PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

Most pro-lifers have heard the argument from abortion supporters that goes something along the lines of: "If you want to ban abortion, are you willing to adopt the kids that will result?" On its face, this argument is disingenuous. One does [not] need to be willing to personally care for another to believe he has a right to life. I do not presently have the resources to take in any homeless people, but I can still justly oppose murdering them.

Even so, many pro-life couples actually will adopt children for the specific purpose of saving them from abortion. Some of these couples appeared at demonstrations over the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health to advertise their willingness. Did progressives on social media admire the couples' taking up their challenge? Of course not! Instead, these couples faced mockery and derision online.

On the most basic level, these couples are doing a loving act of service to give a child a home, and they do not deserve to be made into an object of scorn on Twitter. Would any of the people mocking them be willing to adopt a baby who otherwise would have been aborted? Some would, surely, but the answer would be "no" for most of them.

Among the ridicule, there were a few thoughtful arguments. They all took different forms, but they mostly boiled down to: "Would these couples really adopt a baby? If they would, why haven't they adopted one of the hundreds of thousands of children in foster care?"

The children who are already in foster care are not in the system for lack of interest. There are between 1 and 2 million couples in America who are waiting to adopt, enough to empty the entire system between two and five times over. If they were to attempt to adopt one of the children, it is likely they would be held up by well-intentioned yet counterproductive bureaucratic red tape.

---

---

Of all the anger in Social Media, and as much as Trump hatred roils folks....I'm not sure anything approaches the sheer blinded hatred generated in the abortion (or often, just "womens choice" topic").
It is difficult, especially right now, to find any reasonable discourse --- its all just hate. I mean...like at an unhealthy level of meanness that comes out. And I'm guessing many of the people who say such vitriolic things are ones who lamented Trump for the same types of posts.

**And I still think we see it that way because many folks, like myself, started out following reporters on SM, and those folks are much more liberal, and have followers who are. I see all these posters pop up with horrible things to say, and wonder, how did i see that....and it turns out they are followed by a Pat Forde or a Stu Mandel, or a local reporter whom I happen to follow. And so I see their crap too. Its enough to make me just drop the platform....

PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

Most pro-lifers have heard the argument from abortion supporters that goes something along the lines of: "If you want to ban abortion, are you willing to adopt the kids that will result?" On its face, this argument is disingenuous. One does [not] need to be willing to personally care for another to believe he has a right to life. I do not presently have the resources to take in any homeless people, but I can still justly oppose murdering them.

Even so, many pro-life couples actually will adopt children for the specific purpose of saving them from abortion. Some of these couples appeared at demonstrations over the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health to advertise their willingness. Did progressives on social media admire the couples' taking up their challenge? Of course not! Instead, these couples faced mockery and derision online.

On the most basic level, these couples are doing a loving act of service to give a child a home, and they do not deserve to be made into an object of scorn on Twitter. Would any of the people mocking them be willing to adopt a baby who otherwise would have been aborted? Some would, surely, but the answer would be "no" for most of them.

Among the ridicule, there were a few thoughtful arguments. They all took different forms, but they mostly boiled down to: "Would these couples really adopt a baby? If they would, why haven't they adopted one of the hundreds of thousands of children in foster care?"

The children who are already in foster care are not in the system for lack of interest. There are between 1 and 2 million couples in America who are waiting to adopt, enough to empty the entire system between two and five times over. If they were to attempt to adopt one of the children, it is likely they would be held up by well-intentioned yet counterproductive bureaucratic red tape.

---

---

Whole bunch of and "likely" "many" etc. It's clear there is no plan after getting Roe v. Wade overturned except patting themselves on the back as they read stories about how many kids are in foster care and then move on without doing anything. Your link stating "There are between 1 and 2 million couples" doesn't even say that, it says

"There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples."

packgrad said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

Most pro-lifers have heard the argument from abortion supporters that goes something along the lines of: "If you want to ban abortion, are you willing to adopt the kids that will result?" On its face, this argument is disingenuous. One does [not] need to be willing to personally care for another to believe he has a right to life. I do not presently have the resources to take in any homeless people, but I can still justly oppose murdering them.

