He Hate Me said:

---

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?

---

I tell you what. Adopt a child and we'll talk. Be one of the 0.06 percent of professing Christians that needs to adopt a single child out of foster care to eliminate this problem altogether. You'll be making a significant difference.

Booray said:

---

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Booray said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

---

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

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

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

---

just like how the lefties just want to ban 'assault rifles'.

Thank god for trump's presidency. Otherwise we'd see the 2A neutered and abortion up through labor allowed

Canada2017 said:

---

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 .

---

I don't have a woke crowd. I don't claim the liberals as my tribe or defend their lack of action in this area at all.

The difference is a) they don't claim to be pro-life and b) they don't have a call from their savior to care for the orphaned. Christians do. So I'm going to hold them to a higher standard. So did Christ and Paul in the New Testament. That's kind of the deal they signed onto.

JXL said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

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 .

---

If a Christian does adopt a child from another culture, of course, she gets denounced as a racist and a "white colonizer."

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/26/anticapitalist-sponsored-by-twitter-ceo-accuses-amy-coney-barrett-of-colonialism-for-adopting-from-haiti/

---

My favorite niece and her husband adopted a little boy from another culture 3 years ago . Our entire family adores the kid . Niece has been trying to adopt another for over a year. No luck so far....maybe someone thinks they are 'white colonizers'.

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

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 .

---

I don't have a woke crowd. I don't claim the liberals as my tribe or defend their lack of action in this area at all.

The difference is a) they don't claim to be pro-life and b) they don't have a call from their savior to care for the orphaned. Christians do. So I'm going to hold them to a higher standard. So did Christ and Paul in the New Testament. That's kind of the deal they signed onto.

---

Exactly how are you entitled to hold anyone to a 'higher standard ' ?

Do you contribute $ 10,000 plus yearly to various charities ? Volunteer at homeless shelters for years ?

Do you pick up 72 year old wheelchair bound stroke patients and take them to breakfast ?


Please enlighten me on the source of your superiority .

---

I don't claim superiority. I regularly fall short of the same high standards I hold for myself. But I do try to live as Christ has called me to live with regards to caring for those in need. And that informs my decision-making and actions. There are specific ways that I've shared here that I don't want to get into now. I see no benefit in any sort of dick measuring contest.

I just want children in foster care to be taken care of. This country has too much to leave so many behind.

He Hate Me said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

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?

---

I tell you what. Adopt a child and we'll talk. Be one of the 0.06 percent of professing Christians that needs to adopt a single child out of foster care to eliminate this problem altogether. You'll be making a significant difference.

---

You are a hypocrite. It is embarrassing to you. I understand.

---

As someone who has adopted a child out of foster care, I'm a hypocrite for encouraging others with the necessary resources and temperament to do the same? That makes sense.

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

What do cops have to do with this?

Ridiculous. This constant level of "I don't like this so I'm going to resort to violence" is like a child who can't articulate what they want so they throw a fit.

These clowns need to be waffle stomped. You can't just burn **** to the ground every time something happens you don't like. They are acting as the bully. The only way to stop a bully is with force.

---

Like the Jan 6 rioters who didn't like the counting of Electoral Votes?

---

100% yes. As soon as they started to damage stuff they should have been waffle stomped as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

---

They should have been arrested

Forest Bueller 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.

---

Simply put, it's because the leftist who condemn the people that actually support children born into adverse circumstances at a rate from 2X to 10X the rate that they do are not doing their part, have never done their part, will never do their part.

That is the real reason there are still unadopted children.

---

What part do people who don't pretend to care about an issue have in solving that issue? I don't expect selfish people to care for others. I do expect those who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit to.

Forest Bueller 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.

---

Simply put, it's because the leftist who condemn the people that actually support children born into adverse circumstances at a rate from 2X to 10X the rate that they do are not doing their part, have never done their part, will never do their part.

That is the real reason there are still unadopted children.

---

As usual....Forrest boils down the chatter and spells out the realities .

Well done .

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

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 .

---

I don't have a woke crowd. I don't claim the liberals as my tribe or defend their lack of action in this area at all.

The difference is a) they don't claim to be pro-life and b) they don't have a call from their savior to care for the orphaned. Christians do. So I'm going to hold them to a higher standard. So did Christ and Paul in the New Testament. That's kind of the deal they signed onto.

---

Exactly how are you entitled to hold anyone to a 'higher standard ' ?

Do you contribute $ 10,000 plus yearly to various charities ? Volunteer at homeless shelters for years ?

