I don't think that's how the adoption system works. But the demand for adoption is definitely greater than the supply, despite a significantly heftier price tag than having your own biologically
Okay, this raises some issues with health care in general then. Is the same logic not applicable to anyone in need of care?
Aren't we talking about critical care? The examples in question were keeping a fetus alive and not running over someone with a car and killing them. Both of those seem pretty critical to me.
I don't think me being in need of care is analogous to you refraining from doing something that kills me.
This argument has been made before by you and others. I understand what you are saying, but it implies innocence in the conception on the woman's part. And that is where I get hung up on that argument. If she ate some pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving dinner and it made her pregnant, I could see the argument. As if it was a random occurrence, like getting cancer or someone keying her car. But she engaged willingly in an action that's natural conclusion is the chance (not guarantee, but chance) of pregnancy. Much like the natural result of jumping out of an airplane is death due to sudden deceleration. Unless you take precautions such as a parachute. But then, there are times that chute will fail. And you have to accept your part in the outcome, no matter how sucky or unintended.
This. Leftists love to cry about how they're somehow being "controlled" when the notion of taking responsibility for your actions comes up, like noooooobody knows that getting pregnant is a possible result of having sex...
Ran across this comment on an article about David Daleiden's house being raided and thought it was an interesting take: