Jack Bauer said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

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

---

So Insurrections are in season now?

---

Can't be an insurrection. Don't see any maga hats in those photos.

Must be a peaceful protest.

Insurrection?

Hostage' situation: Abortion protesters breached security outside AZ Senate building, lawmaker says.https://t.co/W27EO5eFuo

— 50 Pinkies 🇺🇸 (@50Pinkies) June 25, 2022

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.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

JXL 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.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

No. He's saying that unless there is some supposed Christian push to turn the US government into a socialist state that pays for every person from cradle to grave, then Christians don't care about children.

His argument is akin to saying that if you stop homeless people from getting murdered on the street, it doesn't mean you care about the life of the homeless person. You must also get them a house and feed them for the rest of their lives.

Simply saving a human from being murdered doesn't mean you value life, in the eyes of the socialist. He demands you hand over your freedom to the state so everyone is equally miserable.

Here's Ross Douthat's column half-heartedly urging conservatives to take responsibility for the babies low-income women will now be forced to have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opinion/roe-abortion-politics.html

But the states now banning abortions, like Texas and Tennessee, are same states that never expanded Medicaid to improve healthcare access to low-income ppl.

Ross has had a bee up his butt about falling birthrates in America for months if not years. He's devoted column feet to agonizing over why more women aren't having multiple babies. For him, this "problem" is a real headscratcher! (While, as has been pointed out capably on this forum, we have thousands of kids in foster care who need loving homes but are the wrong race or too old or have other issues.)

Women in the US do not have universal access to healthcare, good, reliable, affordable childcare, paid parental leave or a living miminum wage.

This makes having children unaffordable for many people, especially those in their 20s.

In my state, we no longer have a viable public education system, so parents at all income levels must now factor in the cost of private school if they want to adequately prepare their children to succeed in life (which, IMO, is the main purpose to have children--produce productive, taxpaying,upstanding, capable, well-educated citizens who will continue to build up the country going forward--and why it doesn't make since to force teenagers, children, and rape and domestic violence victims into service as breeding stock).

Conservatives=most of you on this forum, call any any govt subsidies or programs to support these basic needs "socialism."

What repealing Roe has done is give women in states where they will cede agency over their bodies to the state govt the instant an egg is fertilized a reason to seek permanent sterilization.

Why risk pregnancy when that will mean 8 months of your state govt making all of your healthcare decisions for you when you know the men in your state govt place a significantly higher value on the fetus you carry than on your life, ability to work & support yourself & future health & wellbeing?

I have advised the young women in my family to avoid pregnancy as long as they live in a state where the government will dictate their healthcare options the instant they become pregnant. The risk that their lives won't be valued and that frightened healthcare providers won't act affirmative to deliver life-saving treatment to them is too great. I can afford to send them to California or Colorado, but emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies and pre-eclampsia are common.

At the very least, states that exert government control over women's bodies during pregnancy should also extend that control to men, mandating that any man convicted of rape have a government-required and administered vasectomy.

Texas has already got the desired result. Here's a teen mother with twins, living in a bedroom at the baby daddy's daddy's house b/c her parents kicked her out. Who has stepped up to help these kids who have kids?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/texas-abortion-law-teen-mom/

J.B.Katz said:

---

Here's Ross Douthat's column half-heartedly urging conservatives to take responsibility for the babies low-income women will now be forced to have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opinion/roe-abortion-politics.html

But the states now banning abortions, like Texas and Tennessee, are same states that never expanded Medicaid to improve healthcare access to low-income ppl.

Ross has had a bee up his butt about falling birthrates in America for months if not years. He's devoted column feet to agonizing over why more women aren't having multiple babies. For him, this "problem" is a real headscratcher! (While, as has been pointed out capably on this forum, we have thousands of kids in foster care who need loving homes but are the wrong race or too old or have other issues.)

Women in the US do not have universal access to healthcare, good, reliable, affordable childcare, paid parental leave or a living miminum wage.

This makes having children unaffordable for many people, especially those in their 20s.

In my state, we no longer have a viable public education system, so parents at all income levels must now factor in the cost of private school if they want to adequately prepare their children to succeed in life (which, IMO, is the main purpose to have children--produce productive, taxpaying,upstanding, capable, well-educated citizens who will continue to build up the country going forward--and why it doesn't make since to force teenagers, children, and rape and domestic violence victims into service as breeding stock).

Conservatives=most of you on this forum, call any any govt subsidies or programs to support these basic needs "socialism."

What repealing Roe has done is give women in states where they will cede agency over their bodies to the state govt the instant an egg is fertilized a reason to seek permanent sterilization.

Why risk pregnancy when that will mean 8 months of your state govt making all of your healthcare decisions for you when you know the men in your state govt place a significantly higher value on the fetus you carry than on your life, ability to work & support yourself & future health & wellbeing?

I have advised the young women in my family to avoid pregnancy as long as they live in a state where the government will dictate their healthcare options the instant they become pregnant. The risk that their lives won't be valued and that frightened healthcare providers won't act affirmative to deliver life-saving treatment to them is too great. I can afford to send them to California or Colorado, but emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies and pre-eclampsia are common.

At the very least, states that exert government control over women's bodies during pregnancy should also extend that control to men, mandating that any man convicted of rape have a government-required and administered vasectomy.

Texas has already got the desired result. Here's a teen mother with twins, living in a bedroom at the baby daddy's daddy's house b/c her parents kicked her out. Who has stepped up to help these kids who have kids?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/texas-abortion-law-teen-mom/

---

Or maybe we should not subsidize single motherhood at all and force the baby daddies to work and support the children they made.

Yes, the ole "let's just tell 18 year Olds about abstinence, that'll do the trick!"


The personal responsibility argument is such an insane theory, it falls apart after about 30 seconds of thinking how much personal responsibility humanity has ever had.

Porteroso said:

---

Yes, the ole "let's just tell 18 year Olds about abstinence, that'll do the trick!"


The personal responsibility argument is such an insane theory, it falls apart after about 30 seconds of thinking how much personal responsibility humanity has ever had.

---

So then why do we have laws and punish people for breaking them? If you are 18 and kill someone you are held responsible. What makes a decision to engage in an activity that could lead to a child different?

Porteroso said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Yes, the ole "let's just tell 18 year Olds about abstinence, that'll do the trick!"


The personal responsibility argument is such an insane theory, it falls apart after about 30 seconds of thinking how much personal responsibility humanity has ever had.

---

So then why do we have laws and punish people for breaking them? If you are 18 and kill someone you are held responsible. What makes a decision to engage in an activity that could lead to a child different?

---

Yes, sex and murder should be treated equally under the law, you're really onto something.

Comparing the 2 really highlights how insane it is.

---

Abortion makes the murder legal for convenience. They are radically different. Being snide and obtuse is an odd choice unless you actually believe that having a child is some kind of punishment sentence, in which case I am sorry you have such a twisted view of humanity.

You can "insert any law here" and it is the same. Actions have consequences. To suggest certain (well known) consequences should excused at the cost of a life for the convenience of the person who took the action is the height of human hubris.

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.

---

For perspective: this country has a birth rate problem that requires us to import people legally and not to maintain population growth.

In that context, there is negative state interest in allowing abortion. .

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL 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.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Here's Ross Douthat's column half-heartedly urging conservatives to take responsibility for the babies low-income women will now be forced to have.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opinion/roe-abortion-politics.html

But the states now banning abortions, like Texas and Tennessee, are same states that never expanded Medicaid to improve healthcare access to low-income ppl.

Ross has had a bee up his butt about falling birthrates in America for months if not years. He's devoted column feet to agonizing over why more women aren't having multiple babies. For him, this "problem" is a real headscratcher! (While, as has been pointed out capably on this forum, we have thousands of kids in foster care who need loving homes but are the wrong race or too old or have other issues.)

Women in the US do not have universal access to healthcare, good, reliable, affordable childcare, paid parental leave or a living miminum wage.

This makes having children unaffordable for many people, especially those in their 20s.

In my state, we no longer have a viable public education system, so parents at all income levels must now factor in the cost of private school if they want to adequately prepare their children to succeed in life (which, IMO, is the main purpose to have children--produce productive, taxpaying,upstanding, capable, well-educated citizens who will continue to build up the country going forward--and why it doesn't make since to force teenagers, children, and rape and domestic violence victims into service as breeding stock).

Conservatives=most of you on this forum, call any any govt subsidies or programs to support these basic needs "socialism."

What repealing Roe has done is give women in states where they will cede agency over their bodies to the state govt the instant an egg is fertilized a reason to seek permanent sterilization.

Why risk pregnancy when that will mean 8 months of your state govt making all of your healthcare decisions for you when you know the men in your state govt place a significantly higher value on the fetus you carry than on your life, ability to work & support yourself & future health & wellbeing?

I have advised the young women in my family to avoid pregnancy as long as they live in a state where the government will dictate their healthcare options the instant they become pregnant. The risk that their lives won't be valued and that frightened healthcare providers won't act affirmative to deliver life-saving treatment to them is too great. I can afford to send them to California or Colorado, but emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies and pre-eclampsia are common.