Do you pick up 72 year old wheelchair bound stroke patients and take them to breakfast ?


Please enlighten me on the source of your superiority .

---

I don't claim superiority. I regularly fall short of the same high standards I hold for myself. But I do try to live as Christ has called me to live with regards to caring for those in need. And that informs my decision-making and actions. There are specific ways that I've shared here that I don't want to get into now. I see no benefit in any sort of dick measuring contest.

I just want children in foster care to be taken care of. This country has too much to leave so many behind.

---

Whoa there ....have read your comments for years.

Most certainly claim a higher standard...after all you berate Christians for not doing 'enough' all the time .

I am merely asking what do you donate...DIRECTLY ...toward helping the poor, the aged, the homeless. ?

How many hours per week do you spend...DIRECTLY ..... helping those that are in pain ?

---

What part of "I see no benefit in any sort of dick measuring contest" did you not understand? Believe whatever you want about me. I don't care.

Rawhide said:

---

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....

---

I read that both of those yield similar results

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

What do cops have to do with this?

Ridiculous. This constant level of "I don't like this so I'm going to resort to violence" is like a child who can't articulate what they want so they throw a fit.

These clowns need to be waffle stomped. You can't just burn **** to the ground every time something happens you don't like. They are acting as the bully. The only way to stop a bully is with force.

---

Like the Jan 6 rioters who didn't like the counting of Electoral Votes?

---

100% yes. As soon as they started to damage stuff they should have been waffle stomped as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

---

They should have been arrested

---

For assembling, no? For damaging stuff, absolutely.

Out of control is out of control, political party means nothing to me.

---

You said "As soon as they started to damage stuff". They should have been arrested

Aren't we agreeing?

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

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 .

---

I don't have a woke crowd. I don't claim the liberals as my tribe or defend their lack of action in this area at all.

The difference is a) they don't claim to be pro-life and b) they don't have a call from their savior to care for the orphaned. Christians do. So I'm going to hold them to a higher standard. So did Christ and Paul in the New Testament. That's kind of the deal they signed onto.

---

Exactly how are you entitled to hold anyone to a 'higher standard ' ?

Do you contribute $ 10,000 plus yearly to various charities ? Volunteer at homeless shelters for years ?

Do you pick up 72 year old wheelchair bound stroke patients and take them to breakfast ?


Please enlighten me on the source of your superiority .

---

I don't claim superiority. I regularly fall short of the same high standards I hold for myself. But I do try to live as Christ has called me to live with regards to caring for those in need. And that informs my decision-making and actions. There are specific ways that I've shared here that I don't want to get into now. I see no benefit in any sort of dick measuring contest.

I just want children in foster care to be taken care of. This country has too much to leave so many behind.

---

Whoa there ....have read your comments for years.

Most certainly claim a higher standard...after all you berate Christians for not doing 'enough' all the time .

I am merely asking what do you donate...DIRECTLY ...toward helping the poor, the aged, the homeless. ?

How many hours per week do you spend...DIRECTLY ..... helping those that are in pain ?

---

What part of "I see no benefit in any sort of dick measuring contest" did you not understand? Believe whatever you want about me. I don't care.

---

And as usual....when faced with your own hypocrisy .....you bail out .

---

I know my credentials. Those who know me know my credentials. That's good enough for me.

---

chuckle



Obviously with enough internet 'credentials ' one can endlessly criticize those who most commonly help the poor, the homeless, orphans and those in pain .

Without the inconvenience of digging deeply into their own wallets.

bear2be2 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

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

---

You can keep saying this. It's not going to make it happen. There is no practical value whatsoever to this post.

What you're doing in effect is blaming/dooming children for having ****ty parents. There have literally always been ****ty parents, and you saying there shouldn't be isn't going to change that.

Christ speaks extensively about the church's responsibility to care for the orphan, the widow, the poor, the forgotten, etc. This board's insistence on passing that responsibility is pretty indicative of the modern American church's view on that call, and it supports the conclusion that the church has, in many ways, become more Republican than Christian.

---

The church hasn't passed on the responsibility like you're trying to paint. However, the gov't has decided that they should do it themselves. And it's not out of compassion, it's out of the need for candidates to get more votes and the desire of the gov't to have everyone reliant on them for basic survival. Extremely easy to control a population when they're unable to be self sufficient.

Too may people have made it a career to live off the government. Hell, many of those folks have become experts and gaming the system to their advantage. My mother-in-law for more than two decades worked at her citie's social services department. She constanatly told me about all the people that would come in there with one hand out and the other hand holding the latest blinged out expensive iPhone.

