makes up retarded narratives like "killing babies" when they cannot even make it illegal for doctors to intentionally kill a fetus.... Ya; that sounds dead on.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

        Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

  22. Libertariantranslator   4 years ago

    Arthur Conan Doyle wrote purple prose about how Mormons kidnapped every exposed female--long before the Texas FLDS flap. Seek and you will learn there ARE jugend-raisers taking tax deductions on twenty kids at a time to raise as MAGA Trilbys. This I had to see in proof to believe.

  23. Libertariantranslator   4 years ago

    Many here have read Robert Heinlein's ideas. Yet how many recall Hugh Farnham's wife's unwillingness to let her babies be raised by dictatorial cannibals? She was dead set against that. If it were not so obvious that girl-bullying mystical bigots fit those memes so easily, they wouldn't be popular. Truth is not always a pretty thing, especially when it lets you see the coercion staring back at you. See Farnham's Freehold--hated by all who hate Atlas Shrugged! ; )

    1. See Double You   4 years ago

      Hanky-Poo! How are ya?

  24. chemjeff radical individualist   4 years ago

    Calling the adoptive parents pedophiles or cultists is absurd of course. But it is also not an act of pure altruism. The implication is, they aren't willing to adopt a child unconditionally otherwise they would have already adopted one of many thousands of kids already waiting. They will adopt a kid only if they first coerce the mom to have the kid in the first place. That is what some are complaining about.

    1. Barfman9000   4 years ago

      *barf*

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

      They will adopt a kid only if they first coerce the mom to have the kid in the first place. That is what some are complaining about.

      Sure, the abortion-maximalists had their bluff called and now their moving the goalposts. That's what shitlibs do.

      1. Cronut   4 years ago

        Not sure which gray-box moron wrote this, but it's absurd. There are 2 million people waiting to adopt, and fewer than 2 million children available to adopt. Pretty sure many, if not most, potential adopters would take the first child available.

      2. TJJ2000   4 years ago

        "had their bluff called and now their moving the goalposts"
        Yes; That is what shitlibs do constantly...

        Ya know JUST LIKE Pro-Life who's Republican Supreme Court wrote the Roe v Wade ruling and granted State interest unless there was ZERO, NODDA, ZIP 0% chance of a baby ever existing from that point in pregnancy...

        But NOPE... Had to keep pushing that goalpost... MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Gun POWER over the people.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

          Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

    3. sparkstable   4 years ago

      How do you know the couple in the photo aren't in the long, arduous, expensive process of adopting?

      You don't.

      So you subjectively construct in your mind the world as you would have it then project that and act like it is real.

      And are confused when everyone else in the actual real world thinks you are dumb.

      1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

        It doesn't matter... Because they are at a Pro-Life lobbying event holding a lobbyist sign. They're virtue signalling.

        FORCE those women with Gov-Guns to reproduce!!!!

  25. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

    LOL Reason spends 10 minutes pretending they don't understand what "We will adopt your baby" means to normal people.

    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      Pro-Life morons spends their entire life pretending because someone will adopt a baby it must be an excuse to use Gov-Guns to FORCE people to reproduce.

      So; Does your economic tyranny go that far too? If people want your services do you think you should be FORCED by Gov-Guns to provide them? All hail the Gov-Gods and their Gov-Guns...

      If you start building a house. Gov-Guns will NOT allow you to stop until it's finished...

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

        Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

  26. JeremyR   4 years ago

    It's not just this, there is also a war on pregnancy crisis clinics, which provide support to would be mothers (instead of abortion)

    They are being vandalized, firebombed with the FBI and law enforcement not doing a thing, and now the left, led by Elizabeth Warren, wants to ban them.

  27. George Reeves   4 years ago

    If a woman wants to give birth to a baby she cannot raise there are plenty of childless couples who want to be parents and would adopt a newborn. It is a very generous act to go through creating a baby for someone else t9 love and raise. However, no woman should be compelled to do it just because she has an accidental pregnancy. The 13th Amendment protects against involuntary servitude.

    1. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

      Nobody's being compelled to do anything, unless you count the nurses forced to be vaxxed to work.

      1. Cronut   4 years ago

        Dealing with the consequences of your own actions = involuntary servitude

        1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

          Gov-Gun Happy Power-Mad on full display...
          Oh so you got in an accident huh.. Well no hospital for YOU! Scream the Puritan dictators... Well use Gov-Guns and BAN you from fixing your accidental injuries...

          I just love how Pro-Life people go from it's 'murder' of another person to instantly it's just "your own actions" so it cannot be involuntary servitude... You people will swing your principles whichever way will allow you to FORCE people to reproduce against their will.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   4 years ago

            Ask the same question of a "pro-choicer," and you get a lot of hand-waving and misdirection, because they believe in abortion all the way up until the umbilical cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever, but they also know that their position is a radical, minority one.

  28. sparkstable   4 years ago

    Being restricted from murder is not enslavement.

    You are not a slave due to other people having rights.

    I did not enslave you and force you via servitude to refrain from killing me. Nor did you, to me.

    That is such an absurd construction that only a child who had their first ethical thought could think it was insightful. Meanwhile all thinking adults rolled their eyes waiting for the child to give up or get it right and stop acting like they know everything when they have proven they know jack.

    1. TJJ2000   4 years ago

      And when has it ever been presented that doctors be restricted from murdering fetuses?????????? Huh????

      UR just spreading B.S. propaganda...

      If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
      UR supporting FORCED reproduction..

      That is the *reality* whether you can face it or not.

  29. Clemdane   4 years ago

    A bunch of Christian Talibans campaigning to change the law back to forcing women to gestate and give birth against their will, now that they have gotten what they want, want you child as well. They intend to turn them into brainwashed Bible bashers just like them. I wouldn't want to give them my baby either.

    1. Cal Cetín   4 years ago

      So the official line has changed? It used to be that the Christian Taliban *didn't* want the children.

      "I wouldn't want to give them my baby either."

      Dare I ask what you'd do instead? To protect the baby of course.

  30. S Brosseau   4 years ago

    People tend to project their motivations onto others. We assume others are like us. The assumptions the viewer makes about the couple in the meme and their adoption offer primarily reflect the viewer's character.

    1. EscherEnigma   4 years ago

      Cool story.

      Now apply this logic to the people accusing gay folk of being pedophiles.

  31. RedPilledConservative   4 years ago

    " ... Of course, in this line of thought, what you're aborting generally isn't a baby, not yet. It's an embryo, a fetus, a clump of cells, maybe a potential baby. ... "

    My son and his lovely bride just had their first ultrasound - saw the still images - sure looked like a baby to me!

  32. Vernon Depner   4 years ago

    And while we're on the subject of handling inconvenient pregnancies—can we finally admit that Winthrop was Marian's illegitimate son, not her little brother?

  33. Lester75   4 years ago

    One reason right-wingers give for forcing women to give birth is so that there will be more babies to adopt.

    However the right-wingers are ill informed. Most women who are forced to give birth after being denied the right to an early abortion do not put their children up for adoption after birth. They develop attachment late in pregnancy, which is natural.

    Forcing birth results in more children who are poor and more women who are poorer because they are supporting more children. That's pretty much it.

  34. Vincent Milburn   4 years ago

    The way liberals talk about it, you'd think half the country are inbreeders.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Bondi Bristles

Christian Britschgi | 2.12.2026 9:34 AM

Brickbat: Luck of the Draw

Charles Oliver | 2.12.2026 4:00 AM

Politicians Want To Avoid Reforming Social Security and Medicare. You Will Pay the Price.

Veronique de Rugy | 2.12.2026 12:01 AM

The U.S. House Just Voted To Stop Trump's 'Emergency' Tariffs on Imports From Canada

Eric Boehm | 2.11.2026 7:25 PM

Epstein Files: FBI Tracked Down Anonymous 4chan Conspiracy Theorist

Matthew Petti | 2.11.2026 5:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks