SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade

ExpressLane said:
During any given years kids go in and out of the system. So 672 K kids spent time in the FC system in 2019.
Click to expand...

OK, but how many are currently in foster care right now?

You talk about them passing through it, but you shy away from the current number.

It's because it's only about 400,000, right? Which is far less than what the peak was back in the late 70's, if we are to believe your source.

The US grew from 205M people in 1970 to about 330M people today.

Yet, the foster care system only has about 400,000 kids in it right now.

So help me understand why you think more kids are in foster care now, post-Roe, than before Roe when the total number of kids has remained pretty stagnant since the early 80's?
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
Sure, if you get to define a child as anything you want but you won't even give us that definition because your argument has no internal consistency and your definition of a child is completely arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Does this look like a baby to you?

NRKlivP.jpg
 
LV426;5085716[B said:
]Your source is bunk and doesn't link to any data I can review[/B]...all links at the bottom of your link are dead.




"Spent time" means what?

That they were in the system, but aren't now.

So what's the current number of kids in the system? Not how many have passed through it in addition to who's currently in it.
Click to expand...
It has a very lengthy bibliography of government sites. Just feed the titles into google.
 
LV426 said:
OK, but how many are currently in foster care right now?

You talk about them passing through it, but you shy away from the current number.

It's because it's only about 400,000, right? Which is far less than what the peak was back in the late 70's, if we are to believe your source.

The US grew from 205M people in 1970 to about 330M people today.

Yet, the foster care system only has about 400,000 kids in it right now.

So help me understand why you think more kids are in foster care now, post-Roe, than before Roe when the total number of kids has remained pretty stagnant since the early 80's?
Click to expand...

Unwanted babies get adopted they don't go foster care most foster kids went in as kids because their parents lost parental rights for neglect, they are not in foster care because their parents put them there voluntarily. There are more prospective adoptive parents than babies available for adoption so spare us your lying bullshit.
 
FreeSpeech1789 said:
Unwanted babies get adopted they don't go foster care most foster kids went in as kids because their parents lost parental rights for neglect, they are not in foster care because their parents put them there voluntarily. There are more prospective adoptive parents than babies available for adoption so spare us your lying bullshit.
Click to expand...

The average age of a child in foster care is more than 8 years old.

https://www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children/children-in-foster-care/about-the-children#:~:text=The%20average%20age%20of%20a,and%20some%20form%20of%20trauma.
 
LV426 said:
Not just Roe, but Griswold, Loving, and Brown are also on the cjhopping block now.

The real goal of this isn't to end abortion; Conservatives don't give a shit about it...they want to bring back segregation:
Click to expand...

Says the proponent of the targeted mass infanticide of primarily black and brown babies.
 
LV426 said:
Your source is bunk and doesn't link to any data I can review...all links at the bottom of your link are dead.




"Spent time" means what?

That they were in the system, but aren't now.

So what's the current number of kids in the system? Not how many have passed through it in addition to who's currently in it.
Click to expand...

Now subtract 619,591 abortion in 2018 ALONE not to mention the number for 18 years and tell me how Abortion improved the Foster Care system. By your logic there should be no kids in the Foster Care system.
 
LV426 said:
Not just Roe, but Griswold, Loving, and Brown are also on the cjhopping block now.

The real goal of this isn't to end abortion; Conservatives don't give a shit about it...they want to bring back segregation:
Click to expand...

You obviously have not read the opinion:

Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would "threaten the Court's precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26 (citing Obergefell, Lawrence, Griswold) That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, "[a]bortion is a unique ad' because it terminates "life or potential life." 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is "inherently different from marital intimacy," "marriage," or "procreation"). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

It makes clear it does not affect the other privacy rights.

To suggest they want to get rid of Griswold, Loving, and Brown, or bring back segregation is just chicken little drama. It is scare tactics similar to election fraud claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top