So, you think Pro-Life people don't deserve to be called pro-life because they adopt at double the rate of the general American population but have not adopted everyone who is eligible for adoption. "rolls eyes"bear2be2 said:I didn't say most were. I said many are. Here's a good resource for those who might interested in the subject.He Hate Me said:Yes, most children in foster care are not eligible for adoption.bear2be2 said:And yet, there are still over 400,000 children in foster care in a country with more than 200 million professed Christians. Reconcile that.He Hate Me said: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: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.Redbrickbear said:You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://www.adoptuskids.org/adoption-and-foster-care/overview/adoption-from-foster-care
Dobbs v. Jackson
32,670 Views |
638 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Cobretti
Christians should be more likely to adopt. Anyone who's read the gospels can tell how important the subject was to Jesus.Forest Bueller_bf said:How much more likely are Christians to adopt?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.Now if the rest of the population would do this we would be aright.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
Christians should also be ashamed by the number of kids who age out of foster care. That's a direct indictment of them.
It is an indictment of the parents who put them there. It is not an indictment of the Christian who stood up and insisted that they be allowed a chance at life.bear2be2 said:Forest Bueller_bf said:How much more likely are Christians to adopt?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.Now if the rest of the population would do this we would be aright.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
Christians should also be ashamed by the number of kids who age out of foster care. That's a direct indictment of them.
On the bright side, the libs have quickly switched back from "pregnant people" to "women".
So prevent their existence and problem solved?bear2be2 said:They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
And yet despite that, the percentage of Christian families that actually do foster and/or adopt is still woefully low, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to live dysfunctional lives in and out of temporary homes.
If welfare was unlimited and foster care got every child into a home, we'd still have a pro abortion movement that justifies it because having a child gets in the way of their selfish desires.
bear2be2 said:They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
And yet despite that, the percentage of Christian families that actually do foster and/or adopt is still woefully low, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to live dysfunctional lives in and out of temporary homes.
Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.Quote:
Many factors can influence the overall cost of child adoption in Texas, so there is no clear-cut answer. The total cost includes expenses and fees for adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, and other professional services. However, the average private adoption in Texas can cost between $60,000 and $65,000.
Since financially I had zero chance to adopt when I was the age I might have, instead I donate to Crisis pregnancy centers, places that show young mothers where to be able to access the help they need and help them.
Also continually supply Mission Arlington with clothes, resources, bedding, other items that young mothers need. Just cause you can't afford to adopt doesn't mean you can't help in other ways.
Just by your attitude towards the Evangelical community, I have a feeling you are not a member of it.
I'm not pro-abortion. I'm against making abortion a trite political issue with no skin whatsoever in the game. And then pretending that birth alone is the victory.He Hate Me said:How many times did you look at that child and think, "It would have been better if you had not been born?" And now you understand the cynicism and brutality that is the pro-abortion perspective.bear2be2 said:He Hate Me said: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: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.Redbrickbear said:You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
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.
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.
And talk **** all you want. I've adopted a child out of foster care. This isn't a theoretical discussion for me.
I truly wish abortion didn't exist. But until this country can take care of all the children in it who need stable/loving homes, abortion is a symptom, not the cause.
Not to mention that 120 years ago a large majority of our ancestors were simply dirt poor. 300 years back something like 90% of our ancestors would have been dirt poor. And the further back in time you go the poorer and harsher life got for all our ancestors.Doc Holliday said:So prevent their existence and problem solved?bear2be2 said:They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
And yet despite that, the percentage of Christian families that actually do foster and/or adopt is still woefully low, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to live dysfunctional lives in and out of temporary homes.
If welfare was unlimited and foster care got every child into a home, we'd still have a pro abortion movement that justifies it because having a child gets in the way of their selfish desires.
Should they have just aborted their kids because there was no social safety net?
I will never understand this liberal-leftist mentality.
Its beyond materialistic...its damn near hedonistic/nihilistic
"A life not lived in material abundance is a life unworthy of life."
That's great. I appreciate you and hope more follow y'all's lead.Mothra said:I am sure you and thankful that the birth mom didn't put her down.bear2be2 said:Sitting with my beautiful 7-year-old daughter, who my wife and I fostered and adopted.Osodecentx said:I am. What are you doing?bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.
We started fostering 5 years ago, and my wife actually serves on the board of a crisis pregnancy center. It has been a difficult but likewise rewarding experience.
Are you trying to suggest the left is anti-condom? That's hard to support when virtually every policy to make contraceptives more affordable and readily available has come from that side of the aisle.Doc Holliday said:One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.bear2be2 said: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.Doc Holliday said:With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
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.
Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.
bear2be2 said:I'm not pro-abortion. I'm against making abortion a trite political issue with no skin whatsoever in the game. And then pretending that birth alone is the victory.He Hate Me said:How many times did you look at that child and think, "It would have been better if you had not been born?" And now you understand the cynicism and brutality that is the pro-abortion perspective.bear2be2 said:He Hate Me said: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: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.Redbrickbear said:You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
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.
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.
And talk **** all you want. I've adopted a child out of foster care. This isn't a theoretical discussion for me.
As he got closer, he called out, "Good morning! W hat are you doing?" The young man paused, looked up and replied, "Throwing starfish into the ocean."
"I guess I should have asked, "Why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?"
"The sun is up and the tide is going out. And if I don't throw them in they'll die.
"But young man, don't you realize that there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it. You can't possibly make a difference!"
The young man listened politely. Then bent down, picked up another starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves. "It made a difference for that one!"
Considering that the number of children eligible for adoption (roughly 117,000) make up 0.06 percent of the population in this country of those professing to be Christians, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're not talking about a huge percentage of people choosing to foster and/or adopt here. We're talking about an infinitesimal percentage. And still that's too much to ask apparently.He Hate Me said:So, you think Pro-Life people don't deserve to be called pro-life because they adopt at double the rate of the general American population but have not adopted everyone who is eligible for adoption. "rolls eyes"bear2be2 said:I didn't say most were. I said many are. Here's a good resource for those who might interested in the subject.He Hate Me said:Yes, most children in foster care are not eligible for adoption.bear2be2 said:And yet, there are still over 400,000 children in foster care in a country with more than 200 million professed Christians. Reconcile that.He Hate Me said: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: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.Redbrickbear said:You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://www.adoptuskids.org/adoption-and-foster-care/overview/adoption-from-foster-care
Christians still adopt at double the rate of Americans generally. Your argument would be like someone giving you a hard time because you adopted only one child.bear2be2 said:Considering that the number of children eligible for adoption (roughly 117,000) make up 0.06 percent of the population in this country of those professing to be Christians, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're not talking about a huge percentage of people choosing to foster and/or adopt here. We're talking about an infinitesimal percentage. And still that's too much to ask apparently.He Hate Me said:So, you think Pro-Life people don't deserve to be called pro-life because they adopt at double the rate of the general American population but have not adopted everyone who is eligible for adoption. "rolls eyes"bear2be2 said:I didn't say most were. I said many are. Here's a good resource for those who might interested in the subject.He Hate Me said:Yes, most children in foster care are not eligible for adoption.bear2be2 said:And yet, there are still over 400,000 children in foster care in a country with more than 200 million professed Christians. Reconcile that.He Hate Me said: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: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.Redbrickbear said:You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://www.adoptuskids.org/adoption-and-foster-care/overview/adoption-from-foster-care
And what is the the percentage that is Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist/agnostic?bear2be2 said:Considering that the number of children eligible for adoption (roughly 117,000) make up 0.06 percent of the population in this country of those professing to be Christians, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. We're not talking about a huge percentage of people choosing to foster and/or adopt here. We're talking about an infinitesimal percentage. And still that's too much to ask apparently.He Hate Me said:So, you think Pro-Life people don't deserve to be called pro-life because they adopt at double the rate of the general American population but have not adopted everyone who is eligible for adoption. "rolls eyes"bear2be2 said:I didn't say most were. I said many are. Here's a good resource for those who might interested in the subject.He Hate Me said:Yes, most children in foster care are not eligible for adoption.bear2be2 said:And yet, there are still over 400,000 children in foster care in a country with more than 200 million professed Christians. Reconcile that.He Hate Me said: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: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.Redbrickbear said:You think its better if children are never born than for them to end up in foster care?bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://www.adoptuskids.org/adoption-and-foster-care/overview/adoption-from-foster-care
Can Christians do more on all social fronts? sure
But the first step in creating a just world for children is ending the horrible practice of abortion.
You are like the person in 1865 worrying what will happen to the slaves turned lose after the 13th amendment. "What will happen to them with no place to live or rights to property or jobs?.
Well the first step is giving slaves their freedom...then the other problems can be addressed after that.
Adoption out of the foster care system is a fraction of that cost. In fact, they pay you a monthly stipend while you're fostering and there's a tax credit to cover the legal costs of the adoption.Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
And yet despite that, the percentage of Christian families that actually do foster and/or adopt is still woefully low, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to live dysfunctional lives in and out of temporary homes.Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.Quote:
Many factors can influence the overall cost of child adoption in Texas, so there is no clear-cut answer. The total cost includes expenses and fees for adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, and other professional services. However, the average private adoption in Texas can cost between $60,000 and $65,000.
Since financially I had zero chance to adopt when I was the age I might have, instead I donate to Crisis pregnancy centers, places that show young mothers where to be able to access the help they need and help them.
Also continually supply Mission Arlington with clothes, resources, bedding, other items that young mothers need. Just cause you can't afford to adopt doesn't mean you can't help in other ways.
Just by your attitude towards the Evangelical community, I have a feeling you are not a member of it.
For those looking to adopt, foster to adopt is a much, much more affordable option. The greatest cost is emotional, as the state's goal in every foster care case is family reunification.
bear2be2 said:Adoption out of the foster care system is a fraction of that cost. In fact, they pay you a monthly stipend while you're fostering and there's a tax credit to cover the legal costs of the adoption.Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
And yet despite that, the percentage of Christian families that actually do foster and/or adopt is still woefully low, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to live dysfunctional lives in and out of temporary homes.Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.Quote:
Many factors can influence the overall cost of child adoption in Texas, so there is no clear-cut answer. The total cost includes expenses and fees for adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, and other professional services. However, the average private adoption in Texas can cost between $60,000 and $65,000.
Since financially I had zero chance to adopt when I was the age I might have, instead I donate to Crisis pregnancy centers, places that show young mothers where to be able to access the help they need and help them.
Also continually supply Mission Arlington with clothes, resources, bedding, other items that young mothers need. Just cause you can't afford to adopt doesn't mean you can't help in other ways.
Just by your attitude towards the Evangelical community, I have a feeling you are not a member of it.
For those looking to adopt, foster to adopt is a much, much more affordable option. The greatest cost is emotional, as the state's goal in every foster care case is family reunification.
Why So Many Families Who Want To Adopt Can't (thefederalist.com)
And yes, the emotional toll of adoption is far greater than any financial cost.
I've seen families torn up DUE to the adoption process.
That story was about traditional adoption, not adopting out of the foster care system. Other than the costs involved, infant adoption isn't really an issue because there are so many parents who want infants. I'm talking kids in the foster care system. Those children are in far greater supply than demand unfortunately.Jack Bauer said:bear2be2 said:Adoption out of the foster care system is a fraction of that cost. In fact, they pay you a monthly stipend while you're fostering and there's a tax credit to cover the legal costs of the adoption.Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
And yet despite that, the percentage of Christian families that actually do foster and/or adopt is still woefully low, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to live dysfunctional lives in and out of temporary homes.Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.Quote:
Many factors can influence the overall cost of child adoption in Texas, so there is no clear-cut answer. The total cost includes expenses and fees for adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, and other professional services. However, the average private adoption in Texas can cost between $60,000 and $65,000.
Since financially I had zero chance to adopt when I was the age I might have, instead I donate to Crisis pregnancy centers, places that show young mothers where to be able to access the help they need and help them.
Also continually supply Mission Arlington with clothes, resources, bedding, other items that young mothers need. Just cause you can't afford to adopt doesn't mean you can't help in other ways.
Just by your attitude towards the Evangelical community, I have a feeling you are not a member of it.
For those looking to adopt, foster to adopt is a much, much more affordable option. The greatest cost is emotional, as the state's goal in every foster care case is family reunification.
Why So Many Families Who Want To Adopt Can't (thefederalist.com)
And yes, the emotional toll of adoption is far greater than any financial cost.
I've seen families torn up DUE to the adoption process.
bear2be2 said:Sitting with my beautiful 7-year-old daughter, who my wife and I fostered and adopted.Osodecentx said:I am. What are you doing?bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.
Only one? There are 400,000 out there
Look, y'all did a good thing. You assume nobody on my side does good things too.
The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.Doc Holliday said:One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.bear2be2 said:
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.
Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.
Sometimes men remove the condom without the woman's consent, a practice known as stealthing. Apparently, this is common enough that California has outlawed it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sealthing-california-law-condom-consent-1222879/
The nonconsensual removal of a condom without a partner's consent is widely known as "stealthing." The term was popularized by an April 2017 paper by then-Columbia law student and author of Sexual Justice Alexandra Brodsky, who interviewed subjects mostly women who had been victims of the practice. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Brodsky says that while her subjects couldn't quite find the language to identify the practice, all recognized that it had been a significant violation of their boundaries and consent. ...
Prior to Brodsky's research, "stealthing" was a fairly well-known term within the gay community, particularly with reference to an HIV-positive man actively trying to infect an HIV-negative man without their knowledge or consent.
Among men who have sex with women, the practice of removing a condom without a partner's consent had also been somewhat well-documented, with one 2014 study finding that nearly 10 percent of young men had engaged in some form of condom sabotage, such as poking a hole in a condom or removing it without their partner's knowledge or consent.
Though pre-marital sex is still wrong, this is just a sick practice. Bordering on criminal. In the HIV situation it is criminal. Should be attempted murder.J.B.Katz said:The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.Doc Holliday said:One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.bear2be2 said:
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.
Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.
Sometimes men remove the condom without the woman's consent, a practice known as stealthing. Apparently, this is common enough that California has outlawed it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sealthing-california-law-condom-consent-1222879/
The nonconsensual removal of a condom without a partner's consent is widely known as "stealthing." The term was popularized by an April 2017 paper by then-Columbia law student and author of Sexual Justice Alexandra Brodsky, who interviewed subjects mostly women who had been victims of the practice. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Brodsky says that while her subjects couldn't quite find the language to identify the practice, all recognized that it had been a significant violation of their boundaries and consent. ...
Prior to Brodsky's research, "stealthing" was a fairly well-known term within the gay community, particularly with reference to an HIV-positive man actively trying to infect an HIV-negative man without their knowledge or consent.
Among men who have sex with women, the practice of removing a condom without a partner's consent had also been somewhat well-documented, with one 2014 study finding that nearly 10 percent of young men had engaged in some form of condom sabotage, such as poking a hole in a condom or removing it without their partner's knowledge or consent.
I don't assume that. I personally know many wonderful Christian couples who have fostered and adopted kids in my community, and I appreciate every one of them. But I also know that the need for foster and adoptive parents continues to outpace the number of both, and I'm going to continue to point that out until it's no longer the case.Osodecentx said:bear2be2 said:Sitting with my beautiful 7-year-old daughter, who my wife and I fostered and adopted.Osodecentx said:I am. What are you doing?bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
Y'all say you care about children. Prove it.
Only one? There are 400,000 out there
Look, y'all did a good thing. You assume nobody on my side does good things too.
And as to your first sentence, I hope I have the opportunity to foster again at some point in the future. We're not in a position to do so now financially, but my wife and I have talked a lot about it.
I used Stealthing as part of my discussion with my children about why casual sex and sex outside of marriage is a very bad idea before they went off the college. You can't trust partners you don't know well to be honest, and you should know anyone you have that intimate a relationship with well enough to trust them completely.Forest Bueller_bf said:Though pre-marital sex is still wrong, this is just a sick practice. Bordering on criminal. In the HIV situation it is criminal. Should be attempted murder.J.B.Katz said:The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.Doc Holliday said:One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.bear2be2 said:
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.
Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.