Even so, many pro-life couples actually will adopt children for the specific purpose of saving them from abortion. Some of these couples appeared at demonstrations over the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health to advertise their willingness. Did progressives on social media admire the couples' taking up their challenge? Of course not! Instead, these couples faced mockery and derision online.

On the most basic level, these couples are doing a loving act of service to give a child a home, and they do not deserve to be made into an object of scorn on Twitter. Would any of the people mocking them be willing to adopt a baby who otherwise would have been aborted? Some would, surely, but the answer would be "no" for most of them.

Among the ridicule, there were a few thoughtful arguments. They all took different forms, but they mostly boiled down to: "Would these couples really adopt a baby? If they would, why haven't they adopted one of the hundreds of thousands of children in foster care?"

The children who are already in foster care are not in the system for lack of interest. There are between 1 and 2 million couples in America who are waiting to adopt, enough to empty the entire system between two and five times over. If they were to attempt to adopt one of the children, it is likely they would be held up by well-intentioned yet counterproductive bureaucratic red tape.

---

---

Whole bunch of and "likely" "many" etc. It's clear there is no plan after getting Roe v. Wade overturned except patting themselves on the back as they read stories about how many kids are in foster care and then move on without doing anything. Your link stating "There are between 1 and 2 million couples" doesn't even say that, it says

"There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples."

---

Take the L.

---

Whatever the # is, I don't think it is enough today.

Now....if someone would wave a magic wand and significantly reduce lawyer fees and reduce the fear of birth parents reclaiming rights (which drives many US adoptive parents to international), then perhaps there would be enough.

PackFansXL said:

---

The same holds true for the number of abortions in any given year. We get our statistics on abortion from the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. Both entities have to rely on estimation because the most progressive states have refused to publicize the number of abortions committed in their states.

---

That's fine. Pro Life advocacy has long been driven by Churches. Those Churches have now gotten what they want and should step up to do anything in their power to influence changes in the redtape you mentioned to make adoptions much easier or less costly. It's great for them that they've finally gotten Roe v. Wade overturned, but now there are real world outcomes that will come if State's severely restrict abortion.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Did a church leader make an unwanted advance on you? You seem very upset with churches.

---

No, thankfully not, despite the number of sexual abuse cases coming out of the Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. Sort of a weird thing for you to say honestly.

I do think it's hypocritical for so much effort to go into overturning Roe v. Wade without doing the groundwork to ensure that those mothers who didn't want to bring a baby into the world will have the support system needed so they don't fall into/further into poverty, the child isn't neglected or abused, goes hungry, etc. Many of these unwanted children will probably find themselves victims of sex trafficking as well.

It was just a joke, hence the winking emoji. We've discussed the need for changes in the adoption process. I think that would be a big part of the adjustment. Churches can help, of course. You just seem to have a lot of anger at the church. Again, it was a joke...

I think this is the most ridiculous conversation, this country, has ever approached. Let's take a look at who is pushing the envelop of acceptance…

Liberals want unfettered abortions (generally speaking)
Conservatives want Roe Vs Wade overturned (generally speaking)

So, who has a more moderate approach? Liberals or Christian conservatives?

Christian conservatives are extremely happy to have this ruling when, they know, it doesn't stop abortions. Liberals are continuing to fight for more and more expansion of abortions.

What if the court had ruled that pursuant to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that an abortion would take away the protections of the life of an unborn? That would have changed the complete conversation! Now, Christian conservatives are extremely happy with a partial win. Liberals are pissed with still being able to have an abortion with some future restrictions.

caryking said:

---

I think this is the most ridiculous conversation, this country, has ever approached. Let's take a look at who is pushing the envelop of acceptance…

Liberals want unfettered abortions (generally speaking)
Conservatives want Roe Vs Wade overturned (generally speaking)

So, who has a more moderate approach? Liberals or Christian conservatives?

Christian conservatives are extremely happy to have this ruling when, they know, it doesn't stop abortions. Liberals are continuing to fight for more and more expansion of abortions.

What if the court had ruled that pursuant to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that an abortion would take away the protections of the life of an unborn? That would have changed the complete conversation! Now, Christian conservatives are extremely happy with a partial win. Liberals are pissed with still being able to have an abortion with some future restrictions.

---

Imagine a world where abortion up to the minute of birth is supported.

That's the left.

caryking said:

---

I think this is the most ridiculous conversation, this country, has ever approached. Let's take a look at who is pushing the envelop of acceptance…

Liberals want unfettered abortions (generally speaking)
Conservatives want Roe Vs Wade overturned (generally speaking)

So, who has a more moderate approach? Liberals or Christian conservatives?

Christian conservatives are extremely happy to have this ruling when, they know, it doesn't stop abortions. Liberals are continuing to fight for more and more expansion of abortions.

What if the court had ruled that pursuant to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that an abortion would take away the protections of the life of an unborn? That would have changed the complete conversation! Now, Christian conservatives are extremely happy with a partial win. Liberals are pissed with still being able to have an abortion with some future restrictions.

---

I really have no interest in discussing abortion per se....but i think we once again are seeing the debate shaped by extremists on both sides. The folks who, as you say, want the ability to do anything they can with their bodies regardless of time (though I think this is a small, but VERY vocal group).
And countered by the folks who think a woman shouldn't be able to have abortions under any circumstance.

Like so much of our politics today, those fringes drive the argument. I think 80% of the population could find a reasonable medical/health based solution.

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

I think this is the most ridiculous conversation, this country, has ever approached. Let's take a look at who is pushing the envelop of acceptance…

Liberals want unfettered abortions (generally speaking)
Conservatives want Roe Vs Wade overturned (generally speaking)

So, who has a more moderate approach? Liberals or Christian conservatives?

Christian conservatives are extremely happy to have this ruling when, they know, it doesn't stop abortions. Liberals are continuing to fight for more and more expansion of abortions.

What if the court had ruled that pursuant to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that an abortion would take away the protections of the life of an unborn? That would have changed the complete conversation! Now, Christian conservatives are extremely happy with a partial win. Liberals are pissed with still being able to have an abortion with some future restrictions.

---

I really have no interest in discussing abortion per se....but i think we once again are seeing the debate shaped by extremists on both sides. The folks who, as you say, want the ability to do anything they can with their bodies regardless of time (though I think this is a small, but VERY vocal group).
And countered by the folks who think a woman shouldn't be able to have abortions under any circumstance.

Like so much of our politics today, those fringes drive the argument. I think 80% of the population could find a reasonable medical/health based solution.

---

Funny you say that as I was pointing out the opposite, regarding Christian Conservatives…

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Like I said. Y'all only care about a child when it's in the uterus. Once it's born it loses all its rights

---

On the contrary, the pregnancy centers across the nation spend the majority of their funds helping new mothers with supplies after they give birth.

We all need to work to reduce the costs of adoption and to rescind the restrictions on interracial adoptions.

---

They doesn't play to the lefty logic.

Who would honestly discount self accountability, responsibility, morals, values....? The left.

Prime example above.

Quote:

---

I really have no interest in discussing abortion per se....but i think we once again are seeing the debate shaped by extremists on both sides. The folks who, as you say, want the ability to do anything they can with their bodies regardless of time (though I think this is a small, but VERY vocal group).
And countered by the folks who think a woman shouldn't be able to have abortions under any circumstance.

Like so much of our politics today, those fringes drive the argument. I think 80% of the population could find a reasonable medical/health based solution.

---

I have never heard anyone espouse the bolded position unless you are excluding abortions to protect the mother's life. Assuming the mother's life is at risk for biological and not some loosely vague definition of mental health, all laws I have seen protect the mother.

I do agree there are extremists who drive the rhetoric and set the narrative. Unfortunately, the Democrats today are overrun with very powerful extremists who have ruined their party. Certain places like CA, NY, MD, CO, etc. are passing laws codifying up to birth for no cause abortions. CA was even considering protections for the mother if she intentionally allowed her born baby to die up to 4 weeks after birth. I don't know if that one passed, but I just used that as an example to show some of the loudest in the Democratic Party are also very powerful. This is also what makes Biden so bad. He rubber stamps the extremists in his party in an attempt to lend credibility to their goals.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Did a church leader make an unwanted advance on you? You seem very upset with churches.

---

Just "Pro Life Churches".

PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

I really have no interest in discussing abortion per se....but i think we once again are seeing the debate shaped by extremists on both sides. The folks who, as you say, want the ability to do anything they can with their bodies regardless of time (though I think this is a small, but VERY vocal group).
And countered by the folks who think a woman shouldn't be able to have abortions under any circumstance.

Like so much of our politics today, those fringes drive the argument. I think 80% of the population could find a reasonable medical/health based solution.

---

I have never heard anyone espouse the bolded position unless you are excluding abortions to protect the mother's life. Assuming the mother's life is at risk for biological and not some loosely vague definition of mental health, all laws I have seen protect the mother.

I do agree there are extremists who drive the rhetoric and set the narrative. Unfortunately, the Democrats today are overrun with very powerful extremists who have ruined their party. Certain places like CA, NY, MD, CO, etc. are passing laws codifying up to birth for no cause abortions. CA was even considering protections for the mother if she intentionally allowed her born baby to die up to 4 weeks after birth. I don't know if that one passed, but I just used that as an example to show some of the loudest in the Democratic Party are also very powerful. This is also what makes Biden so bad. He rubber stamps the extremists in his party in an attempt to lend credibility to their goals.

---

Fully agree with your 2nd paragraph. It's disgusting.
We have a fam friend who's young adult daughter has gone off the deep end. She's living in Asheville as a "they"

She posted an IG video after the initial rumors on this case and went off on how it wa her body, and she'd do what she wanted to do, any time, any where on details. Just really really disturbing stuff. She was very angry, which seems a common thread

statefan91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

Most pro-lifers have heard the argument from abortion supporters that goes something along the lines of: "If you want to ban abortion, are you willing to adopt the kids that will result?" On its face, this argument is disingenuous. One does [not] need to be willing to personally care for another to believe he has a right to life. I do not presently have the resources to take in any homeless people, but I can still justly oppose murdering them.

Even so, many pro-life couples actually will adopt children for the specific purpose of saving them from abortion. Some of these couples appeared at demonstrations over the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health to advertise their willingness. Did progressives on social media admire the couples' taking up their challenge? Of course not! Instead, these couples faced mockery and derision online.

On the most basic level, these couples are doing a loving act of service to give a child a home, and they do not deserve to be made into an object of scorn on Twitter. Would any of the people mocking them be willing to adopt a baby who otherwise would have been aborted? Some would, surely, but the answer would be "no" for most of them.

Among the ridicule, there were a few thoughtful arguments. They all took different forms, but they mostly boiled down to: "Would these couples really adopt a baby? If they would, why haven't they adopted one of the hundreds of thousands of children in foster care?"

The children who are already in foster care are not in the system for lack of interest. There are between 1 and 2 million couples in America who are waiting to adopt, enough to empty the entire system between two and five times over. If they were to attempt to adopt one of the children, it is likely they would be held up by well-intentioned yet counterproductive bureaucratic red tape.

---

---

Whole bunch of and "likely" "many" etc. It's clear there is no plan after getting Roe v. Wade overturned except patting themselves on the back as they read stories about how many kids are in foster care and then move on without doing anything. Your link stating "There are between 1 and 2 million couples" doesn't even say that, it says

"There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples."

