Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

---

I read that as saying the Constitution also empowers states to allow abortions. Is the pro-life world willing to live with half the US having access to abortions?

Or is the whole "let the states decide it" theory going to get thrown out next?

---

In a way this is similar to a question like "should our political leaders obey the pope?" As a Catholic, technically I believe Christ is sovereign over all nations and that the pope, as his representative, is entitled to obedience from secular authorities. But I can't in my wildest dreams imagine that will happen or that I would try to make it happen. It would require a profound and more or less universal change of heart in the people, such that they voluntarily decided to accept it. A nationwide ban on abortion seems similar to me. To impose such a rule, even if it were possible, would be tantamount to declaring civil war. The issue is already a major source of political dysfunction affecting our ability to deal with all sorts of other problems from the budget to foreign policy to whatever. The country is desperately in need of healing. At this point the abortion battle should be a battle for souls, not laws.

On the other hand. I have become convinced in the last few years that there's a plausible argument for protection of the unborn under the 14th Amendment (yes, I laughed the first time I heard it too). If such a thing were on the table, it would be difficult for me in good conscience not to support it. Unlike the papal authority issue, which is rather abstract and theoretical, this one has real, quantifiable lives at stake right here and now.

So I'm truly torn. I guess the best answer I can give is that if I were a politician I would not be working for a national ban at this time, or probably in my lifetime.

bear2be2 said:

---

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?

---

I blame us all. I'm just not willing to sacrifice children at the alter of our selfishness. There's really no reason to have so many abortions in an advanced nation like ours.

ATL Bear 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. 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.

---

That's what you call making the circular argument. So again, if I can't afford you without government assistance, I should be able to kill you. And we all know this choice starts before an egg is fertilized.

Europe is ironically much more strict on abortion,

---

Yep, but until today the USA has the most extreme abortion laws on earth.

Most European countries do like Mississippi and limit abortion somewhere between 11-20 weeks.




Rest of the world is even more strict.

Most only allow abortion to save a woman's life.

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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?

---

There's really no reason to have so many abortions in an advanced nation like ours.

---

Advanced ?

Ever looked around the Philadelphia airport lobby ?

BusyTarpDuster2017 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:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

I didn't tell you to shut up or to keep your beliefs to yourself. I told you to stop harassing people after they had told you directly that they weren't interested in debating something with you.

Outside of my first couple of posts in this thread, every other post has been in response to someone who had responded directly to me. That's called a discussion.

Wangchung said:

---

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

---

I do think that Christians have a responsibility to take care of the most vulnerable among them. It's a pretty major theme in the gospels and throughout the New Testament.

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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?

---

There's really no reason to have so many abortions in an advanced nation like ours.

---

Advanced ?

Ever looked around the Philadelphia airport lobby ?

---

I get your point, but I've been in the lobbies of airports like N'Djamena and Shahjalal. Philly is the Virgin Air lounge in comparison.

ATL Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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?

---

I blame us all. I'm just not willing to sacrifice children at the alter of our selfishness. There's really no reason to have so many abortions in an advanced nation like ours.

---

I agree with you. But I would argue the same thing about long-term foster children. And unlike many here, I do think they belong in this conversation.

At least he didn't misgender Clarence Thomas

Protesters dressed in all black are on the scene. It seems like black bloc and Antifa have arrived. pic.twitter.com/7l0zrdAAqY

— Douglas Blair (@DouglasKBlair) June 25, 2022

LIVE in DC: Antifa shouts “if we don’t get it, burn it down” through the streets of downtown

Footage from @HannahNighting pic.twitter.com/qTkrn2TCyL

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 25, 2022

Here we go: Black bloc/#antifa group departs Supreme Court abortion protest

'Fuck the church, fuck the state, people must decide their fate' pic.twitter.com/u9Mhb7noVn

— Steven Nelson (@stevennelson10) June 25, 2022

bear2be2 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

I didn't tell you to shut up or to keep your beliefs to yourself. I told you to stop harassing people after they had told you directly that they weren't interested in debating something with you.

Outside of my first couple of posts in this thread, every other post has been in response to someone who had responded directly to me. That's called a discussion.

