fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2552 ]

[ SECRET POST #2552 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2552 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 077 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What would be much better would be women being treated like human beings and not pets that need to be coddled. It isn't a secret that having sex makes babies. You acknowledge this every single time you have sex. It isn't a mistake, it is a consequence.

If you are poor there is government help to have your baby. I had no insurance and I have two kids...I have no bills from either of my pregnancies anymore. They were both easily paid off by my tax return. (An amount I would have got whether I kept my kiss or not—though I didn't get more because I kept them.)

There aren't any unwanted babies. Just look around at all the kids being adopted outside of the US because we don't have enough in the US to be adopted. Most go through private adoption and don't go to the state at all. There is a very, very long waiting list for adopting babies. You have better luck being a foster parent but then you won't get babies very often because they are adopted fast. It is the mother's choice how she adopts out, but finding homes really isn't a problem for babies.

YES! We need more government help to assist in women's mental health, but with everyone saying abortion has no consequences mentally or physically or is going to support that...it isn't going to happen no matter what the doctor's say. Because it still needs the people support and the people believe abortion is healthy and the women don't need help.

It is a lot cheaper to have an abortion than take on the mental health of the women seeking one. I don't see anyone saying, okay we'll compromise and say you have to have a medical reason to have an abortion after the first trimester if you open up centers that provide free mental/physical healthcare to women while going through an unwanted pregnancy, either.

If you are talking a politician...I've never found one I agree with.

And yes, sadly people will break laws no matter what they are, but we don't base laws on what is easy to follow. We should base them on what is the best for everyone involved and not simply the one with the loudest voice.

tl;dr I see what you're saying, but I would much rather the actual problem be taken care of so two people can have fulfilling lives ahead of them, instead of a quick fix that kills one and slowly kills the other.

*did get more

There aren't any unwanted babies. Just look around at all the kids being adopted outside of the US because we don't have enough in the US to be adopted.

Haha, oh wow. You've honestly got no fucking clue what you're talking about.

There aren't any unwanted babies. Just look around at all the kids being adopted outside of the US because we don't have enough in the US to be adopted. Most go through private adoption and don't go to the state at all. There is a very, very long waiting list for adopting babies. You have better luck being a foster parent but then you won't get babies very often because they are adopted fast. It is the mother's choice how she adopts out, but finding homes really isn't a problem for babies.

You can't be serious. You are confusing red tape and slow bureaucracy pushing people to seek alternative adoption methods with there actually being enough adoptive parents adopting children.

There aren't any unwanted babies... but finding homes really isn't a problem for babies.

But these are the parts that get me. How can you have done so much research on the topic and still believe this?

sorry. :/ forgot to add this: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport20.pdf

There aren't any unwanted babies.

You are truly fucking ignorant. The reason people go outside of the U.S. is because the adoption regulations are less strict if they exist at all in certain countries, meaning any idiot with enough money can buy a child. Furthermore, there are countless sick, disabled, and non-white U.S. infants who people looking to adopt ignore until they're too old to be popular, which can be as young as two or older; people rarely want older kids.

And you know how many of those older kids end up in a system they're largely doomed to age out of before they're ever adopted into a loving home? Because they were born to mothers who didn't want them in the first place. You want to talk about mental health and slow death? Talk to abuse survivors, born to resentful mothers and passed through careless foster homes. Who exactly do you think you're saving?

They seem to be more worried about fetuses than the health of the mother or the kids that are already born and in foster care, etc.

This in particular It isn't a secret that having sex makes babies. You acknowledge this every single time you have sex. It isn't a mistake, it is a consequence. is pretty fucking skeevy.

Yeah, I know, but usually anti-abortion people say something defensible like "we need to help unwanted babies, not kill them off". They just disregard women, not babies. It's less common for me to see one who does it the other way around.

I don't think it is alk that rare imo. I've seen a quite a lot of them prattle on about the mental health of the mother when it comes to abortion but they don't seem to give a fuck about the children after they're born.

They seem to care about children so long as keeping them alive. If they're alive in a ditch somewhere eating dirt, hey, still alive, their job as moral saviors is done.

Exactly. They just care about the child being born. Afterwards? They don't get a fuck what happens to the kid. And I apologize if I misunderstood your previous comment, I'm a bit tired.