Sometimes men remove the condom without the woman's consent, a practice known as stealthing. Apparently, this is common enough that California has outlawed it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sealthing-california-law-condom-consent-1222879/
The nonconsensual removal of a condom without a partner's consent is widely known as "stealthing." The term was popularized by an April 2017 paper by then-Columbia law student and author of Sexual Justice Alexandra Brodsky, who interviewed subjects mostly women who had been victims of the practice. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Brodsky says that while her subjects couldn't quite find the language to identify the practice, all recognized that it had been a significant violation of their boundaries and consent. ...
Prior to Brodsky's research, "stealthing" was a fairly well-known term within the gay community, particularly with reference to an HIV-positive man actively trying to infect an HIV-negative man without their knowledge or consent.
Among men who have sex with women, the practice of removing a condom without a partner's consent had also been somewhat well-documented, with one 2014 study finding that nearly 10 percent of young men had engaged in some form of condom sabotage, such as poking a hole in a condom or removing it without their partner's knowledge or consent.
But let's be real: In an era when the average age of marriage for women is late 20s and for men early 30s, most people are not going to be abstinent.
And we don't have a society right now that's marriage friendly. Even w/both members of a couple working, homes are hard to afford. Wages have not risen nearly as fast as real estate prices. Many people don't have access to paid maternity/paternity leave. At some firms, you're penalized professionally if you take it.
Child care is prohibitively expensive, and that's if you can find good child care. We offer no subsidies and most workplaces are still hostile to work-life balance and penalize employees of both sexes who have to take time off to care for kids (or elders, for that matter).
We don't offer good prenatal care that's universally available.
We don't offer universal healthcare.
Medicaid may be available to kids but not to mom. The Medicaid benefits in my state suck.
Republicans don't support any of the social supports that make childbearing and rearing possible and affordable.
There's also an attitude that pregnant women got what they deserved and the pregnancy is the way they should pay the consequences for having sex. As if no man was involved. The SBC and Catholic histories on sexual abuse by priests of women and children are a clear indicator of how religions controlled by male heirarchies view male sexual sin--with a much more forgiving eye than female sexual sin.
Booray said:Redbrickbear said:The Supreme law of the land it the U.S. Constitution.Osodecentx said:
Roberts criticizes fellow conservatives for overturning Roe
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized his fellow conservatives for overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, saying it was not necessary to overturn that precedent in order to uphold Mississippi's law forbidding most abortions after 15 weeks.
"Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis," he wrote. "The Court's opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us."
It says nothing about abortion one way or the other.
Roberts is wrong....Roe was always wrongly decided and terrible law.
It took a solemn right of the States from them.
Abortion is purely a State matter until such time as a Constitutional amendment is passed that deals with the issue (for or against).
You do not understand Roberts' argument.
Indeed, he does not. (One of many things in that category).
D. C. Bear said:Booray said:Redbrickbear said:The Supreme law of the land it the U.S. Constitution.Osodecentx said:
Roberts criticizes fellow conservatives for overturning Roe
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized his fellow conservatives for overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, saying it was not necessary to overturn that precedent in order to uphold Mississippi's law forbidding most abortions after 15 weeks.
"Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis," he wrote. "The Court's opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us."
It says nothing about abortion one way or the other.
Roberts is wrong....Roe was always wrongly decided and terrible law.
It took a solemn right of the States from them.
Abortion is purely a State matter until such time as a Constitutional amendment is passed that deals with the issue (for or against).
You do not understand Roberts' argument.
Indeed, he does not. (One of many things in that category).
Roberts' argument is always and ever that Roberts is an intellectual coward, hesitant or down right unwilling to dismiss what is clearly unconstitutional legislating from the bench masquerading as precedent.
Thomas, as usual, is 100% correct in his concurring opinion.
Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.bear2be2 said:Adoption out of the foster care system is a fraction of that cost. In fact, they pay you a monthly stipend while you're fostering and there's a tax credit to cover the legal costs of the adoption.Forest Bueller_bf said:bear2be2 said:They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
And yet despite that, the percentage of Christian families that actually do foster and/or adopt is still woefully low, leaving hundreds of thousands of children to live dysfunctional lives in and out of temporary homes.Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.Quote:
Many factors can influence the overall cost of child adoption in Texas, so there is no clear-cut answer. The total cost includes expenses and fees for adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, and other professional services. However, the average private adoption in Texas can cost between $60,000 and $65,000.
