Why don't we protect the baby and the mother at the same time ? Ha !

So when are we going to see more funding for the adoption system? They are quite desperate.

Maybe this deserve to be seen as one of the biggest issue in America. I think everything that is created for the children should be founded, and I think Americans will agree to pay taxes to found adoption system...

WELL LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT AMERICA!

You would think so, wouldn't you? But ALL efforts to increase tax funding for all childcare and childhood anti-poverty programs gets blocked.

Guess who blocks them? Consistently, every time?

By conservatives, of course. But I think they don't want childcare and childhood anti-povrety programs to be funded because they know it will cost money, and since they already have to pay for many services through taxes, they don't want the government to add another layer. If we lowered taxes for things that are almost useless (and in my opinion, there are quite a few), we could easily insert services to help unborn babies, babies to be adopted, poor children, parents, etc...

Well, let's tell little Timmy that if he can just keep eating out of a dumpster for just a few more decades until we all come to an agreement on a budget that makes everyone happy, then help will be on the way.

Here's the truth, and this is a rough one but it really is the truth: the United States pro-life brand as the public knows it is not interested in what happens to these babies after they are born; they want these babies not to exist. The most common argument they make in this context is "why didn't the mother just not have sex in the first place" like, yeah let's just into our time machine here.

Did you know the US has a diaper shortage? We don't even help new parents afford diapers. How basic is that? Where are the pro-life crusades with all their obsession with babies when the baby needs diapers?

Wouldn't it be nice if we all agreed that children needs support after they are born, regardless of what we believe about pregnancies? But generally speaking, child welfare is better off in the hands of liberal politicians than conservative ones.

Maybe child welfare would also be better off in hands of people who do not think in terms of color and demography...

This stupid "why didn't the mother just not have sex in the first place" thing is not the most common argument in the prolife movment (it is the most common argument for douchebags). If you look at prolife activist in social medias, you can see that they just want the baby and the mother to be safe, and the majority of them care of them in the future, after the baby's birth.
For the budget, you can't make anyone happy, in fact, you can't make anyone happy on any topic. Legalize abortion ? It will kill unborn babies ! Condemn abortion ? It's sexist !
If we want to make a quick and effective measure in childcare (before and after birth), classic negotiations, i.e. long, postponed and unsuccessful will be useless. In this case, a referendum is necessary. This is a free country, isn't it ? Let's ask the people's opinion. Do you want to lower your taxes to fund childcare ?

everyone should be prochoice

pro choice : supporting the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion (= the intentional ending of pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby
Cambridge dictionary, here's the link : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/pro-choice

Yeah, I see it, but I don’t understand the matter. Like why would you like marijuana to be legalized if you don’t want people to smoke it ? It’s like putting a chocolate box in the middle of a table surrounded by people and saying « you can’t eat the chocolates in this box »