nm

TheStorm said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dude please take your chronic beefing with Glass to PM.

The rest of us don't care.

---

Civ, although I agree that Glass and BBW should take the debate to their own thread and/or PM's, I do find it comical that you called out BBW and not Glass.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to ask both of them to take it somewhere else? I do, as it showed your partiality…. Civ, I know you can do better…

---

I just wish that they could both try to take the high road and move on from their personal feelings for one another on this board... I know, easier said than done and all that. I think they've both been correct in some of their arguments, and I think they've both been wrong in some of their arguments... no different from most of the rest of us here.

Bottom line is that I appreciate both of them posting here and hope that they "continue to feel as called" (apologies to wolfer 79 for stealing his line)... listen, we can all get pretty fired up here sometimes, but sometimes it's just better to say what you feel that you need to say "within reason" - and then move on.

We are starting to get beyond "within reason" in this conversation.

Might be time to move on from it and discuss something else.

---

Storm I agree with you. Like I said, I'm done engaging with him.

But, there was absolutely NO reason for him to delete several of my posts from yesterday other than the fact that he can and he has that power. I've overstepped before and I admit it. I also paid the consequences more than once.

He comes on here and pretty much like I said earlier, plays moderator when he wants and antagonist when he wants. Plus he has the power to delete posts whenever it suits him. Talk about a power trip....

And that is all I am saying further on the topic. He's shown who he is more than once and his actions yesterday further solidify that.

---

Fully understand and respect your opinion and have always appreciated your posts here. I've had disagreements with Glass a time or two (or more ) in the past as well, but at the end of the day I eventually have to recognize that 1) he's a moderator (and I appreciate his dedication to that as I am sure so are the owners of the site) and 2) he's every bit of a quality individual as any of the rest of us here are... and #2 can't be said for everybody posting here (and Glass doesn't need me to take up for him anyway).

Politics and Religion can be difficult topics to discuss unfortunately. I've purposefully not posted on this thread up until now. Not because I don't have an opinion. It's just a volitile subject (on all sides and even in the middle for some loons) - and sometimes my personal opinion just is better to be left unsaid.

This is one of those times for me.

---

Nice post!

Just an FYI, I PM both BBW and Glass frequently. They both hear the good and the bad, based on the timing, from me (no, I don't think I'm the arbiter of truth or what's correct). Both are good people, as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate both!

Regarding the recent comments about Glass, by BBW… I immediately sent BBW a PM calling out his post. BBW made it clear, he didn't know Glass's background and was sorry he posted what he said. I believe BBW! Additionally, Glass PM me calling out his frustration with BBW's post. Hopefully, we all can move past this…

Civilized said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Do you have an issue with repeat users of abortion as a form of birth control?

---

Yes.

---

That's my number one issue with abortion, it's use as birth control. According to XL's info, the repeaters make up 42%. It should not be there for these people.

Thank you for your efforts to maintain the peace!

See Matthew 5:9

Steve Videtich said:

---

That's my number one issue with abortion, it's use as birth control. According to XL's info, the repeaters make up 42%. It should not be there for these people.

---

I would prefer the most irresponsible people that use it as birth control are not bringing unwanted children into the world.

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

One circumstance that is different this time, and the law is part of the problem. As a new tactic to legally indulge in misogyny, some males calling themselves women to victimize women.

---

Can you amplify a little on this?

What specific circumstance(s) are you referring to?

Davie - since you've been in the data, do you know if the abortions after the 10th week have any data behind it on viability of the baby or potential for mortality of the mother? Feels like that's relevant as well as to if those abortions that are further along may be due to significant health concerns or issues.

TheStorm said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Dude please take your chronic beefing with Glass to PM.

The rest of us don't care.

