How do you feel about the phrase ‘a domestic supply of infants'?

[Still-alive]

Feels like this has been largely overlooked, but Alito's draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion uses the phrase "domestic supply of infants." It's real, on page 34. DOMESTIC SUPPLY OF INFANTS. pic.twitter.com/VuQWTJ4NHd— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) May 6, 2022

found on page 34 of Justice Alito's opinion draft from the leak...

[Uannoyme]

Okay, I'm trying to make sense of what he's saying here. My guess is that he's saying there aren't a lot of infants available to be adopted here, so a lot of people adopt children from other countries. I didn't think that was the case. I thought people did that because adopting American infants is ridiculously expensive. Either way, this makes it sound like babies are commodities, I don't like the wording.

[Still-alive]

"it sound like babies are commodities, I don't like the wording. "

exactly

[goaded]

I'm sure the skin colour of those imported children has nothing to do with his reasoning.

If you adopt a baby, before it's learned to speak, how could it possibly matter which country its mother originated from?

[Cherry234]

It’s degrading and disgusting, talking about them like they’re consumer products. It makes me sick. They’re small adorable human beings, not consumer products.

[Cherry234]

Thanks for MHO.

[CrazyGirl2]

He is clearly referring to the supply of infants available for adoption! And if you would have included the context, this would be a self-answering question. How do I feel about it? Its just a fact, I don’t ascribe emotions to facts.

[Still-alive]

mmhmmm... adoption agencies that will be even more overburdened, underfunded, and just all around trash

[CrazyGirl2]

I’m not going to argue with you Doug! When you’ve had an abortion like I have, maybe THEN I’ll take your righteous indignation a little more seriously. You specifically invited me to give my opinion on that ONE sentence, I did! I do not deserve to be mocked or chided by you for merely doing something that you specifically asked me to do! It is completely unfair to pick-on or parse the words of someone who AGREES with you on Roe, but just does not believe that this will be nearly as cataclysmic as you think it will be! Doug, You are a man who lives in California! First, you will NEVER be pregnant, NEVER know that terrifying feeling of being 13, getting raped almost every day by a family member, and then discovering that you are pregnant… YOU will NEVER need an abortion. BUT… if your partner ever needs one, she will freely be able to get one, because ending Roe does not make abortion illegal, it sends it back to the states, and the state YOU live in, will NEVER outlaw abortion, NEVER! So chill out, and stop insulting and alienating people who still consider themselves to be your friends.

[Still-alive]

whoaa there... you're taking things too far... again...

first while i did invite you... it doesn't mean i can't disagree with your opinion. So you should probably understand that. again if you wish to not answer you are free not to. im not upset or offended if you choose not to.

2md. While i will not ever have abortions/babies/pregnancies i still am very much invested in what happens here. because i still signs that this will NOT stop at abortions. these conservatives are signaling at overturning other SCOTUS precedence like Gay marriage and.. yeah even contraceptives... so even if this one specific overturning won't affect me personally eventually down the road things may indeed affect me personally.

Also is it written somewhere that i can't care about what happens after roe v wade is overturned? Fact is i DO care, i care a great deal because this stuff affects a large portion of our countries population and subsequently the women in my life i personally care about. a few of whom i know first hand have had abortions in their lives.

Now addressing you actual answer here. you have to keep in mind that while yes it is a fact that he posted. this FACT is posted in a SCOTUS draft opinion about repealing the federal legalization of abortion. the phrase was deliberately chosen by Alito from a CDC document... and it is absolutely abhorrent to me that he chose this phrase to help justify overturning roe v wade. it makes babies out to seem like commodities to just be traded off. So imho he's saying a woman should be forced to carry a child up to full term and sold off to adoption agencies after birth if they cannot raise it themselves. it just reeks of inhumane and frankly disgusting rhetoric to me.

[Still-alive]

Look this issue is a highly emotional one. and while i am a man i was emotionally affected at reading this draft leaked so of course i will be a bit emotional in a few of my opinions and responses to people on here over this. It's not a direction i ever thought nor wanted to see our country go in.

Now im sorry for the 'mmhmmm' part i agree that was unnecessary. but everything else i say here remains.

[CrazyGirl2]

I completely disagree with your assertion that adoption agencies not having any new-born infants make babies a commodity “just to be traded off” and if you honestly thing that adoption agencies treat babies as “commodities to be traded off” then I genuinely feel sorry for you! It’s WELL known that couples adopting because they cannot conceive, VERY much prefer new-born or months old infants! That is just a fact! As for everything else, I said I am NOT arguing with you, and I am not!

[Still-alive]

ok then.

[goaded]

So, he's duty bound to follow the law without any consideration for 50 years of precedent, but one of the laws he's going to consider is the law of supply and demand for infants? Women should not suffer the loss of a pregnancy, they should give up the baby they've been forced to give birth to instead.

Obviously, none of the people wanting to adopt would be interested in small children, rather than infants. I wonder what he thinks of same-sex couples adopting.

[Likes2drive]

So basically they want to force women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy to give the baby up for adoption because we don’t have enough kids available for adoption? There are so many orphans and kids in foster homes already that nobody has adopted, they were once babies too, I don’t think there is enough suitable people to adopt kids. I don’t think that’s a good reason for or against abortion

[Harleigh90]

Its fucked up. To keep up stock supply, so basically human trafficking.

[Still-alive]

Handmaid's tale irl right there smh

[Harleigh90]

@Still-alive Disgusting. As if an abortion isn't already traumatic enough, having to go through a pregnancy and birth to then hand that baby over to the government. Makes me mad.

[purplepoppy]

Surely it's better to have a short supply than an abundance of unwanted kids. It's good that so many want to adopt that there's shortages but perhaps "pool of infants" might have sounded better

[DaveToo]

When old men, who may have gotten laid last time in 1974, are responsible for determining the rights of women, you will always find bigotry against women is rampant.

[aided_]

what the fuck
does that mean
is it like a collective noun
id call them an annoyance of infants

[Sargentcaptain]

Are there people who are seriously that fucking retarded that they can't see the quotation marks, ie, this isn't what the justice said?

[Still-alive]

he still quoted it... nope he doesn't get off for that he included that phrase.. and did it for a reason...

[Sargentcaptain]

Can a guy quote the Bible if he isn't Christian, without getting labeled a Christian simply for... quoting it?

[Still-alive]

context buddy. this is in an opinion justifying banning abortions.

Depends on why a guy quoted the bible. what passage and the context surrounding said quote.

[Sargentcaptain]

Do you really think that bringing up the content of the discussion is gonna be a good argument for you?

> man 'dehumanizes' child

> while defending... not murdering a child

[Still-alive]

lol i feel confident in my opinion yes.

[Sargentcaptain]

I admire your confidence, truly.

[Dinosaursandanime65]

“You people”?