Since financially I had zero chance to adopt when I was the age I might have, instead I donate to Crisis pregnancy centers, places that show young mothers where to be able to access the help they need and help them.
Also continually supply Mission Arlington with clothes, resources, bedding, other items that young mothers need. Just cause you can't afford to adopt doesn't mean you can't help in other ways.
Just by your attitude towards the Evangelical community, I have a feeling you are not a member of it.
For those looking to adopt, foster to adopt is a much, much more affordable option. The greatest cost is emotional, as the state's goal in every foster care case is family reunification.
This threat got derailed pretty quickly by this strawman argument. There's no reason to talk about the foster care system and it's flaws regarding the topic of abortion.
Trump's legacy continues.Mothra said:
And of course the Chief Justice sides with the liberals on the Court. What an incredible disappointment he has been.
And lo and behold, two of the Justices that helped get Roe overturned were appointed by the orange devil, once again, validating a vote for him.
Unless a couple of the Supreme Court justices commit 'suicide' .
.@AOC says SCOTUS "chose to endanger the lives of all women and all birthing people in this country...they've chosen to strip rights from men too." pic.twitter.com/ma1xbaVrUQ
— MRCTV (@mrctv) June 24, 2022
He knows...it just bounces off.Mothra said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
As a potential birthing person, I feel the loss. I am literally shaking.Cobretti said:.@AOC says SCOTUS "chose to endanger the lives of all women and all birthing people in this country...they've chosen to strip rights from men too." pic.twitter.com/ma1xbaVrUQ
— MRCTV (@mrctv) June 24, 2022
He Hate Me said:As a potential birthing person, I feel the loss. I am literally shaking.Cobretti said:.@AOC says SCOTUS "chose to endanger the lives of all women and all birthing people in this country...they've chosen to strip rights from men too." pic.twitter.com/ma1xbaVrUQ
— MRCTV (@mrctv) June 24, 2022
His point was that one talking point several justices, including Barrett, have used in supporting the overturn of Roe is that mothers who aren't in a position to raise a child can put their children up for adoption.JL said:Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.bear2be2 said:Adoption out of the foster care system is a fraction of that cost. In fact, they pay you a monthly stipend while you're fostering and there's a tax credit to cover the legal costs of the adoption.Forest Bueller_bf said:Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.Quote:
Many factors can influence the overall cost of child adoption in Texas, so there is no clear-cut answer. The total cost includes expenses and fees for adoption agencies, adoption attorneys, and other professional services. However, the average private adoption in Texas can cost between $60,000 and $65,000.
Since financially I had zero chance to adopt when I was the age I might have, instead I donate to Crisis pregnancy centers, places that show young mothers where to be able to access the help they need and help them.
Also continually supply Mission Arlington with clothes, resources, bedding, other items that young mothers need. Just cause you can't afford to adopt doesn't mean you can't help in other ways.
Just by your attitude towards the Evangelical community, I have a feeling you are not a member of it.
For those looking to adopt, foster to adopt is a much, much more affordable option. The greatest cost is emotional, as the state's goal in every foster care case is family reunification.
This threat got derailed pretty quickly by this strawman argument. There's no reason to talk about the foster care system and it's flaws regarding the topic of abortion.
There was a furor because a footnote in the leaked opinion mentioned a "domestic supply of infants" that was now "virtually nonexistent."
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/posts-misattribute-phrase-domestic-supply-of-infants-in-draft-opinion-on-abortion/
Some took the implication to be that overturning Roe would increase the "supply of (white) domestic infants" available for adoption and that this was a public good. People who believe in bodily autonomy don't approve of having the government effectively commandeer a woman's body the instant an egg is fertilized and essentially make healthcare decisions for her that favor the viability of the fetus over her life and liberty. I think this decision effectively ensures that some women will be prosecuted for having a miscarriage.
During the Dobbs oral argument, Barrett cited the availability of safe haven laws allowing mothers who couldn't raise a baby to just drop it off at a firehall as an acceptable counter (to her) for the argument that forced birth may also mean forced parenting and forced motherhood.
The point here is that purportedly pro-life Christians haven't exactly stepped up to give the unwanted children already being born in the U.S. safe and kind homes.
