JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

Actually your understanding is the incorrect one. The fact that 70% of the people favor something is zero assurance that the Constitution can be amended.

Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, the Dakotas. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas can stop an amendment with probably 10% of the population.

---

I wasn't implying that a mere 70% of the total population would get you a constitutional amendment; But his idea that 70% of the folks should get their way nationally is not our system. Legislatures can act, and have. You might note that there is also NOT an interpretation of the Constitution to outlaw abortion nationally, though on the reasoning of Roe, the Court could've easily found that it does (by merely assuming the person-hood of a fetus). The Court correctly chose not to make the "opposite" error and put things back where they belong, in the hands of elected officials.

---

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

Actually your understanding is the incorrect one. The fact that 70% of the people favor something is zero assurance that the Constitution can be amended.

Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, the Dakotas. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas can stop an amendment with probably 10% of the population.

---

I wasn't implying that a mere 70% of the total population would get you a constitutional amendment; But his idea that 70% of the folks should get their way nationally is not our system. Legislatures can act, and have. You might note that there is also NOT an interpretation of the Constitution to outlaw abortion nationally, though on the reasoning of Roe, the Court could've easily found that it does (by merely assuming the person-hood of a fetus). The Court correctly chose not to make the "opposite" error and put things back where they belong, in the hands of elected officials.

---

---

First, saying if you have 70% support get a Constitutional amendment at the very least implies that the 70% can get an amendment passed.

And yes I understand Dobbs does not outlaw abortion nationally. It's why I keep asking pro-lifers whether under Dobbs they see a role for federal regulation of abortion.

Because the next step for some on the pro-life side seems to be a national ban. Which would mean that the whole let the states decide argument we have heard for 50 years is just BS

Booray said:

---

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

It is a happy day. A court overturned ITSELF after having usurped the power of the people. If 70% support it, go get a constitutional amendment. Your argument evidences a lack of understanding of our systems of government.

---

Actually your understanding is the incorrect one. The fact that 70% of the people favor something is zero assurance that the Constitution can be amended.

Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, the Dakotas. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas can stop an amendment with probably 10% of the population.

---

I wasn't implying that a mere 70% of the total population would get you a constitutional amendment; But his idea that 70% of the folks should get their way nationally is not our system. Legislatures can act, and have. You might note that there is also NOT an interpretation of the Constitution to outlaw abortion nationally, though on the reasoning of Roe, the Court could've easily found that it does (by merely assuming the person-hood of a fetus). The Court correctly chose not to make the "opposite" error and put things back where they belong, in the hands of elected officials.

---

---

First, saying if you have 70% support get a Constitutional amendment at the very least implies that the 70% can get an amendment passed.

And yes I understand Dobbs does not outlaw abortion nationally. It's why I keep asking pro-lifers whether under Dobbs they see a role for federal regulation of abortion.

Because the next step for some on the pro-life side seems to be a national ban. Which would mean that the whole let the states decide argument we have heard for 50 years is just BS

---

Screw the feds. We're not giving them any power whether we like it or not.

BUbearinARK said:

---

He finally got his wish!




https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/biden-voted-overturn-roe-v-130405400.html

(Nyt art has a paywall, but. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/biden-abortion-rights.html )

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries. France is currrently fighting to reduce the retirement age to 60. In the U.S. people are working long past traditional retirement age b/c they can't afford not to.

However, you don't want to make having children affordable? Fine. Then don't force women to have children they can't afford while also eliminating their personal freedom to basically make any medical decisions for themselves the instant an egg is fertilized.

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries.

---

Ok Francis. We have a much higher standard of living than European nations.

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

The foster system is incredibly larger than pre Roe v Wade. It couldn't be because Roe and birth control has helped devalue family and sexual attitudes resulting in more broken families and kids in the Foster system could it? By the way, it was a minister hat started the foster system.

But somehow this is going to result in more unwanted pregnancies.

---

It could result in the exact same number of unwanted pregnancies and result in tens of thousands of more uncared-for children. Beyond blaming the mothers, what are y'all going to do about that?

He Hate Me said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries.

---

Ok Francis. We have a much higher standard of living than European nations.

---

Some European nations. We're not top 10 internationally on any list that actually measures these things.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries.

---

Ok Francis. We have a much higher standard of living than European nations.

---

Based on what criteria exactly?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-of-living-by-country

---

Been there and seen it with my own eyes.

He Hate Me said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries.

---

Ok Francis. We have a much higher standard of living than European nations.

---

We ranked 18th on the U.N.'s last Happiness Report.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2018/WHR_web.pdf

That'll go down with a SCOTUS that's way out of balance and a government fighting an interneccine war thanks to Donald Trump.

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries.

---

Ok Francis. We have a much higher standard of living than European nations.

---

Who is "we?" My sense is that there are millions of Americans with a standard of living well beneath anyone in Scandanavia

---

The U.N. "happiness report" supports your claim.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2018/WHR_web.pdf

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries. France is currrently fighting to reduce the retirement age to 60. In the U.S. people are working long past traditional retirement age b/c they can't afford not to.