---

"Why would/should anyone take what you have to say about sin and salvation seriously? Work on your own sin and warn your friends. Leave strangers alone."

and,

"Correct yourself and your friends. Leave strangers alone. And if you want to proselytize to strangers, build a relationship based on mutual respect and love first."

Also, nearly all my posts were in response too. Yet somehow when I do it its "harassment", but when you do it, it's "discussion".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

I didn't tell you to shut up or to keep your beliefs to yourself. I told you to stop harassing people after they had told you directly that they weren't interested in debating something with you.

Outside of my first couple of posts in this thread, every other post has been in response to someone who had responded directly to me. That's called a discussion.

---

"Why would/should anyone take what you have to say about sin and salvation seriously? Work on your own sin and warn your friends. Leave strangers alone."

and,

"Correct yourself and your friends. Leave strangers alone. And if you want to proselytize to strangers, build a relationship based on mutual respect and love first."

Also, nearly all my posts were in response too. Yet somehow when I do it its "harassment", but when you do it, it's "discussion".

---

Every one of those quotes had context that is lost in this post. And they were all directly related to your decision to continue hounding another poster after he had told you multiple times he was no longer interested in continuing the discussion with you.

BREAKING: ANTIFA lights an American flag on fire here in DC in the middle of the street | @TPUSA pic.twitter.com/kJCvj8Rom9

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) June 25, 2022

JUST IN: The US @CapitolPolice riot buses are on standby for what could be an "unexpected" night. pic.twitter.com/dMbZNKmHP7

— BNN Newsroom (@BNNBreaking) June 25, 2022

'All cops are bastards!' is the chant as DC abortion march passes MPD HQ and courts in Judiciary Square. No property destruction yet pic.twitter.com/hvcl2Um2Ba

— Steven Nelson (@stevennelson10) June 25, 2022

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement, first responders and private sector partners nationwide of potential domestic violence extremist activity in response to the Supreme Court's decision on abortion. https://t.co/9q2Hx8246E

— CNN (@CNN) June 25, 2022

LIVE in DC: Antifa chants “if abortion ain’t safe, neither are you

Footage from @HannahNighting pic.twitter.com/ld5B0qx6kl

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 25, 2022

LIVE in DC: Antifa chants “every city, every town, burn the precinct to the ground”

Footage from @HannahNighting pic.twitter.com/Lrh3bgxGLy

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 25, 2022

LIVE in DC: Antifa clash with police attempting to block their path

Footage from @HannahNighting pic.twitter.com/T3SbDoB04H

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 25, 2022

DC bicycle police try and fail preventing the Antifa crowd from going down one street. The crowd pushed their way through. pic.twitter.com/L9ahkQGh0X

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) June 25, 2022

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

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

---

I do think that Christians have a responsibility to take care of the most vulnerable among them

---

You mean like babies developing in the womb?

---

It seems so obvious.

Mothra said:

---

And of course the Chief Justice sides with the liberals on the Court. What an incredible disappointment he has been.

And lo and behold, two of the Justices that helped get Roe overturned were appointed by the orange devil, once again, validating a vote for him.

---

It's A JOKE to suggest this is a "conservative"
Court but that's the media they want to put out there

Been waiting for this day my entire life. Praise be to God! All the hard work finally pushed back in those that hate and don't value lives of the unborn

Antifa has come back to SCOTUS. pic.twitter.com/zKSqoUffTC

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) June 25, 2022

Here you see the crowd with some Antifa members move toward the riot police near the Supreme Court, with the riot police quickly moving off the street and avoiding a confrontation. pic.twitter.com/AvI5OET9el

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) June 25, 2022

That's right, pro-abortion activists, you punish those radical pro-lifers in, let me check my notes here, Downtown Los Angeles. https://t.co/SPaEpDHSbQ

— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) June 25, 2022

How the U.S. Supreme Court abortion ruling is already affecting Texas

The Texas Tribune has been covering the fight over abortion rights for years. Here's what you need to know about the ruling and how it will affect Texans.

by Texas Tribune Staff
June 24, 2022

Abortions in Texas have already stopped

Abortions in Texas have ceased following a Supreme Court ruling that eliminated the constitutional protection for an abortion and ensuing legal uncertainty, Whole Woman's Health and Planned Parenthood Texas said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing states to set their own laws regulating abortion procedures. Texas has a "trigger law" in place that will ban all abortions from the moment of fertilization starting 30 days after the Supreme Court's judgement, which is typically issued about a month after the initial opinion.

But clinics and abortion funds are ceasing services now because the attorney general of Texas and some anti-abortion activists are arguing that state laws that banned abortion before Roe v. Wade -- and were never repealed -- could now be in effect in Texas.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade will virtually eliminate abortion access in Texas.

Last year, the Legislature passed a so-called trigger law that would go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, making performing abortion a felony.

The law would make an exception only to save the life of the pregnant patient or if they risk "substantial impairment of major bodily function." Doctors could face life in prison and fines up to $100,000 if they perform abortions in violation of the law. People who had abortions would not be prosecuted under the law.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court-ruling/

Sam Lowry said:

---

How the U.S. Supreme Court abortion ruling is already affecting Texas

The Texas Tribune has been covering the fight over abortion rights for years. Here's what you need to know about the ruling and how it will affect Texans.

by Texas Tribune staff, June 24, 2022

Abortions in Texas have already stopped

Abortions in Texas have ceased following a Supreme Court ruling that eliminated the constitutional protection for an abortion and ensuing legal uncertainty, Whole Woman's Health and Planned Parenthood Texas said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing states to set their own laws regulating abortion procedures. Texas has a "trigger law" in place that will ban all abortions from the moment of fertilization starting 30 days after the Supreme Court's judgement, which is typically issued about a month after the initial opinion.

But clinics and abortion funds are ceasing services now because the attorney general of Texas and some anti-abortion activists are arguing that state laws that banned abortion before Roe v. Wade -- and were never repealed -- could now be in effect in Texas.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade will virtually eliminate abortion access in Texas.

Last year, the Legislature passed a so-called trigger law that would go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, making performing abortion a felony.

The law would make an exception only to save the life of the pregnant patient or if they risk "substantial impairment of major bodily function." Doctors could face life in prison and fines up to $100,000 if they perform abortions in violation of the law. People who had abortions would not be prosecuted under the law.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court-ruling/

---

PRAISE G O D!!!!!!!!!

Cobretti said:

---

Antifa has come back to SCOTUS. pic.twitter.com/zKSqoUffTC

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) June 25, 2022

Here you see the crowd with some Antifa members move toward the riot police near the Supreme Court, with the riot police quickly moving off the street and avoiding a confrontation. pic.twitter.com/AvI5OET9el

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) June 25, 2022

---

Excellent saw a couple of
Masks Even

Gotta love staged protests

Cobretti said:

---

“We DON’T care if people DIE, pro-life is a lie”

Abortion protestors chant in the streets of Dallas after the overturning of Roe v Wade pic.twitter.com/MPC7mkP7eP

— ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) June 25, 2022

---

I bet the occurrence of coexistickers on these peoples non EV's is disproportionately high

Cobretti said:

---

“We DON’T care if people DIE, pro-life is a lie”

Abortion protestors chant in the streets of Dallas after the overturning of Roe v Wade pic.twitter.com/MPC7mkP7eP

— ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) June 25, 2022

---

They're saying "You don't care if people die."

There will likely be plenty of legitimately objectionable speech and action arise from this. There's no need to manufacture it where it doesn't really exist.

Sam Lowry said:

---

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

---

10th amendment reigns

VIOLENCE INCREASING: Antifa militants attempt to shatter windows but security prevented them and they ran back into the crowd.

I’m keeping my distance for safety reasons. pic.twitter.com/7CbdcPNrLx

— Katie Daviscourt🇺🇸 (@KatieDaviscourt) June 25, 2022

BREAKING: Seattle Antifa attack pro-life female, tackle her to the ground and pepper spray her. #RoeVsWade pic.twitter.com/T1Qh0M5QsR

— Katie Daviscourt🇺🇸 (@KatieDaviscourt) June 25, 2022