---

Civ, although I agree that Glass and BBW should take the debate to their own thread and/or PM's, I do find it comical that you called out BBW and not Glass.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to ask both of them to take it somewhere else? I do, as it showed your partiality…. Civ, I know you can do better…

---

I just wish that they could both try to take the high road and move on from their personal feelings for one another on this board... I know, easier said than done and all that. I think they've both been correct in some of their arguments, and I think they've both been wrong in some of their arguments... no different from most of the rest of us here.

Bottom line is that I appreciate both of them posting here and hope that they "continue to feel as called" (apologies to wolfer 79 for stealing his line)... listen, we can all get pretty fired up here sometimes, but sometimes it's just better to say what you feel that you need to say "within reason" - and then move on.

We are starting to get beyond "within reason" in this conversation.

Might be time to move on from it and discuss something else.

---

Storm I agree with you. Like I said, I'm done engaging with him.

But, there was absolutely NO reason for him to delete several of my posts from yesterday other than the fact that he can and he has that power. I've overstepped before and I admit it. I also paid the consequences more than once.

He comes on here and pretty much like I said earlier, plays moderator when he wants and antagonist when he wants. Plus he has the power to delete posts whenever it suits him. Talk about a power trip....

And that is all I am saying further on the topic. He's shown who he is more than once and his actions yesterday further solidify that.

---

Fully understand and respect your opinion and have always appreciated your posts here. I've had disagreements with Glass a time or two (or more ) in the past as well, but at the end of the day I eventually have to recognize that 1) he's a moderator (and I appreciate his dedication to that as I am sure so are the owners of the site) and 2) he's every bit of a quality individual as any of the rest of us here are... and #2 can't be said for everybody posting here (and Glass doesn't need me to take up for him anyway).

Politics and Religion can be difficult topics to discuss unfortunately. I've purposefully not posted on this thread up until now. Not because I don't have an opinion. It's just a volitile subject (on all sides and even in the middle for some loons) - and sometimes my personal opinion just is better to be left unsaid.

This is one of those times for me.

---

Great posts Storm.

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

That's my number one issue with abortion, it's use as birth control. According to XL's info, the repeaters make up 42%. It should not be there for these people.

---

I would prefer the most irresponsible people that use it as birth control are not bringing unwanted children into the world.

---

I agree partially but "irresponsible" is much too broad and incomplete I think.

Some irresponsibility? Sure.

But I think even moreso it speaks to the same cycles we see economically and socially that are so very hard to break out of.

3/4 are low income women. 50% are in poverty.

Instability. Food, housing, relationship, job insecurity. Educational and job opportunity.

This is not predominantly a "responsibility" issue any moreso than breaking out of the cycle of poverty is.

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Excellent post Davie. Thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts so comprehensively.

My feelings essentially mirror yours.

Rape, incest, and medical necessity are no-brainers. A compromise should be reached on how far into term to allow women to make unilateral and discretionary decisions about their pregnancy, and to me the "can the fetus survive outside the womb" is a reasonable benchmark.

---

Civ, how do you handle the people that say: it's my body, it's my choice…

---

It should be their choice, but not up until birth (my opinion and I think this would be the majority opinion as well).

There needs to be a reasonable post-conception, pre-birth line in the sand after which the decision becomes less discretionary out of consideration for the increasing development of the fetus in the womb.

---

Civ, some of those people believe they should be able to have an abortion all the way up to birth. Its their body and their choice... How can you deny them?

---

I get it. For a millennia women were abused, forced, and coerced by men into having unwanted sex. Women have been broadly denied legal bodily autonomy for most of human existence. It's time they had full control over their bodies and pregnancies, especially those pregnancies forced upon them by will or violence.

So I get the pendulum swing to "my body, my choice" until the moment that baby separates physically from them. All that said that's still a distinctly minority position and is almost certainly not politically viable.

All laws require compromise and this is no different.

---

One circumstance that is different this time, and the law is part of the problem. As a new tactic to legally indulge in misogyny, some males calling themselves women to victimize women.

---

Can you amplify a little on this?

What specific circumstance(s) are you referring to?

---

Since I'm being too subtle, I'll substitute blunt examples…..

Trans-boy in Loudoun county sexually assaulting girls in girls bathroom where apparently he is allowed to go.

California allowing trans-man to go to women's prison….what could possibly go wrong?

Civilized said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

That's my number one issue with abortion, it's use as birth control. According to XL's info, the repeaters make up 42%. It should not be there for these people.

---

I would prefer the most irresponsible people that use it as birth control are not bringing unwanted children into the world.

---

I agree partially but "irresponsible" is much too broad and incomplete I think.

Some irresponsibility? Sure.

But I think even moreso it speaks to the same cycles we see economically and socially that are so very hard to break out of.

3/4 are low income women. 50% are in poverty.

Instability. Food, housing, relationship, job insecurity. Educational and job opportunity.

This is not predominantly a "responsibility" issue any moreso than breaking out of the cycle of poverty is.

---

Civ, where are you getting your data? None of what I found or Davie found matches that number.

Civ, I agree with you to a point. But, many of these issues of economic and opportunity can be boiled down to continously making bad decisions. We've all made bad decisions in our lives that we've had to deal with. Some worse than others. If we keep allowing them to skate with out consequence, how do they stop making bad decisions? I know it's a slippery slow of damned if you do damned if you don't!

And yes, I do understand they live in ****ty areas where opportunity and options are limited. But, are we better by spending government money to change these areas, or by perpetuating the bad decisions and allowing the behavior to continue?

https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

I haven't dived in to see if demographics have changed dramatically in the last 6-8 years but I doubt they've changed consequentially in that relatively short period.

Read their blurb on data collection and the limitations of relying on state health department data aggregation.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Civ, I agree with you to a point. But, many of these issues of economic and opportunity can be boiled down to continously making bad decisions. We've all made bad decisions in our lives that we've had to deal with. Some worse than others. If we keep allowing them to skate with out consequence, how do they stop making bad decisions? I know it's a slippery slow of damned if you do damned if you don't!

And yes, I do understand they live in ****ty areas where opportunity and options are limited. But, are we better by spending government money to change these areas, or by perpetuating the bad decisions and allowing the behavior to continue?

---

Yes but the consequences in this situation are bringing in an unwanted child to the world, a child that is unlikely to get the love, support, means needed to have a healthy and happy upbringing and more likely to contribute to societal woes in the future, whether it's crime, government dependence, etc. I don't understand why when there's hundreds of thousands of kids waiting to be adopted, we expect that removing abortion access will do anything except make that problem much, much worse.

And that goes back to an earlier discussion of changing the adoption process. You keep saying that all of these kids are unwanted. There's lots of people that would love to give these kids a home full of love. But, the prices won't allow it, or is too expensive for them. Should wanting to give these kids an opportunity really have a high cost associated work it?

Steve Videtich said:

---

And that goes back to an earlier discussion of changing the adoption process. You keep saying that all of these kids are unwanted. There's lots of people that would love to give these kids a home full of love. But, the prices won't allow it, or is too expensive for them. Should wanting to give these kids an opportunity really have a high cost associated work it?

---

Agreed - it should be easier / shouldn't be cost prohibitive.

But if families truly wanted to adopt then they would find a way to do it. Churches would help support, Gofundme's, etc. If every Catholic Church in the country contribute (not picking on them, just know they're firmly anti-abortion), it seems like the costs could easily be subsidized.

PackFansXL said:

---

Thank you for your efforts to maintain the peace!

See Matthew 5:9

---

Well, I am a child of God, sometimes…. Other times, Romans 3:23 describes me. That said, the Holy Spirt works on my heart to soften it…

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

And that goes back to an earlier discussion of changing the adoption process. You keep saying that all of these kids are unwanted. There's lots of people that would love to give these kids a home full of love. But, the prices won't allow it, or is too expensive for them. Should wanting to give these kids an opportunity really have a high cost associated work it?

---

Agreed - it should be easier / shouldn't be cost prohibitive.

But if families truly wanted to adopt then they would find a way to do it. Churches would help support, Gofundme's, etc. If every Catholic Church in the country contribute (not picking on them, just know they're firmly anti-abortion), it seems like the costs could easily be subsidized.

---

Again some ways are found easier than others. But, it would make a difference in the lives of these kids.

Every decision that is made by government and the like (SCOTUS), has unintended consequences. You have explained one, in that there will be more kids. But, keeping abortion as it was, in my opinion, will only perpetuate some of the negatives we currently have.

How do we know that having a kid wouldn't change some people's lives for the better? Maybe they realize they have another person to care for and now they have to make positive changes for themselves and this new life. Not saying it's the majority, but it's another viewpoint.

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

And that goes back to an earlier discussion of changing the adoption process. You keep saying that all of these kids are unwanted. There's lots of people that would love to give these kids a home full of love. But, the prices won't allow it, or is too expensive for them. Should wanting to give these kids an opportunity really have a high cost associated work it?

---

Agreed - it should be easier / shouldn't be cost prohibitive.

But if families truly wanted to adopt then they would find a way to do it. Churches would help support, Gofundme's, etc. If every Catholic Church in the country contribute (not picking on them, just know they're firmly anti-abortion), it seems like the costs could easily be subsidized.

---

Does it seem that way? Perhaps you should research a little more.

Civilized said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

That's my number one issue with abortion, it's use as birth control. According to XL's info, the repeaters make up 42%. It should not be there for these people.

---

I would prefer the most irresponsible people that use it as birth control are not bringing unwanted children into the world.

---

I agree partially but "irresponsible" is much too broad and incomplete I think.

Some irresponsibility? Sure.

But I think even moreso it speaks to the same cycles we see economically and socially that are so very hard to break out of.

3/4 are low income women. 50% are in poverty.

Instability. Food, housing, relationship, job insecurity. Educational and job opportunity.

This is not predominantly a "responsibility" issue any moreso than breaking out of the cycle of poverty is.

---

Civ, please support me in Trump. If not Trump, then an America First candidate. I believe the loss of jobs, to China, has created more economic instability than we are realizing!

Steve Videtich said:

---

Again some ways are found easier than others. But, it would make a difference in the lives of these kids.

Every decision that is made by government and the like (SCOTUS), has unintended consequences. You have explained one, in that there will be more kids. But, keeping abortion as it was, in my opinion, will only perpetuate some of the negatives we currently have.

How do we know that having a kid wouldn't change some people's lives for the better? Maybe they realize they have another person to care for and now they have to make positive changes for themselves and this new life. Not saying it's the majority, but it's another viewpoint.

---

That's fair, there's always potential for that to be the effect. I do think it makes sense for Churches, especially those that are staunchly anti-abortion, to be doing everything they can to persuade and incentivize their parishioners to adopt all these children that are without homes / in foster care. With the wealth that exists in the Church, there should be no parishioner that wants to adopt that isn't supported.

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

And that goes back to an earlier discussion of changing the adoption process. You keep saying that all of these kids are unwanted. There's lots of people that would love to give these kids a home full of love. But, the prices won't allow it, or is too expensive for them. Should wanting to give these kids an opportunity really have a high cost associated work it?

---

Agreed - it should be easier / shouldn't be cost prohibitive.

But if families truly wanted to adopt then they would find a way to do it. Churches would help support, Gofundme's, etc. If every Catholic Church in the country contribute (not picking on them, just know they're firmly anti-abortion), it seems like the costs could easily be subsidized.

---

On average, the individuals that oppose abortion because they believe in personal accountability do not believe the government should subsidize the cost of caring for an unwanted child.

I agree with you here. But, the catholic church doesn't do enough of these types things, at least from where I sit. That's coming from a catholic. They do a lot of providing for the poor, but other things they do are hard to see.