However, you don't want to make having children affordable? Fine. Then don't force women to have children they can't afford while also eliminating their personal freedom to basically make any medical decisions for themselves the instant an egg is fertilized.

---

While many religious leaders celebrated the decision, others denounced the ruling, calling it a blow to women and civil rights.
Dallas' Temple Emanu-El, the largest synagogue in the South, said in a statement that its clergy and board of trustees felt "deep disappointment"
Rev. Neil G. Thomas of Dallas' Cathedral of Hope, one of the world's largest liberal Christian LGBTQ churches, said in a written statement the ruling marked a catastrophic day for America that set civil rights back "at least three generations." He said it'll jeopardize privacy rights for contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage.
Rev. Erika Forbes, an ordained interfaith minister in Dallas and manager of faith and outreach for Just Texas, a social-justice advocacy organization, issued a similar statement online, saying she's sorry "this extreme court would vote to give a rapist more power over you than you have over your own body."
"This is not the time to step back; it's time to step into our POST ROE POWER," Forbes said in the statement.

Booray said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

One side desired and expected universal compliance with masks without even giving data to justify.

Why can't they do the same with condoms? They're proven 98% effective.

---

The problem with condoms is that men have to cooperate, and some don't want to do that.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Cradle to grave government support or we should be able to kill you. Good grief.

---

Affordable child care, a living wage, healthcare and parental lead aren't "cradle to grave government support."

They are what life is like in most European countries.

---

Ok Francis. We have a much higher standard of living than European nations.

---

Who is "we?" My sense is that there are millions of Americans with a standard of living well beneath anyone in Scandanavia

---

Take away U.S. Taxpayer Subsidies for European Welfare States and their standard of living is in the toilet.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't.

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't.

---

This is because they weren't aborted? Not that their parents failed in raising them?

Didn't you already concede there is a high demand for couples waiting to adopt newborns? This foster care issue remains with or without this ruling

Jack Bauer said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't.

---

This is because they weren't aborted? Not that their parents failed in raising them?

Didn't you already concede there is a high demand for couples waiting to adopt newborns? This foster care issue remains with or without this ruling

---

Many of the mothers who would have an abortion are telling you they would struggle to raise children. So again, beyond blaming the mothers, what are you going to do once these children inevitably end up in the foster care system?

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't.

---

I'm in favor of turning our crappy welfare system into a substantial and universal UBI system that doesn't require new taxes. This way funding isn't misappropriated by the government and instead only carelessly spent by people with no personal responsibility.

If single mothers get a $20k paycheck from the government every year, your pro abortion argument goes up in flames.

You down?

Wangchung said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't
.

---

So expecting adults to be responsible for their own behavior and not kill their kids in order to avoid said responsibility means we have a responsibility to take care of their kids for them or the kids need to die? Hahaha, no.
As far as the foster care suicides, at least it was their own choice. How many chose to live and to make the most of life? You want to deny them that much.

---

These women are telling us they don't want to or can't raise a baby. I'm just taking them at their word. What I think about them or their ability to raise a child does literally nothing to change the net result.

And I don't want to deny children anything. I want those born to be taken care of, so they're not choosing at insane rates that self-inflicted death is favorable the tragic lives they're leading through literally no fault of their own. I never would have thought that was a radical idea. But I have to remember the audience here.

bear2be2 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't
.

---

So expecting adults to be responsible for their own behavior and not kill their kids in order to avoid said responsibility means we have a responsibility to take care of their kids for them or the kids need to die? Hahaha, no.
As far as the foster care suicides, at least it was their own choice. How many chose to live and to make the most of life? You want to deny them that much.

---

These women are telling us they don't want to or can't raise a baby. I'm just taking them at their word. What I think about them or their ability to raise a child does literally nothing to change the net result.

And I don't want to deny children anything. I want those born to be taken care of, so they're not choosing at insane rates that self-inflicted death is favorable the tragic lives they're leading through literally no fault of their own. I never would have thought that was a radical idea. But I have to remember the audience here.

---

Lots of people don't want to deal with the responsibility that comes with their chosen actions, ESPECIALLY lifelong commitments but that's no ringing endorsement of killing people.
And yes, fighting for abortion out of your own fear of poverty is fighting to deny those foster kids even the chance to decide for themselves. That's the height of arrogance, but then I remember the types of people who push this baby killing crap as "compassion" or "healthcare" and the arrogance makes more sense.

Wangchung said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't
.

---

So expecting adults to be responsible for their own behavior and not kill their kids in order to avoid said responsibility means we have a responsibility to take care of their kids for them or the kids need to die? Hahaha, no.
As far as the foster care suicides, at least it was their own choice. How many chose to live and to make the most of life? You want to deny them that much.

---

These women are telling us they don't want to or can't raise a baby. I'm just taking them at their word. What I think about them or their ability to raise a child does literally nothing to change the net result.

And I don't want to deny children anything. I want those born to be taken care of, so they're not choosing at insane rates that self-inflicted death is favorable the tragic lives they're leading through literally no fault of their own. I never would have thought that was a radical idea. But I have to remember the audience here.

