Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Golem said:

---

Democrats haven't been this angry since Republicans freed their slaves. Excellent decision.

I favor DeSantis in 24, but this is the EXACT reason Trump won in 16. This is another Trump win.

---

Ironically Trump is pro-abortion.

---

It appears merely being pro-constitution was enough.

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

What a canard! Pro-life and evangelical Christians adopt at a rate of about double the American population in general. It is the evangelical and pro-life population that puts up crisis pregnancy centers to help expectant mothers. Catholics maintain homes for unwed mothers and other women in crisis pregnancies. The pro-life movement most of all works to give children a fighting chance. Most people I know would much rather be alive and face challenges than be dead or not be given a chance. The pro-life movement works to give them that option.

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

You need to go back and really digest what rbb said.

Your logic doesn't compute unless you truly believe its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care.

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

In what ways has the pro-life movement shown that it doesn't care about children? Most often when I ask this question, its proponents state that evangelicals haven't supported whatever government program progressives want. What's your evidence?

Kavanaugh Burns Down His Home Just To Get It Over With

WASHINGTON, D.C.According to sources in the D.C. area, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh decided to "go ahead and get it over with" and burn his own home down before tonight's protests break out.
"Might as well face itthe sooner this puppy burns down, the sooner I can start rebuilding at an undisclosed location," Kavanaugh said to himself while dousing his home with kerosene, as his family piled into a minivan provided by a federal witness protection program. "At least I'll be sure to do a good job. Those antifa guys can be pretty sloppy."
Kavanaugh walked slowly through the house, carefully applying lighter fluid and other fuels throughout, as he reminisced about all the good times he'd had there and said goodbye to his material possessions. "Goodbye, statue of St. Mary. Goodbye, limited-edition Samuel Adams tap handle. And I'll miss you most of all, MAGA hat."
"Sometimes, when you want something done right, you just have to do it yourself," he added as he put the finishing touches on the home before throwing a match and walking away.
At publishing time, Kavanaugh had been seen taking a few family heirlooms from his home and getting into the van with his familyitems such as a baseball glove passed down from his father, his high school yearbook, and a St. Pauli Girl neon sign.
https://babylonbee.com/news/kavanaugh-burns-down-his-home-just-to-get-it-over-with

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

It doesn't help that the pro-life side, which is made up primarily of religious folks, often fight comprehensive sex education at ages when it would actually do good and resist cost- and shame-free contraceptives for those who could actually reduce teen pregnancies.

Neither side of the abortion debate is really very good about addressing the issue of unwanted pregnancies. One side views abortion as a right to be celebrated. The other views it as the root cause rather than the symptom it is.

---

The Pro Lifers I know do a lot to help pre & post birth.

---

That's great, but it doesn't change the facts. There are more than 400,000 kids in foster care currently, many of them eligible for near-immediate adoption, in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians. That's a disgrace.

---

It is a disgrace.
I guess we should have killed them when we could

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

---

I am. What are you doing?

OsoCoreyell said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

In what ways has the pro-life movement shown that it doesn't care about children? Most often when I ask this question, its proponents state that evangelicals haven't supported whatever government program progressives want. What's your evidence?

---

If you aren't willing to pay for a child from cradle to grave, via government transfer payments from one group to another, you are not pro life in the view of abortionists. You must be willing to engage in naked socialism to be pro life.

Someone scheduled to be aborted today in Texas is going to be alive.

Really think about that.


Put it up to bat against abortion to prevent hardship and where do you stand?

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

It doesn't help that the pro-life side, which is made up primarily of religious folks, often fight comprehensive sex education at ages when it would actually do good and resist cost- and shame-free contraceptives for those who could actually reduce teen pregnancies.

Neither side of the abortion debate is really very good about addressing the issue of unwanted pregnancies. One side views abortion as a right to be celebrated. The other views it as the root cause rather than the symptom it is.

---

The Pro Lifers I know do a lot to help pre & post birth.

---

That's great, but it doesn't change the facts. There are more than 400,000 kids in foster care currently, many of them eligible for near-immediate adoption, in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians. That's a disgrace.

---

There is no such thing as "immediate adoption". I have been there.

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

What a canard! Pro-life and evangelical Christians adopt at a rate of about double the American population in general. It is the evangelical and pro-life population that puts up crisis pregnancy centers to help expectant mothers. Catholics maintain homes for unwed mothers and other women in crisis pregnancies. The pro-life movement most of all works to give children a fighting chance. Most people I know would much rather be alive and face challenges than be dead or not be given a chance. The pro-life movement works to give them that option.

---

And yet, there are still over 400,000 children in foster care in a country with more than 200 million professed Christians. Reconcile that.

And talk **** all you want. I've adopted a child out of foster care. This isn't a theoretical discussion for me.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

That's not my point. My point is that those of you who claim to be pro-life need to start putting your money where your mouth is.

Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.

Y'all've done a really ****ty job of proving it since Roe. I have my doubts that anything will change now.

---

You're probably not aware of this, but statics show that pro-lifers are like 10 times more likely to donate money to charities and adopt than pro-choicers.

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Everything in life has consequences.

---

Disproportionate consequences.

---

That's life.