Living in Utah, I've been blown away by what I've seen from the Morman church out here. You have no idea what how much they do in helping people out! I could see them doing something like that. They even helped my family out when we were going through a tough time, and were not even part of it. Utah is ranked as the one of the top giving states every year. It's pretty amazing!

WolfpackHooligan said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

And that goes back to an earlier discussion of changing the adoption process. You keep saying that all of these kids are unwanted. There's lots of people that would love to give these kids a home full of love. But, the prices won't allow it, or is too expensive for them. Should wanting to give these kids an opportunity really have a high cost associated work it?

---

Agreed - it should be easier / shouldn't be cost prohibitive.

But if families truly wanted to adopt then they would find a way to do it. Churches would help support, Gofundme's, etc. If every Catholic Church in the country contribute (not picking on them, just know they're firmly anti-abortion), it seems like the costs could easily be subsidized.

---

On average, the individuals that oppose abortion because they believe in personal accountability do not believe the government should subsidize the cost of caring for an unwanted child.

---

I didn't say anything about Government subsidizing the cost of caring for an unwanted child. I said the Churches should plan to subsidize the costs of adoption for their parishioners that want to adopt the hundreds of thousands of kids available for adoption but haven't done so due to the cost.

statefan91 said:

---

WolfpackHooligan said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

And that goes back to an earlier discussion of changing the adoption process. You keep saying that all of these kids are unwanted. There's lots of people that would love to give these kids a home full of love. But, the prices won't allow it, or is too expensive for them. Should wanting to give these kids an opportunity really have a high cost associated work it?

---

Agreed - it should be easier / shouldn't be cost prohibitive.

But if families truly wanted to adopt then they would find a way to do it. Churches would help support, Gofundme's, etc. If every Catholic Church in the country contribute (not picking on them, just know they're firmly anti-abortion), it seems like the costs could easily be subsidized.

---

On average, the individuals that oppose abortion because they believe in personal accountability do not believe the government should subsidize the cost of caring for an unwanted child.

---

I didn't say anything about Government subsidizing the cost of caring for an unwanted child. I said the Churches should plan to subsidize the costs of adoption for their parishioners that want to adopt the hundreds of thousands of kids available for adoption but haven't done so due to the cost.

---

Either concept requires individuals to give money to an entity that is then redistributed to those in need. That model isn't supported by those who demand personal accountability and responsibility for one's actions.

I agree that if you are pro-life, it would make sense to fix the current the issues surrounding adoption programs and child care for poor Americans before they reach the point of no return and become a bigger drain on resources.

WolfpackHooligan said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I didn't say anything about Government subsidizing the cost of caring for an unwanted child. I said the Churches should plan to subsidize the costs of adoption for their parishioners that want to adopt the hundreds of thousands of kids available for adoption but haven't done so due to the cost.

---

Either concept requires individuals to give money to an entity that is then redistributed to those in need. That model isn't supported by those who demand personal accountability and responsibility for one's actions.

I agree that if you are pro-life, it would make sense to fix the current the issues surrounding adoption programs and child care for poor Americans before they reach the point of no return and become a bigger drain on resources.

---

That's fine, can work on fixing the model at the same time churches are putting their money up so all of the Pro-Life people are financially equipped with being able to adopt the thousands of children that are ready and available to be adopted.

Civilized said:

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

I haven't dived in to see if demographics have changed dramatically in the last 6-8 years but I doubt they've changed consequentially in that relatively short period.

Read their blurb on data collection and the limitations of relying on state health department data aggregation.

---

I have read Guttmacher Institute stuff before. They are a pro-abortion site actively seeking donations. Since states like CA, RI, NH, MD refuse to publish abortion data, Guttmacher goes to a subset of clinics directly to get access to new abortion participants for their surveys. I imagine they are doing a fine job with their analysis, but like most data analysts, they claim superior methodology and state others don't follow similar rigor.

statefan91 said:

---

WolfpackHooligan said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I didn't say anything about Government subsidizing the cost of caring for an unwanted child. I said the Churches should plan to subsidize the costs of adoption for their parishioners that want to adopt the hundreds of thousands of kids available for adoption but haven't done so due to the cost.

---

Either concept requires individuals to give money to an entity that is then redistributed to those in need. That model isn't supported by those who demand personal accountability and responsibility for one's actions.

I agree that if you are pro-life, it would make sense to fix the current the issues surrounding adoption programs and child care for poor Americans before they reach the point of no return and become a bigger drain on resources.

---

That's fine, can work on fixing the model at the same time churches are putting their money up so all of the Pro-Life people are financially equipped with being able to adopt the thousands of children that are ready and available to be adopted.

---

So, do you really think "pro life churches" don't help their parishioners trying to adopt? Or are you saying that should be their primary mission?

Do you think your pro abortion church should start funding travel for all women who want to abort their baby but can't in the state they live in?

PackFansXL said:

---

Civilized said:

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2014

I haven't dived in to see if demographics have changed dramatically in the last 6-8 years but I doubt they've changed consequentially in that relatively short period.

Read their blurb on data collection and the limitations of relying on state health department data aggregation.

---

I have read Guttmacher Institute stuff before. They are a pro-abortion site actively seeking donations. Since states like CA, RI, NH, MD refuse to publish abortion data, Guttmacher goes to a subset of clinics directly to get access to new abortion participants for their surveys. I imagine they are doing a fine job with their analysis, but like most data analysts, they claim superior methodology and state others don't follow similar rigor.

---

"Pro-abortion" is unproductive framing.

Nobody wants to have an abortion.

Agree that Guttmacher are perhaps no different than vendors in other industries that try to make themselves look better by talking down the last guy's work. Construction vendors have made this an art form.

Churches, in general help as many people as they can; however, I've talked with our Pastor about the dollars we send to do international ministry's challenging him with the need to keep the money at home.

It has been my opinion that churches send money to other country's because so much is being done by the Government, here, in the US. To me, that's backwards.

Someone, in the water cooler, complained about the expense and time to get a loved one in the country. I think this experience is emblematic of immigration and adoption. I don't know the challenges, to adopting; however, I'm confident it is no easier than immigration.

These are the conversations that need to be had. So, if this court ruling, opens up the conversation for adoption procedures, then, this is a good thing...

caryking said:

---

Churches, in general help as many people as they can; however, I've talked with our Pastor about the dollars we send to do international ministry's challenging him with the need to keep the money at home.

It has been my opinion that churches send money to other country's because so much is being done by the Government, here, in the US. To me, that's backwards.

Someone, in the water cooler, complained about the expense and time to get a loved one in the country. I think this experience is emblematic of immigration and adoption. I don't know the challenges, to adopting; however, I'm confident it is no easier than immigration.

These are the conversations that need to be had. So, if this court ruling, opens up the conversation for adoption procedures, then, this is a good thing...

---

Why wait? If Churches are pro-life with regards to their stance on abortion, they should be doing everything they can to ensure their parishioners can adopt without barriers. There are kids waiting. There is supposedly demand. They should do all they can to get it done now while also working through whatever channels they have to affect change with the processes as well.

packgrad said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

That's fine, can work on fixing the model at the same time churches are putting their money up so all of the Pro-Life people are financially equipped with being able to adopt the thousands of children that are ready and available to be adopted.

---

So, do you really think "pro life churches" don't help their parishioners trying to adopt? Or are you saying that should be their primary mission?

Do you think your pro abortion church should start funding travel for all women who want to abort their baby but can't in the state they live in?

---

1. Yes, if they are collectively taking the stance as "pro life" then it would make sense that it's their primary mission.

2. Yes, "pro choice" churches will probably do what they can to support their parishioners. Assume it would be similar to point #1 with regards to helping fund adoptions. If these parishioners are saying they can't adopt because they can't afford it, I'd hope that the church is using their funds to support them.