---

Lots of people don't want to deal with the responsibility that comes with their chosen actions, ESPECIALLY lifelong commitments but that's no ringing endorsement of killing people.
And yes, fighting for abortion out of your own fear of poverty is fighting to deny those foster kids even the chance to decide for themselves. That's the height of arrogance, but then I remember the types of people who push this baby killing crap as "compassion" or "healthcare" and the arrogance makes more sense.

---

I have not once argued for abortions on this thread. In fact, I've said on multiple occasions that I am generally anti-abortion. All I've said is that this ruling will have predictable consequences, and if y'all's answer to those consequences matches the inaction of the past 49 years, this ruling will create as many new problems as it solves.

My post is a call for Christians to act like Christ. Sorry that's so offensive.

bear2be2 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

These women are telling us they don't want to or can't raise a baby. I'm just taking them at their word. What I think about them or their ability to raise a child does literally nothing to change the net result.

And I don't want to deny children anything. I want those born to be taken care of, so they're not choosing at insane rates that self-inflicted death is favorable the tragic lives they're leading through literally no fault of their own. I never would have thought that was a radical idea. But I have to remember the audience here.

---

For a guy who told me in another thread to shut up and keep my beliefs to myself and leave internet strangers alone, you're doing quite a bit of preaching.

bear2be2 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't
.

---

So expecting adults to be responsible for their own behavior and not kill their kids in order to avoid said responsibility means we have a responsibility to take care of their kids for them or the kids need to die? Hahaha, no.
As far as the foster care suicides, at least it was their own choice. How many chose to live and to make the most of life? You want to deny them that much.

---

These women are telling us they don't want to or can't raise a baby. I'm just taking them at their word. What I think about them or their ability to raise a child does literally nothing to change the net result.

And I don't want to deny children anything. I want those born to be taken care of, so they're not choosing at insane rates that self-inflicted death is favorable the tragic lives they're leading through literally no fault of their own. I never would have thought that was a radical idea. But I have to remember the audience here.

---

Lots of people don't want to deal with the responsibility that comes with their chosen actions, ESPECIALLY lifelong commitments but that's no ringing endorsement of killing people.
And yes, fighting for abortion out of your own fear of poverty is fighting to deny those foster kids even the chance to decide for themselves. That's the height of arrogance, but then I remember the types of people who push this baby killing crap as "compassion" or "healthcare" and the arrogance makes more sense.

---

I have not once argued for abortions on this thread. In fact, I've said on multiple occasions that I am generally anti-abortion. All I've said is that this ruling will have predictable consequences, and if y'all's answer to those consequences matches the infection of the past 49 years, this ruling will create as many new problems as it solves.

My post is a call for Christians to act like Christ. Sorry that's so offensive.

---

You claimed that those who pushed for and support this decision, the decision to let states decide abortion for themselves, have a responsibility that comes as a consequence for their support. You've done nothing but wring your hands over the perceived negative consequences of this decision you imagine. Complaining about something that will save tens of thousands of innocent lives every year is hardly Christ like, so you can put down your cross now. Wow

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JL said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

So, put them down like stray dogs then.

Nope.

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

They should be. If they weren't, Christianity would have literally no utility.

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.

---

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.

---

Ya think this might have something to do with it. Man you are rolling in self righteousness today.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Kids are in foster care because their parents made bad choices, not because of some birth control issue or abortion.

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.

---

The two issues are directly related because forcing unwanted births is going to increase the number of kids in the foster care system and exacerbate the many issues that already exist with it. If those who are against abortion are prepared to step into that gap and take care of the uncared-for children that result from this ruling, great.

But judging from what we saw during the 49 years Roe was in effect, I have very little confidence that will happen.

---

I don't think you realize how insane the argument that life quality should determine if someone should exist or not is.

---

That's not my argument. My argument is that this ruling comes with a level of responsibility for those who made it happen. But judging from this thread, very few actually want to accept that.

That said, if you go on social media right now, you can find plenty of kids who have been through the foster care system who would have that argument with you. Unfortunately, the many who committed suicide while in foster care can't.

---

I'm in favor of turning our crappy welfare system into a substantial and universal UBI system that doesn't require new taxes. This way funding isn't misappropriated by the government and instead only carelessly spent by people with no personal responsibility.

If single mothers get a $20k paycheck from the government every year, your pro abortion argument goes up in flames.

You down?

---

I don't have a pro-abortion argument. I have a pro-children argument. Like I said, take care of the children who are born in this country, and I'll be generally happy, regardless of the prevailing abortion laws.

That said, money doesn't raise children. Parents do. Without the will to raise children, the means don't matter so much. That $20,000 a year would improve the lives of many children. But it wouldn't solve the abuse/neglect issue or absolve Christians of their call to care for the most vulnerable among us.

Insurrection is sounding pretty cool now...

Violence is a legitimate and appropriate response to oppression. https://t.co/IDNh2QlKUK

— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 24, 2022