Like I said, if the gov't can force people to get a jab, perhaps they should require sterilization for tax payer funded government handouts.

JXL 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.

---

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

---

They're too busy adopting them from Ethiopia. It's the "in thing". Has been for a while. Although, it seems lately, that children from China has started to become a trend.

Rawhide said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

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

---

You can keep saying this. It's not going to make it happen. There is no practical value whatsoever to this post.

What you're doing in effect is blaming/dooming children for having ****ty parents. There have literally always been ****ty parents, and you saying there shouldn't be isn't going to change that.

Christ speaks extensively about the church's responsibility to care for the orphan, the widow, the poor, the forgotten, etc. This board's insistence on passing that responsibility is pretty indicative of the modern American church's view on that call, and it supports the conclusion that the church has, in many ways, become more Republican than Christian.

---

Like I said, if the gov't can force people to get a jab, perhaps they should require sterilization for tax payer funded government handouts.

---

This is a good example of why the pro-life movement is often seen as hypocritical. If Justice Ginsburg wanted to abort the undesirables and we want to sterilize them, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the two. Fortunately I don't think this is the attitude of most pro-lifers.

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

nein51 said:

---

What do cops have to do with this?

Ridiculous. This constant level of "I don't like this so I'm going to resort to violence" is like a child who can't articulate what they want so they throw a fit.

These clowns need to be waffle stomped. You can't just burn **** to the ground every time something happens you don't like. They are acting as the bully. The only way to stop a bully is with force.

---

Like the Jan 6 rioters who didn't like the counting of Electoral Votes?

---

100% yes. As soon as they started to damage stuff they should have been waffle stomped as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

---

They should have been arrested

---

For assembling, no? For damaging stuff, absolutely.

Out of control is out of control, political party means nothing to me.

---

You said "As soon as they started to damage stuff". They should have been arrested

Aren't we agreeing?

---

Yes. Yes we are!

Rawhide said:

---

JXL 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.

---

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

---

They're too busy adopting them from Ethiopia. It's the "in thing". Has been for a while. Although, it seems lately, that children from China has started to become a trend.

---

Often takes years to adopt US orphans .

Which is another reason abortion is so evil. There are people very willing to adopt many of these babies .

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.

---

They can. If a white couple wants to adopt black kids from Africa. Then it's relatively easy. But if that same couple wants a white kid from America, they have to fly to Russia.

These are facts. And sad

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

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

---

You can keep saying this. It's not going to make it happen. There is no practical value whatsoever to this post.

What you're doing in effect is blaming/dooming children for having ****ty parents. There have literally always been ****ty parents, and you saying there shouldn't be isn't going to change that.

Christ speaks extensively about the church's responsibility to care for the orphan, the widow, the poor, the forgotten, etc. This board's insistence on passing that responsibility is pretty indicative of the modern American church's view on that call, and it supports the conclusion that the church has, in many ways, become more Republican than Christian.

---

Like I said, if the gov't can force people to get a jab, perhaps they should require sterilization for tax payer funded government handouts.

---

This is a good example of why the pro-life movement is often seen as hypocritical. If Justice Ginsburg wanted to abort the undesirables and we want to sterilize them, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the two. Fortunately I don't think this is the attitude of most pro-lifers.

---

You see no difference between requiring a shot in order to exist legally in public or be allowed to work, vs requiring a Norplant to receive free handouts of government cash to support yourself in lieu of working?

It's actually not hard to see the difference at all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

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

---

You can keep saying this. It's not going to make it happen. There is no practical value whatsoever to this post.

What you're doing in effect is blaming/dooming children for having ****ty parents. There have literally always been ****ty parents, and you saying there shouldn't be isn't going to change that.

Christ speaks extensively about the church's responsibility to care for the orphan, the widow, the poor, the forgotten, etc. This board's insistence on passing that responsibility is pretty indicative of the modern American church's view on that call, and it supports the conclusion that the church has, in many ways, become more Republican than Christian.

---

Like I said, if the gov't can force people to get a jab, perhaps they should require sterilization for tax payer funded government handouts.

---

This is a good example of why the pro-life movement is often seen as hypocritical. If Justice Ginsburg wanted to abort the undesirables and we want to sterilize them, it's hard to see a lot of difference between the two. Fortunately I don't think this is the attitude of most pro-lifers.

---

Not my fault that you can't see the difference between sterilization and abortion.