if you're going to exclude suggestions to protect kids you'd be far more effective by excluding biological straight parents. there's far more of them and they're far worse on average than adoptive gay parents.

biological straight parents are far more likely to abuse, neglect, etc kids. and there's far more of them. there's also no cognitive requirement to have children, but there are for adoption.

1. There ARE NO children if theres no heterosexual parents, bees and flowers you know?
2. Corrected text with bold
3. I think your post is a troll, since even you cannot be serious and type such a ***

I was serious, and you didn't address anything in my post.

biological parents are more likely to abuse than adoptive parents, and gay couples are 4x more likely to adopt. it's just basic numbers in the macro view tbh. maybe numbers are hard for you.

but whether biological or adoptive gay parents offer at worst as good of an outcome for children, and outperform based on many studies.

This is true, and is another nail in the coffin for the pro-abortion crowd who parrot the propaganda narrative that "adoption is bad"

ive been around a LOT of abortion debates, and never heard that once.

Really? That's the only argument they have for why anyone should be able to abort a viable child instead of giving it for adoption.

what? you realize there's about 8 months of pregnancy (if abortion in most cases is declined) and an actual birth, as well as many financial costs associated with both, to make a child. correct? then lasting impacts on the woman's physiology.

it's not "either i abort or i take it from the stork and hand it to a loving couple next tuesday".

honestly this reads like a "not how women work" redit post.

I always took you as someone who would be better served by a Dommy Mommy.



You did not.

Well I mean, let's look at this logically. There are already many children sitting in foster homes that go unadopted. If you were to then add the 2020 data of 930K abortions to that pool, presumably foster homes would be even more overwhelmed and we certainly don't have a system to deal with that, nor do we have that many families ready to adopt clearly since we already have a high ratio of kids in foster homes to adopted kids per year. Theres over 120K in foster homes and 18K or so are adopted per year. Add 930K to that.

So what's the point of a school being "private". Sounds like the government makes all the decisions for them already.

And if the government does this to private schools, they can also do it to private clubs. Heck, they can do it to pretty much anybody that wants to discriminate---"you can discriminate all you want until you cant". Makes little sense.