---

If that's the basis for arguing that it would have better to leave Roe intact (leaving the Constitutional aspect of it alone for a moment), one can equally argue it would have better to have not enacted Emancipation.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war

I'm really sorry to hear about your friend's daughter. It is so sad to see these young people fall for the lies being pushed by extremists. I feel so bad for the parents when these stories come out. Usually, they have given everything to raise their kids in the best way they know how and kids just rebel. It's heartbreaking. That said, it's never too late for a change of heart. God can do great things. Prayers for the family and for their daughter.

We have all heard of people getting saved and experiencing a stunning 180 to become wonderful people with a repentant heart. National Review had a story yesterday about a 180 in the opposite direction.

Quote:

---

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker's cousin was a retired lieutenant colonel in the Illinois Army National Guard and the father of three children. In 2013, around the time gender ideology reached the level of mainstream American culture, James Pritzker (the cousin) announced a transition to womanhood and became Jennifer.

---

The Pritzkers are billionaires and they have been aggressively funding synthetic sex identities," or SSI, because the word "transgenderism" lacks "clear boundaries" and is thus "useless for communication."

Quote:

---

Since then, Pritzker has used the Tawani Foundation to help fund various institutions that support the concept of a spectrum of human sexes, including the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the Williams Institute UCLA School of Law, the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Palm Military Center, the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH), and many others. Tawani Enterprises, the private investment counterpart to the philanthropic foundation, invests in and partners with Squadron Capital LLC, a Chicago-based private investment vehicle that acquires a number of medical device companies that manufacture instruments, implants, cutting tools, and injection molded plastic products for use in surgeries. As in the case of Jon Stryker, founder of the LGBT mega-NGO Arcus Foundation, it is hard to avoid the impression of complementarity between Jennifer Pritzker's for-profit medical investments and philanthropic support for SSI.

---

Extremely powerful and rich people are pushing these narratives. See here.

Is someone an extremist if they say as a result of this ruling many children will become victims of sex trafficking? That's a pretty gross leap of logic. I feel like the left is hoping for bad things to happen to children and mothers so they can own the conservatives.

packgrad said:

---

Is someone an extremist if they say as a result of this ruling many children will become victims of sex trafficking? That's a pretty gross leap of logic. I feel like the left is hoping for bad things to happen to children and mothers so they can own the conservatives.

---

Extreme? Probably depends on the nuance. If you're screaming it at the top of your voice…probably a bit much. But I think it is very fair to assume this will hit lower income folks more than high income. More people in low income what are they going to turn to?
Drugs? Criminality? Sec trafficking? I think there are stats that show kids growing up thru the foster system are much more likely than you or I to fall into those pitfalls?

The word "nuance" really bothers me…

BTW, the Supreme Court ruled that the repeal on "stay in Mexico" Trump policy can be reversed by Biden. Now, I disagree on the policy decision, by Biden; however, it's the absolute correct decision, by the Supreme Court!

caryking said:

---

The word "nuance" really bothers me…

BTW, the Supreme Court ruled that the repeal on "stay in Mexico" Trump policy can be reversed by Biden. Now, I disagree on the policy decision, by Biden; however, it's the absolute correct decision, by the Supreme Court!

---

Meh, i guess with fresh eyes, i could have used "context". IE, it is not extreme to say "lack of abortion access will result in more unwanted babies hitting "the system", of which a likely outcome is some of those will fall victim to crime, drugs and sex trafficking", because we know the system today generates that

It would be (IMO) extreme to make this the #1 issue out of this decision. Or to use it as the entire talking point for why not to stop abortions.

**To PG's original question though -- I 100% think there are plenty of people going overboard with worse-case scenarios that will occur from this decision. Might some of those things occur in some scenarios...yes, but you'd think from reading some articles and comments, childbirth deaths are going to revert to 1890 numbers because of this.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/report-more-than-half-of-u-s-abortions-are-chemical-abortions/

Quote:

---

According to the new report, abortions performed via the abortion pill as opposed to surgical abortions, which take place later in pregnancy accounted for 54 percent of abortions in the U.S. in 2020, a sharp increase from 2019, when they accounted for about 44 percent of all abortions.

Prior to 2020, Food & Drug Administration safety regulations required women to visit a doctor in-person before being prescribed a chemical abortion. These regulations were aimed at women's safety, ensuring that women had better access to follow-up care for abortion complications and that a doctor had assessed the state of her pregnancy before prescribing abortion drugs.

Due to heavy lobbying from the abortion industry and its Democratic allies, the FDA temporarily loosened those regulations, allowing women to obtain chemical-abortion drugs via telemedicine during the early days of the pandemic. Subsequent lawsuits from abortion businesses led to court rulings keeping that FDA rule shift in place even after the Trump administration attempted to roll it back, and the Biden administration made the change permanent.

These concerns are shared even by those who generally prefer liberal abortion laws. The United Kingdom just yesterday announced that it will end its brief experiment with telemedicine abortion, prompted by the pandemic, at the end of August.

---

Self-medicating without seeing a doctor to detect ectopic pregnancies is dangerous for both the baby and mother. With the rise of chemical abortions, one can easily envision human traffickers and other nefarious individuals getting their hands on abortion drugs with the goal of stealth avoidance of anti-abortion laws. These efforts in turn could be dangerous for some mothers. It appears Biden's zeal for appeasing the Choice crowd may make abortions both more common and less safe.

https://t.co/kapnMA4bTN

— Derrick is PRO CHOICE♎ #BLM 🇺🇦 🏳️‍🌈 (@Spawn_03) July 2, 2022

Someone feel free to tell me how this is a good thing

statefan91 said:

---

https://t.co/kapnMA4bTN

— Derrick is PRO CHOICE♎ #BLM 🇺🇦 🏳️‍🌈 (@Spawn_03) July 2, 2022

Someone feel free to tell me how this is a good thing

---

Here's your answer…

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/01/ohio-girl-10-among-patients-going-indiana-abortion/7788415001/

I need just a little more information on this before accepting the news article as wholly truthful.

Six weeks and THREE days?

As Cary signs, "Don't be deceived by a fool…"

bigeric said:

---

I need just a little more information on this before accepting the news article as wholly truthful.

Six weeks and THREE days?

As Cary signs, "Don't be deceived by a fool…"

---

It's very popular right now for the "abort everything" crowd to use examples like these that are 1 in 10,000 cases to push a point. I believe some states still allow for it in the case of rape, and they should up to a point in my opinion.

Looks like she is still able to get the care she needs, if the story is 100% true.

nm

The article was written by Shari Rudavsky and Rachel Fradette of the Indianapolis Star. It was reprinted by the Cincinnati Enquirer and Columbus Dispatch. All three are owned by Gannett.

The first two paragraphs are
" On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio. Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

Could Bernard help?"
...

That is the only reference to the child in the entire article. with the rest dwelling on Ohio's abortion law and the expected legal restriction anticipated in Indiana and other states.

I find it suspicious that Dr. Bernard took the call THREE days after SCOTUS overturned Roe from an Ohio doctor who had a 10 year old patient in her office who was, at the time, six weeks and THREE days pregnant.
A convenient coincident, n'est-ce pas?

I wasn't disagreeing with you. The whole thing does sound suspicious, if it's even true at all. I was just pointing out that the folks who want everyone with a perceived disadvantage to be aborted, use these examples to say, "see see see, this is why we need abortion!"

My point is… she's going to Indiana to get an abortion. So, she has options..

If all is true, that is..

Steve Videtich said:

---

I wasn't disagreeing with you. The whole thing does sound suspicious, if it's even true at all. I was just pointing out that the folks who want everyone with a perceived disadvantage to be aborted, use these examples to say, "see see see, this is why we need abortion!"

---

Also:
"It's very popular right now for the "abort everything" crowd to use examples like these that are 1 in 10,000 cases to push a point." ...

My post re: the articles was made to support your remarks and give evidence to the tactics the Pro-Choice supporters stoop to.