Here's Laurance Tribe's take on that:
Exactly. Justice Barrett all but said that forced pregnancy is constitutionally acceptable as long as women don’t face jail time for giving up the babies they’re compelled to gestate. What a pathetically impoverished view of women’s liberty, equality, and dignity! https://t.co/Nl8PlnANUl
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 1, 2021
"You can't make me wear a face mask in a pandemic, but i can make you carry a baby to term."
— Surreal Abraham Lincoln (@SurrealALincoln) June 24, 2022
Businesses in Dallas are boarding up https://t.co/0tjr0rTYz0
— ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) June 24, 2022
Businesses/buildings are boarding up in downtown Washington DC, following landmark Supreme Court decision to overrule Roe V Wade - which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. #SupremeCourt #RoeVsWade pic.twitter.com/1ZFrBnaS1M
— Chris Glover (@chrisgloverCBC) June 24, 2022
How do you know we don't? And you apparently have no clue how the foster system works. Unplanned pregnancies have little to nothing to do with our foster care system.bear2be2 said: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.Mothra said:So, put them down like stray dogs then.bear2be2 said: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.BaylorJacket said:303Bear said: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.BaylorJacket said:
It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.
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
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.
Nope.
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.
How about you address the systemic result of social attitudes pushed by your ilk, compounded by the callous way you devalue life.
It's such a first world attitude of convenience to just abort a problem away with money, and that disagreeing with that is somehow "not caring enough" about children. What an absolute heartless and idiotic thought process.
J.B.Katz said:I used Stealthing as part of my discussion with my children about why casual sex and sex outside of marriage is a very bad idea before they went off the college. You can't trust partners you don't know well to be honest, and you should know anyone you have that intimate a relationship with well enough to trust them completely.Forest Bueller_bf said:Though pre-marital sex is still wrong, this is just a sick practice. Bordering on criminal. In the HIV situation it is criminal. Should be attempted murder.J.B.Katz said:The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.Doc Holliday said:One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.bear2be2 said:
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.
Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.
Sometimes men remove the condom without the woman's consent, a practice known as stealthing. Apparently, this is common enough that California has outlawed it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sealthing-california-law-condom-consent-1222879/
The nonconsensual removal of a condom without a partner's consent is widely known as "stealthing." The term was popularized by an April 2017 paper by then-Columbia law student and author of Sexual Justice Alexandra Brodsky, who interviewed subjects mostly women who had been victims of the practice. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Brodsky says that while her subjects couldn't quite find the language to identify the practice, all recognized that it had been a significant violation of their boundaries and consent. ...
Prior to Brodsky's research, "stealthing" was a fairly well-known term within the gay community, particularly with reference to an HIV-positive man actively trying to infect an HIV-negative man without their knowledge or consent.
Among men who have sex with women, the practice of removing a condom without a partner's consent had also been somewhat well-documented, with one 2014 study finding that nearly 10 percent of young men had engaged in some form of condom sabotage, such as poking a hole in a condom or removing it without their partner's knowledge or consent.
But let's be real: In an era when the average age of marriage for women is late 20s and for men early 30s, most people are not going to be abstinent.
And we don't have a society right now that's marriage friendly. Even w/both members of a couple working, homes are hard to afford. Wages have not risen nearly as fast as real estate prices. Many people don't have access to paid maternity/paternity leave. At some firms, you're penalized professionally if you take it.
Child care is prohibitively expensive, and that's if you can find good child care. We offer no subsidies and most workplaces are still hostile to work-life balance and penalize employees of both sexes who have to take time off to care for kids (or elders, for that matter).
We don't offer good prenatal care that's universally available.
We don't offer universal healthcare.
Medicaid may be available to kids but not to mom. The Medicaid benefits in my state suck.
Republicans don't support any of the social supports that make childbearing and rearing possible and affordable.
There's also an attitude that pregnant women got what they deserved and the pregnancy is the way they should pay the consequences for having sex. As if no man was involved. The SBC and Catholic histories on sexual abuse by priests of women and children are a clear indicator of how religions controlled by male heirarchies view male sexual sin--with a much more forgiving eye than female sexual sin.
Several posts on this thread from people happy with the decision really drive home the "it's the woman's problem" view. Neanderthal thinking is rampant.