Ain't no thang, we seem to be on the same page in general. :)

:3 Thanks. Hope this doesn't sound creepy, but it is always great to chat with you. I've responded to you before in the comments here and you've been quite fun to chat with.

Oh, thank you! Not creepy at all, I just wish I knew what else we talked about. But most anons here are super cool (contrary to other places) and based on this convo at least I can say the same of you. :D

(And hey, if you're interested in being friends un-anon anywhere, I'm on tumblr and Steam under the same name.)

Oh thank goodness, I thought that I might come off as creepy. You're welcome and thank you! I'm not sure if you remember but I'm that anon who chatted with you about Naruto a while back. About Orochimaru being the only decent villain and the Uchihyas being terrible, lol. We've talked about other things but that's all I can remember off top my head.

I've got a tumblr but I don't use it much. Thought about getting a dreamwidth account to comment here with and other stuff but having a hard time coming up with a username. That and I'm not completely sold on getting one. But yeah, I totally would like to talk with you more. When I get my computer back, I'll try to contact you through tumblr or here. :3 Kinda of a pain to respond on my phone

Oh, I remember that - bless you, child, and fuck an Uchiha. I literally only use Dreamwidth for RSS and F!S, so lord knows I can't tell you a name might be worth the hassle, but I do hope to talk to you more in any way you like. So good luck getting your computer back. ^^

Haha, I'd rather not. They're all terrible. :p I've been trying to come up with a username to use across all services I use, but it hasn't been going well. I'm terrible at coming with decent usernames. Anyway, I totally will try to contact you once I get it all figured out and get my conputer back. Til then, I suppose I will just have to chat with you as an anon. Should't be too hard to spot me. Typos, typos everywhere.

Then again, it might be. Though I think it would totally be weird if I said I was that Naruto anon everytime I commented, lol. I'm not sure if I want to be known as that Naruto anon, either tbh.

Sorry if I get a bit rambly.

Lmao, walked into that one. This site might help a bit with picking out a universal name that someone doesn't have yet. It's a compendium of rarely used English words, like "arborescent" (which means "branched; branching; tree-shaped"), but I'm a complete word nerd, so I may be alone in finding a username like that appealing, lol.

Oh, you don't have to identify yourself each time, I'll just remember that nice anons I talk to might be you and I'll be all "zomg if this is arborescent they're still awesome and shit". XD Anyway, hitting the sack now, but it was greet talking to you again, anon, and I hope we do again soon!

You sure did. Oh, thank you for that site! It might be helpful in trying to figure out a new username! Arborescent is an awesome word, one I've never heard of til now. Huh, might use that.

Awe, thank you. This conversation really made my night. Had a rather bad day but talking to you really was really enjoyable and made me happy. I hope we talk again soon, too!!! I'm gonna head to bed now. Hope you rest well and have a good day!

It is skeevy and it's also a codeword. 'Consequence' is just the PC version of the word they really mean: punishment. You had sex and the birth control failed or whatever, too bad. You have to take your medicine, by God. I don't even think they care about fetuses except as something they can use to make women scared to have sex, which is just another means of controlling people. That's the real issue with these people, what they really want: control. It's a very authoritarian mindset and it may start with pregnant women, but it sure won't end there.

Ayrt

Exactly. I've seen it used before and know that anyone who uses that word like that I regards to abortion is an asshole who thinks that women should be punished for having sex. You put it way better than I ever could.

They don't give a shit about the fetuses imo. The ones spouting this shit are the same ones who try to fuck with womeb's healthcare.

Foster care and adoption are two very different things.

The whole point of foster care is to get the families back together. Babies in foster care don't get to be adopted just like anyone of any age in foster care. Not until the parents either give up their rights or the courts say that no matter what they do they can never have their kids back. Which is rare as I said before since the goal with foster care is to help the families get back together.

People want babies and yes there are many perks to getting them from outside the US, but one of them is the wait time. But even talking about the foster care system (which I do think we need to do more with and spend more money on) when talking about adoption is backwards logic. People are going outside of the US to adopt babies—foster care has never been something they wanted to do.

We aren't talking about the same people here.

