Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

statefan91 said:

---

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.

---

In this day and age it is on the parents of the kids to make sure if they are sexually active they have birth control right?

Where are the parents in these situations. Accidents happen. Not saying they don't.

Who are the 68% of the people getting abortions? Where are the parents? Why are they represented in such a disproportionate way?

Please dig down to the core root of the problem. The breakdown of the nuclear family championed by BLM, who I'm sure damn sure isn't going to help the issue, is an issue in the black community along with teenage pregnancy.

When you solve that you will solve a hell of a lot more problems than just abortion.

You have to look at more than just "kids being kids." When self accountability no longer matters to society then you get what we have in the inner cities and urban areas.

packgrad said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I love it when people that don't go to church talk about what churches should be doing.

---

Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

---

Don't worry, this is the same clown that used getting the babies to heaven sooner as a good argument to support abortion. Based on that statement he might next say we should kill all the poor kids in foster care so they can get to heaven sooner too

statefan91 said:

---

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.

---

The mission of churches is primarily about reaching lost souls. Churches do help fund crisis pregnancy centers that help new mothers with food, diapers, coaching, etc. These facilities are all over the country and are funded by private donations. BTW, they are presently under attack by militant abortion advocates who are firebombing structures and threatening volunteers.

At our church, we have several families who have adopted additional kids beyond their own. In my home, our extra funds went to funding our children's private school education.

Do you believe being pro choice lets you off the hook that you want to put pro life folks on? Seems to be the soapbox on which your standing.

packgrad said:

---

I love it when people that don't go to church talk about what churches should be doing.

---

I'm still trying to figure out why y'all engaged him to begin with... he's nothing but a parrot that reads straight from a script... and that could be any topic.

statefan91 said:

---

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.

---

As far as viability is concerned and I mentioned this in a previous post you may have missed, the current medical view is at 22 weeks, plus or minus a couple of weeks. This is how I settled on my opinion that abortion up to 15-20 weeks is an acceptable proposal (NC is currently at 20 weeks).

As to mortality of mothers, are you asking about mortality of mothers who are having an abortion? If so, I saw one set of data that said there are less than 5 deaths per year of a person who undergoes an abortion. There was no specific timing provided as to the timing of the abortion in relationship to the term of the pregnancy. I want to investigate this data more fully, so I would caution assuming this to be accurate data.

When I was looking for some statistics, I also found a handy chart that shows the current abortion laws by state.

PackFansXL said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

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.

---

The mission of churches is primarily about reaching lost souls. Churches do help fund crisis pregnancy centers that help new mothers with food, diapers, coaching, etc. These facilities are all over the country and are funded by private donations. BTW, they are presently under attack by militant abortion advocates who are firebombing structures and threatening volunteers.

At our church, we have several families who have adopted additional kids beyond their own. In my home, our extra funds went to funding our children's private school education.

Do you believe being pro choice lets you off the hook that you want to put pro life folks on? Seems to be the soapbox on which your standing.

---

Wouldn't those children that are in foster care / without parents qualify as lost souls? If the "church" is going to be a driving force behind pro-life demonstrations (you see mostly church groups outside of planned parenthood clinics, as an example), then why aren't they doing everything in their power to save those children? They are pushing for every conception to lead to a pregnancy but then not worrying about what happens to the children after that? Seems antithetical to what Jesus would want.

I'm not on a soapbox, I just don't think forcing people that don't want children to carry them makes much sense. Especially when that leads to children suffering from neglect, abuse, crime, poverty, etc.

Shocking the number of states that do not require a licensed physician to perform the surgery.

TheStorm said:

---

packgrad said:

---

I love it when people that don't go to church talk about what churches should be doing.

---

I'm still trying to figure out why y'all engaged him to begin with... he's nothing but a parrot that reads straight from a script... and that could be any topic.

---

True. You can tell how much he "cares" about the well-being of children in how he is trying to politicize adoption.

packgrad said:

---

I love it when people that don't go to church talk about what churches should be doing.

---

No different than State fans sitting at home watching on TV complaining about how fans in the stadium look.

packgrad said:

---

Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

---

Agreed - I pass by a lot of Catholic churches in Charlotte that have signs prominently displayed year-round with anti-abortion messaging.

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

---

Agreed - I pass by a lot of Catholic churches in Charlotte that have signs prominently displayed year-round with anti-abortion messaging.

---

Ooo. Not signs! You should go inside a church. They have messages in there too. Has Fauci set one up for you to go to yet?

packgrad said:

---

Ooo. Not signs! You should go inside a church. They have messages in there too. Has Fauci set one up for you to go to yet?

---

All good - I go to church and have a great relationship with God. Thank you for your advice!

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

---

Agreed - I pass by a lot of Catholic churches in Charlotte that have signs prominently displayed year-round with anti-abortion messaging.

---

Perhaps you should stop in for a visit and ask what programs they offer for pre-birth and post birth mothers. You might be surprised.

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Ooo. Not signs! You should go inside a church. They have messages in there too. Has Fauci set one up for you to go to yet?

---

All good - I go to church and have a great relationship with God. Thank you for your advice!

---

You're welcome.

PackFansXL said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

---

Agreed - I pass by a lot of Catholic churches in Charlotte that have signs prominently displayed year-round with anti-abortion messaging.

---

Perhaps you should stop in for a visit and ask what programs they offer for pre-birth and post birth mothers. You might be surprised.

---

That's a good point - I'll ask them what they're doing to encourage adoption amongst their parish and their percentage of families in the church that have adopted.

packgrad said:

---

You're welcome.

---

statefan91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

---

Agreed - I pass by a lot of Catholic churches in Charlotte that have signs prominently displayed year-round with anti-abortion messaging.

---

Perhaps you should stop in for a visit and ask what programs they offer for pre-birth and post birth mothers. You might be surprised.

---

That's a good point - I'll ask them what they're doing to encourage adoption amongst their parish and their percentage of families in the church that have adopted.

---

No you won't.

statefan91 said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Fortunately churches I have been to have broader views than radical leftists. Couldn't imagine going to a church whose primary mission was abortion politics.

---

Agreed - I pass by a lot of Catholic churches in Charlotte that have signs prominently displayed year-round with anti-abortion messaging.

---

Perhaps you should stop in for a visit and ask what programs they offer for pre-birth and post birth mothers. You might be surprised.

---

That's a good point - I'll ask them what they're doing to encourage adoption amongst their parish and their percentage of families in the church that have adopted.

---

My church is a big Baptist one, and is very involved in adoptions. Our pastor and chief executive pastor (2nd in command) and several other assistant pastors have adopted at least once.
There are funded programs to help local community service projects to provide diapers, etc like XL suggested.

But they don't provide direct funding to church members who want to adopt. I'm not sure if they support fundraisers for individuals (I didn't appeal for any help when we adopted).
I do think this is a point for churches to step up, because frankly, no one else will. We surely shouldn't trust the government, and we know the birth parents will often still not be in position to proivde any care.
And the existing foster care and social services programs are often over-run, understaffed, and have bad people in some cases.

Agreed - glad to hear your church is practicing what it preaches. The social work / child services / adoption agency side is going to get so much more behind with numbers of children in the system that will likely increase due to the efforts to severely restrict abortion access.

I pinky promise I will, honey

https://instagr.am/p/CfXNmRuskFZ

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...

---

It's part of the great commission to reach other nations. Clearly there should be oversight and not intentionally wasteful efforts, but if we're going to be serious about carrying out JC's command, we need to invest in foreign missions

What is your church doing to encourage adoption amongst its parish and what is its percentage of families in the church that have adopted?

By the way, June has been officially changed from Sodomite pride month to Pro Life month.

Packchem91 said:

---

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...

---

It's part of the great commission to reach other nations. Clearly there should be oversight and not intentionally wasteful efforts, but if we're going to be serious about carrying out JC's command, we need to invest in foreign missions

---

Chem, I understand! I just think we, as a Church body, could spend more time in our community than internationally! That said, I unconditionally give.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

---

I just saw this and was going to post it, but you beat me to it!

GuerrillaPack said:

---

---

Gold

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

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...

---

It's part of the great commission to reach other nations. Clearly there should be oversight and not intentionally wasteful efforts, but if we're going to be serious about carrying out JC's command, we need to invest in foreign missions

---

Chem, I understand! I just think we, as a Church body, could spend more time in our community than internationally! That said, I unconditionally give.

---

i would think a healthy church would be doing both (and encouraging to start at home before doing anything else).

I would also think a healthy church -- regardless of denomination, would be encouraging adoption / fostering and leading by example.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

By the way, June has been officially changed from Sodomite pride month to Pro Life month.

---

Is it ok if lesbians continue to celebrate Pride?

WolfpackHooligan said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

By the way, June has been officially changed from Sodomite pride month to Pro Life month.

---

Is it ok if lesbians continue to celebrate Pride?

---

Well... that is subjective....

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.

---

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.

---

---

Excellent information.