---

Says the gender that gets the benefit of the disproportion.

---

My wife says it louder than I do.

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

Have you spent even 5 seconds researching how much money churches and religious organizations have given to children and poverty relief programs over the past 50 years?

Or have you not even done the smallest bit of research before spouting off a stupid ****ing talking point like that.

The medical/health care system is this country would collapse overnight if you removed the Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, and Jewish hospitals.

And even if the so-called religious right had not given a penny to children. If would not give anyone the right to murder them in the womb.

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazine/less-god-less-giving/

https://www.americamagazine.org/content/unconventional-wisdom/blue-states-get-dinged-almanac-american-philanthropy

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-people-more-likely-give-charity-study/

Take the LDS/Mormons alone: "Latter-day Saint Charities has supplied more than $2.3 billion worth of assistance in 197 countries. That figure was pegged at $2.2 billion in 2018."

Or the Catholic Church: "but Catholic charities alone seem to account for 17 percent to 34 percent of all nonprofit social-service charity in the USA, depending on how generous an estimate you make"

"In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States"

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/mar/19/frank-keating/does-catholic-church-provide-half-social-services-/

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

What a canard! Pro-life and evangelical Christians adopt at a rate of about double the American population in general. It is the evangelical and pro-life population that puts up crisis pregnancy centers to help expectant mothers. Catholics maintain homes for unwed mothers and other women in crisis pregnancies. The pro-life movement most of all works to give children a fighting chance. Most people I know would much rather be alive and face challenges than be dead or not be given a chance. The pro-life movement works to give them that option.

---

And yet, there are still over 400,000 children in foster care in a country with more than 200 million professed Christians. Reconcile that.

---

Yes, most children in foster care are not eligible for adoption.

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

How much more likely are Christians to adopt?

Quote:

---

Barna Research has found that practicing Christians are more than twice as likely to adopt as the general population. These findings also showed that practicing Christians were more likely to adopt older children, children with special needs, and other children considered "hard to place."Jun 23, 2018

---

Now if the rest of the population would do this we would be aright.

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Everything in life has consequences.

---

Disproportionate consequences.

---

That's life.

---

Says the gender that gets the benefit of the disproportion.

---

Humans have a sex. Only words have a gender.

bear2be2 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Couples have unplanned pregnancies, not women. And birth control is not 100% effective. The idea that all women control this type of decision making is unbelievably sheltered and naive.

---

Abstinence is 100% effective. But that's just a fancy way of dressing up the evil "personal responsibility" that we all should strive to avoid in all aspects of our lives, right?

---

Abstinence promotion/education as a means of reducing unwanted pregnancies is wholly ineffective because humans, like all other animals, are driven by instincts. Expecting immature teenagers with raging hormones and underdeveloped brains to make the right decisions is not a strategy. It's naivety.

---

So we kill unborn humans because humans are mere animals who cannot control themselves? Why not allow murder of all ages for the same reason?

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

I'm no great fan of abortion as a practice, but you can already see the practical effects this ruling will have in places where access is heavily restricted. And the most damaging outcomes will skew, as these things always do, toward the most disadvantaged populations among us.

More than for anyone else, I'm disheartened for the thousands of children who will soon be added to the nearly half-million kids we already have in foster care -- many of whom will age out to horrific outcomes while being called a victory by politicians and the religious right.

This country doesn't have an abortion problem as much has it has an unwanted pregnancy/uncared-for child problem. And restricting abortion access will do nothing to solve that. When those who are most anti-abortion are prepared to make contraceptives available to all who want/need them and will take on the burden themselves of fostering and adopting all of the children who need stable homes in this country, I'll take the term "pro-life" more seriously. But pro-birth policies create and exacerbate as many problems as they solve.

---

You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?

What.....

This is like when you see some rich liberals say..."What's the point of being alive if you have to life in poverty in the 3rd world"

What a disgusting nihilistic view of human life.

---

I think that the religious right has had 49 years to prove that it actually cares about the children it's demanding be birthed into this world, and it has failed miserably.

There's no risk whatsoever in saying that you're anti-abortion. Most of us are anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion side has a hell of a long way to go to earn the moniker pro-life. And I suspect it will do the exact same thing the next 50 years it has done the last 50 years, which is to stop caring about children the day they're born.

---

What a canard! Pro-life and evangelical Christians adopt at a rate of about double the American population in general. It is the evangelical and pro-life population that puts up crisis pregnancy centers to help expectant mothers. Catholics maintain homes for unwed mothers and other women in crisis pregnancies. The pro-life movement most of all works to give children a fighting chance. Most people I know would much rather be alive and face challenges than be dead or not be given a chance. The pro-life movement works to give them that option.

---

And yet, there are still over 400,000 children in foster care in a country with more than 200 million professed Christians. Reconcile that.

And talk **** all you want. I've adopted a child out of foster care. This isn't a theoretical discussion for me.

---

Just so I've got this right…,your argument is that pro-lifers are not entitled to oppose abortion because there are unadopted orphans in the United States? And that because you have adopted a child out of foster-care, you are in the right in your support of abortion?

out with the Old:
Trump put our whole democracy at risk!!!

in with the New:
To hell with the Supreme Court!!!!