At the very least, states that exert government control over women's bodies during pregnancy should also extend that control to men, mandating that any man convicted of rape have a government-required and administered vasectomy.

Texas has already got the desired result. Here's a teen mother with twins, living in a bedroom at the baby daddy's daddy's house b/c her parents kicked her out. Who has stepped up to help these kids who have kids?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/texas-abortion-law-teen-mom/

---

Here's a wild suggestion. Have the people that created the baby, take care of the baby. Or don't have sex.

I know, I know... It's an insane suggestion

Cobretti said:

---

Los Angeles: Pro-abortion protesters shut down the freeway & use sticks to attack drivers who won’t stop. #RoeVWade

Video by @AnthonyCabassa_: pic.twitter.com/oPaNCjPely

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) June 25, 2022

---

In a state where abortions are legal.

Goes to show you that for the rioting and chaos, Roe V. Wade isn't the reason, it's the excuse.

Here's a great idea. How about if you're on the gov't teat for longer than year, you get sterilized.

I mean after all, our resident leftists were all for the forced jab....

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL 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.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

---

I don't ignore that. I've addressed it multiple times on this thread.

First, I don't give Christians credit for doing something they should be doing. If they weren't doing more, their religion would have no functional value to society.

And second, they're still clearly not doing enough. While I appreciate every person chooses to foster or adopt -- except for the abusive *******s who put some of these kids through hell -- only a minute percentage of professing Christians have actually taken that step. And it wouldn't take many more to step up and erase this problem entirely.

If you're going to claim to care about these kids, there are ways to show it. One of the biggest is to take care of the kids already being born into adverse conditions. We've done a piss poor job of that as a country.

---

Amusing

You feel entitled to demand that Christians meet your undefined ...completely arbitrary standard that your own woke crowd doesn't even come close to matching .

Gotta luv the internet .

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL 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.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

Why haven't the caring, compassionate liberals adopted them all already?

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL 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.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

---

I don't ignore that. I've addressed it multiple times on this thread.

First, I don't give Christians credit for doing something they should be doing. If they weren't doing more, their religion would have no functional value to society.

And second, they're still clearly not doing enough. While I appreciate every person chooses to foster or adopt -- except for the abusive *******s who put some of these kids through hell -- only a minute percentage of professing Christians have actually taken that step. And it wouldn't take many more to step up and erase this problem entirely.

If you're going to claim to care about these kids, there are ways to show it. One of the biggest is to take care of the kids already being born into adverse conditions. We've done a piss poor job of that as a country.

---

You could adopt more. Stop being so pathetic by your measure.

---

I hope to have the opportunity someday.

---

If you really cared, you would do it now. You just don't live up to your own standard. What do we call that? Hypocrisy?

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

JXL 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.

---

In other words, you're saying you don't understand why conservative Christian's don't create organizations like this:

https://livingalternatives.org/

---

Nope. I don't understand why there are more than 117,000 kids waiting to be adopted and more than 1,000 kids aging out of foster care every year in a country with more than 200 million professing Christians.

---

You have already been informed that Christians adopt far more kids than non Christians .......contribute far more money to charities than non Christians .

Why do you choose to ignore this ?

---

I don't ignore that. I've addressed it multiple times on this thread.

First, I don't give Christians credit for doing something they should be doing. If they weren't doing more, their religion would have no functional value to society.

And second, they're still clearly not doing enough. While I appreciate every person chooses to foster or adopt -- except for the abusive *******s who put some of these kids through hell -- only a minute percentage of professing Christians have actually taken that step. And it wouldn't take many more to step up and erase this problem entirely.

If you're going to claim to care about these kids, there are ways to show it. One of the biggest is to take care of the kids already being born into adverse conditions. We've done a piss poor job of that as a country.

---

Amusing

You feel entitled to demand that Christians meet your undefined ...completely arbitrary standard that your own woke crowd doesn't even come close to matching .

Gotta luv the internet .

---

Arbitrary standard? My standard matches the one every Christian adoption agency has. I want all kids to have a loving/stable home. That that standard is viewed as radical here is telling.

---

Christians do more....far more ...than your woke crowd .

Period.

Yet you ignore the relative non performance of your woke crowd .

BTW I have long been aware of many Christian families who have adopted children from other cultures. And some wish to adopt even more .

There is a long waiting period in most cases.

And you mentioned CHRISTIAN adoption agencies.......suspect because CHRISTIAN adoption agencies outnumber those of any atheist organization .