Babies whose parents give up their rights might go into the foster care system while the paper work is being finalised for an adoption, but they don't sit there until they turn eighteen without a disability most new parents don't want to take on. But killing thousands of healthy babies isn't going to suddenly make these parents want to take on a disabled child.

One way they get the older children in foster care who are up for adoption in homes is by not allowing a baby (under a year old) who has siblings in the system to be adopted without taking them in as well.

Once that baby turns 1, then they are allowed to be adopted separately. And they are, right away.

Are older children in foster care because no one wants to adopt them a problem? Yes, of course. Are people going to suddenly start adopting them, because we make who they really want to adopt unavailable by killing them? No. The best way to get older children adopted out is by them having a sibling born that their parents aren't allowed to keep by giving people what they want (the baby) if they take on an older child as well.

This doesn't work all the time; obviously tons of people are happy waiting the year.

I do think we need to do a big push in advertising or incentives or something to get older kids in stable homes through foster care and adoption. But you have to remember that all the kids in foster care are not up for adoption. Some of them are, but most of them aren't.

Now I know the statistics show a different story than my experience but I had a lot of friends in foster care and none of them had the options of being adopted to begin with, even though they aged out of the system. Some of them have families from their foster care days that they consider their real families, but they were never adopted. It wasn't an option. But I didn't live in a big city where I'm sure there are a lot more needing to be adopted.

One of the hardest things about being a foster parent is knowing that you'll have to let these kids go (possibly over and over again) that you're taking care of and falling in love with. It's hard to let them go; its even harder when they come back a few months later with a broken arm and then having to let them go again.

tl;dr Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with actually giving birth to babies not wanted by their parents, but those parents keeping the kids instead of giving them up for adoption. I agree that people who don't want kids shouldn't be raising them, but I just don't agree that they should kill them to accomplish this.

Thank you, sincerely, for educating me on the difference between adoption and foster care - I did not know much of that and I apologize for my ignorance. You just confirmed that it's even worse than I thought, if an abusive mother refuses to give up rights but abuse can't be proven enough to have rights taken away, then children can bounce back and forth between bad foster homes and bad birth parents without any chance of escape. And mothers who might be that kind of spiteful should be forced to give birth anyway?

But killing thousands of healthy babies isn't going to suddenly make these parents want to take on a disabled child.

I'm not trying to make anybody do anything they don't want to do. One of the many reasons a woman might abort is upon discovering her child will be born with special needs that she doesn't feel capable of handling; we can determine many disabilities in the womb. There's also mothers who happily decide to birth and raise such children. They choose. That's the point.

Are older children in foster care because no one wants to adopt them a problem? Yes, of course. Are people going to suddenly start adopting them, because we make who they really want to adopt unavailable by killing them? No. The best way to get older children adopted out is by them having a sibling born that their parents aren't allowed to keep by giving people what they want (the baby) if they take on an older child as well.

So the solution for unwanted children is not only to force mothers to give birth, but to force people who want to adopt to take on more children than they want? Some people are just all about forcing children on people who don't want them. But, again, thank you, you just educated me on yet another reason why people go outside the U.S. to adopt infants, when they don't want to wait a year.

Are people going to suddenly start adopting them, because we make who they really want to adopt unavailable by killing them? No.

Are people going to suddenly start adopting all the children there are if we have even more kids in the system by outlawing abortion? No. The number of adoptive parents or good foster homes for kids in a custody situation will not magically increase with the number of kids who need them.

It's hard to let them go; its even harder when they come back a few months later with a broken arm and then having to let them go again.

...and this is supposed to be better than abortion?

I don't agree that killing unborn kids is an ideal solution, either, because it's not - it's extreme damage control in the face of flawed and limited options. The ideal is comprehensive education, affordable birth control, and better safety nets for parents and children alike. But when all those ideals are lacking - which they most emphatically are in the U.S. as it is right now - elective abortion is what we have left. Outlawing it will not give women what they need to be happy and capable mothers. But keeping it legal will at least keep them from being mothers at all and prevent a lot of problems before they came about instead of letting them increase and complicate in the name of airy ideals.

There...there is so much wrong with this post I'm not sure where to begin. o.O

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2552 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject