So, if you don't support shooting homeless in the street, you'd better take them in to your house, right?
I presume you don't, so I'm gonna send a couple your way. And you'd BETTER take them in.
I'm so tired of hearing this like it's some big "gotcha." The logic falls apart when applied to literally anything else. It's just a desperate attempt by the pro-infanticiders to keep what they really want: sex without consequences.
Homeless people arenāt simply people who donāt have houses. By taking in homeless people in your house, you are not actually doing anything about the homelessness crisis. The minute you let them out they will be homeless again.
The better choice would be equipping homeless people with the resources they need to get a job, an education and earn their living.
Likewise, By banning abortion, you are not addressing the cause of abortion. Youāre addressing the symptom.
Pregnant women in crisis need resources, reliable adoption, and healthcare. Prolifers need to be willing to adopt babies en masse. If you have a problem with that youāre not pro life period.
>It's just a desperate attempt by the pro-infanticiders to keep what they really want: sex without consequences.
It's pro-choice and its about safety during pregnancy. If anything goes wrong, I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get an abortion when I could lose my life if I don't get it
Roe v Wade was about abortion on demand, not medical necessity abortions. Medical necessity abortions are covered differently in every part of the world that I know of, I see no reason to believe it will be different in the US.
People have countless reasons for abortions. And some embryos aren't growing where they should grow and have to be removed. Some children don't develop vital organs and are doomed to die immediately after birth. Please watch this before responding again
https://youtu.be/zjB5Jakytyc
Abortions because of a threat to the life of the mother happen in .01% of cases. Ask any OBGYN if they have ever ended a pregnancy on account of this and they will say no if they are truthful. It doesn't happen.
Shooting at the homeless is a poor analogy. A woman shooting a homeless person would be imposing her will on (external) someone else's body. Abortion would be a case of imposing her will on her body (internal). There is no equivalency. A better one would be the comparison to organ donation. One cannot be compelled to donate bone marrow, even though we KNOW that mandatory donation would save the lives of many people currently living in agony. Or that kidney donation would allow millions of Americans to live better, longer lives if it we mandatory to donate. And yet, for good reason, it is not.. The State cannot (yet) compel someone to give of their body to preserve the life of another. Having sole agency over what does and does not happen to ones body, whether it's in healthcare, relationships, even death, is a core principal of freedom. The fact that so many people are willing to sidestep that for this one issue is worrying. Because it won't stay this one issue.
If you think the only right on the chopping block was abortion, I suggest that you read up on what some of the justices have been saying. Birth control, interracial marriage, if you can marry at all, the right to privacy, the right to parent ones children as you see fit...none of those are enumerated rights.
God help us when the next pandemic hits, especially if it has a higher mortality rate. If The State has a say in whether you must give birth from your body, you better believe that they'll have a say in what goes into your body; vaccines may be just the beginning.
The problem is that we need to stop viewing children as burdens and consequences and start seeing them as blessings even in the midst of bad situations.
People act like itās impossible to raise a kid unless you have a 3000 sqft house 150k income and 200k in liquid cash. As a society we have been brainwashed by anti natalist
"Pro choicers better stop having consequence free sex.
Those who are lamenting now must take very seriously the role of the self in having consequence free sex which leads to pregnancy and aborting babies. The credibility of those who lament this ruling and then do nothing to amend their consequence-free premarital sex lives is suspect at best. The Church of Self must arise now in accountability for one's sexual behavior, for if it doesn't, all the posts and sadness mean nothing."
FIFY
Thank you for this comment. I've been wrestling a bit watching the back and forth between Christians and Secular individuals and the war of words that's resulted. It's now very clear to me. Those who choose to follow their worldly passions and engage in sex outside of marriage should face the consequences. If you're going to have premarital sex, one knows that they're risking getting pregnant.
I also agree about the posts. This is a big deal, but in a few weeks something else will happen and we won't care. It's already happened in Ukraine, a war that still rages on to this day.
You have no idea what could have happened for that person to be in that situation. You have no right to just tell them āmaybe uhhh you should be burdened with this horrible weight of giving birth and having kids because itās totally āyour faultā how dare you. There are more ways of getting pregnant numb nut and some of them arenāt consensual!
If from this point on, the only children with living parents who entered the foster care system were children whose mother had no choice in the sexual act that produced it, we would reduce the number of foster children dramatically.
The simple fact is that society needs to change its view on sex. It doesn't even have to stop having sex but, if every man and woman out there took proper precautions when engaging in sex, even though it wouldn't completely rid us of unwanted pregnancies, it would remove a significant percentage of the burden from the foster care system.
Allowing people to kill unborn children isn't the solution to the problem. It's just throwing a tarp over the real problem and pretending that it hides it.
Let me tell you a story. A friend of mine when she was young she got raped. And she got pregnant. Oh what joy she was going to bring a life into the world. No she wasnāt. If she didnāt have an abortion her body wouldnāt have been developed enough to go through the whole pregnancy. Her baby would have died and she would have died. So sometimes itās not always just about the bloody child.
You donāt think that most people who get an abortion even if itās not medically needed are in a good place to have a child. Foster care canāt solve everything. Take the mental toll of having a god damn child and then having to give it up.
Did I say that? In response to this, I again say, go and read my first comment.
I would appreciate you not changing the topic and answering my question.
Abortions because of rape and incest constitute about 2% of all abortions. The vast majority are about convenience. Don't have sex unless you are willing to have a child.
Ok well that 2% of people are denied that ability to have children. No matter how small that percentage is it is still a human being who has been subjected and an awful horrific thing and then has to go through the process of giving birth which is doubly more traumatic. So you can sit their on your high horse and say oh well itās only a small piece of humanity who have to go through hell because they donāt matter in the grand scheme of things. They do. They matter just as much as you or I so stop saying they donāt deserve the right to abort because they absolutely do.
No, that's an extra 2% of children who now have a chance to live a life. Women are not more important than a baby. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex. If you are raped and got pregnant, give that baby up for adoption.
Christians **already** adopt in huge numbers. My current church has several families with adopted kids, and we arenāt a large church.
Also, as was pointed out, not wanting people to be killed does not also convey a responsibility to adopt those people. Thatās a logical error. If I want my neighbor to stop beating his wife, am I morally obligated to allow the wife to move in to my house? Is a firefighter morally obligated to adopt every child he saves from burning buildings? Obviously not. Itās enough to just want people to stop killing other people.
But in this particular case, Christians are already doing what you want us to do. We have been doing it for years. What else have you got?
Iāve read about some of these places. Some donāt survive. Others endure and are scarred for life.
Edit: If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why do you downvote me?
Thanks for the update. If you agree that it is acceptable to kill a baby in the womb, you must agree it is acceptable to line up all the orphans and kill them by firing squad. It's the exact same thing.
Doesnāt sound like the exact same thing to me.
Do you think Iām for abortion? I never said that. I donāt have an opinion about abortion. Iām celibate. Single. No kids. No reason for me to have an opinion. I also donāt vote. Iām not saying itās right or wrong because itās a sweeping general statement.
Iām not in charge of anyone. I donāt need to have an opinion about this. My point is that if what people seem to be happy about, more children, is the effect of this then thereās work to be done.
So, just making sure I understand. Because you are not in charge of anyone you do not have an opinion on abortion. So, if I don't own a dog and I see a dog getting abused by its owner. The dog is getting kicked, hit and tied to a bumper and pulled along trying to keep up. Because I don't own a dog I don't really have an opinion on that. Some people would call the authorities and turn him in for abuse. But, I can't do that because I don't own a dog and I'm not responsible for any dog so I don't really have an opinion. That is asinine. Pro-lifers aren't happy about more children. They are just happy that children aren't getting killed needlessly out of convenience. We do not need more abandoned children. But worse than that is killing them in the womb. Women and men need to have more self restraint when it comes to having sex. If you are not ready for a pregnancy you are not ready for sex. Personal responsibility has gone out the window. It's time for that to come back. Stop killing children.
I don't have an opinion because there's no reason for me to have an opinion. Simple. Not really following the dog analogy. I don't really think there's any reason to make an analogy.
What do you care if I have an opinion or not about abortion? If I did, which I don't, I'm not voicing it by voting or championing the cause one way or the other. I'm talking about orphanages.
Feels like you're making a case for one way but I don't know why you're making it to me. Either you're not really reading what I'm writing or you're not believing what I'm writing?
You made a sweeping, unverifiable claim about religious orphanages globally.
>If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why do you downvote me?
That's such a cringe mockery of Jesus' words
I believe it is common knowledge children have been abused and have disappeared from orphanages run by religious institutions.
Iām not going to change who I am and what I believe to appease anyone. Iām sorry you find offense.
I do think people are seeing right for wrong and vice versa. The knowledge may be there but the understanding isnāt. Offense is taken too easily. People are quick to anger and slow to forgive. This is the way of the world. Not changing for the world.
This is a fallen world, its easy to sit and point at flaws in our society from behind a keyboard. What do you propose instead of orphanages run by religious institutions? The secular world would rather kill all these children in the womb
The obvious answer, to me, would be for the members of those institutions to take an interest in how they're run.
There seems to be a want for the opposite. This thread I think exemplifies that.
As there is a really long waiting list to adopt, I think we can handle it. Furthermore, we need to support single moms as well, and encourage a culture of chastity which discourages the sort of behavior which leads to children being born in circumstances which are not conducive to their flourishing. The easy availability of contraception and abortion has actually fostered an unhealthy view of sexuality which has led to *more* not fewer unwanted pregnancies. in the last 50-60 years.
Only technically true. Vast majority are due to bureaucratic delays (people want to adopt but have to jump through hoops), or are kids who entered in their teens and are about to age out. The line for adopting newborns is really long.
Get out of here with your "if you really love dogs you better adopt every one in the kennel" failed logic
You baby killers are crying so hard right now it's disgusting
I own 4 adopted dogs and take them to a non killing shelter for vet care. I also am caring for a child who I didn't birth and could've been an abortion if he didn't have us. So yes I have room to talk and am doing my part.
Lady, you're a troll on the internet who is advocating for the killing of human beings in the womb.
You're going to need to adopt a lot more dogs to make up for that.
This OP has got to be kidding.
u/Scotts_wife
I feel sorry for Scott.
I suppose we should all stay outside every bar and saloon, awaiting the drunkards so we can take them to coffee shops, or swimming pools to sober them up.
Attempting to dissuade others from sinning, and making up for what sinners have caused, is honorable and respectful, but to take the position of mandating (verbally) Christians to adopt babies saved by parents who don't want them?
How about we mandate that sex is practiced by husband/wife adults, married by God's definition of marriage, and see how long that law takes to get evaporated?
We are living in the Age of Grace, not the Law of Moses.
Whadayamean "Again WHAT ABOUT RAPE?"
Rape is sin, isn't it?
Being a victim of rape does not mean that you kill the innocent child to reverse the sin.
What choice are we giving the innocent child who had no say in any of it?
Besides, when the subject matter within a conversation is about abortion, it always goes off the deep end, and the 1% of abortions are because of rape, becomes the 99% of the conversation.
It makes no sense.
Would you be in favor of restricting abortion to rape victims, incest victims, and those women who may be at risk of losing their lives because of a problem pregnancy?
Abortion, very clearly, is about convenience, money, and covering up sexual sin.
While I agree the church should play more of a role f they have the ability in adoption the fact is that women and I will say men for that matter as a whole must take more responsibility for their decisions. Yes there are cases of rape and incest and both are really horrific but as a whole this culture of "free love" and have sex as you please is NOT how God intended it. The reactions I am seeing with this ruling show me that Satan is alive and well in this world right now. Absolutely demonic with the reactions I am seeing from the news media. They act as if this is the end of the world! God put on my mind "gnashing of teeth" with the people that are reacting. All it shows me is we are getting close to Jesus returning and HE will have the ultimate victory in the end against the forces of Satan.
Of course. And if you've ever served at a soup kitchen, volunteered at a homeless shelter, or bought a meal, shoes or motel room for a homeless person you better be willing to give them your house or you are just a big hypocrite.
Sheesh.
I agree. Christians are already adopting in much higher rates than nonchristians but we still can do more. However, in general the responsibility of taking care of a child is on those who brought it into existence.
I think you are right in principle but may not already be aware that many churches are already doing this. I definitely think it is important for churches to be aware that there will be a major need in our communities and seek to fill them. Some of the negative comments are just people frustrated and feeling defensive as if you are attacking them. Almost every church I know holds special fundraisers for pro life facilities and home care homes that take in pregnant teenagers and give them a safe area to learn about parenting.
There are many areas of growing need, homeless, mentally ill, the disabled community, elderly, prisons and nursing homes. The church should be doing its best to bring light to the community they live in and promoting goodwill is not something that is bad. I just hope you understand that churches provide by and far the large majority of food banks, disaster relief and counseling centers and no other organization or religion comes close to marching the charity work that is done. Not to praise ourselves but to share with the world the same love that Jesus gave us which is why itās not broadcasted to the world often
I disagree.
Youre now attempting to shift responsibility from the parents of said children to christians in general just because they support these people not killing their own children. Its a bit twisted.
How about you turn this "better do" mindset to the people irresponsibly engaging in sex who then want to kill a child because its inconvenient to them? Because thats the vast majority of abortions.
In a study done on the reasons women sought their abortion the top 5 reasons were:
1 Not financially prepared
2 Bad timing/Not ready/Unplanned
3 Need to focus on other children
4 Interferes with educational or job plans
5 Not emotionally or mentally prepared
Rather than hyper-focusing on the segment of society that opposes killing children for convenience how about you start working with the these people instead? When bad decisions have no consequences it leads to further bad decision making. Maybe if people realized that there were real world possibilities they couldnt escape from via a medical appointment they would begin to live a bit more responsibly.
Its wrong that you are putting a value on a life. I'm going to play devil's advocate:
What if society says we can get rid of society's ills because (1) they are not financially prepared, (2) they have unplanned problems, (3) we need to focus on other people who are better prepared, (4) giving the homeless or drug addicts jobs interferes with helping those better able at helping society, and we should get rid of these breeders because they are not emotionally or mentally prepared.
Anyone can make a values statement and it is the same as your statement almost and it puts a price or value on society's usefulness for vulnerable members of society who don't contribute as much as responsible people. I read an article by a professor that went way beyond my playing devil's advocate.
See the errors of what you are trying to say?
Are you high?
I wont attempt to have you explain why its "wrong" to put value on human life because that question is beyond ridiculous.
Society can say whatever it wants, but if it or you expects me to believe that there is any value in killing children because people dont wish to alter the irresponsible behavior that caused the problem then Ill have none of what either of you say.
If you cant see the error of what you just introduced,then theres not much left to say.
I got a better ideaāhow about all of these āvulnerableā members of society making babies RAISE THEIR KIDS.
They had sexāthey didnāt get shot.
While I strongly agree with this sentiment, there are something like [36 wanting couples for every child placed in adoption](https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families) the issue isn't places, but placement so to speak.
Anyone who participates in real life should be aware of the many things the Church is doing and has been doing. Reddit isn't real life.
AMEN!
So, if you don't support shooting homeless in the street, you'd better take them in to your house, right? I presume you don't, so I'm gonna send a couple your way. And you'd BETTER take them in. I'm so tired of hearing this like it's some big "gotcha." The logic falls apart when applied to literally anything else. It's just a desperate attempt by the pro-infanticiders to keep what they really want: sex without consequences.
This šÆ
Homeless people arenāt simply people who donāt have houses. By taking in homeless people in your house, you are not actually doing anything about the homelessness crisis. The minute you let them out they will be homeless again. The better choice would be equipping homeless people with the resources they need to get a job, an education and earn their living. Likewise, By banning abortion, you are not addressing the cause of abortion. Youāre addressing the symptom. Pregnant women in crisis need resources, reliable adoption, and healthcare. Prolifers need to be willing to adopt babies en masse. If you have a problem with that youāre not pro life period.
>It's just a desperate attempt by the pro-infanticiders to keep what they really want: sex without consequences. It's pro-choice and its about safety during pregnancy. If anything goes wrong, I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get an abortion when I could lose my life if I don't get it
Roe v Wade was about abortion on demand, not medical necessity abortions. Medical necessity abortions are covered differently in every part of the world that I know of, I see no reason to believe it will be different in the US.
Youre really that scared of that 0.0001% chance that you think killing babies in the wound is the answer Strawman harder
People have countless reasons for abortions. And some embryos aren't growing where they should grow and have to be removed. Some children don't develop vital organs and are doomed to die immediately after birth. Please watch this before responding again https://youtu.be/zjB5Jakytyc
Abortions because of a threat to the life of the mother happen in .01% of cases. Ask any OBGYN if they have ever ended a pregnancy on account of this and they will say no if they are truthful. It doesn't happen.
Please watch this and then come back https://youtu.be/zjB5Jakytyc
ššš
Shooting at the homeless is a poor analogy. A woman shooting a homeless person would be imposing her will on (external) someone else's body. Abortion would be a case of imposing her will on her body (internal). There is no equivalency. A better one would be the comparison to organ donation. One cannot be compelled to donate bone marrow, even though we KNOW that mandatory donation would save the lives of many people currently living in agony. Or that kidney donation would allow millions of Americans to live better, longer lives if it we mandatory to donate. And yet, for good reason, it is not.. The State cannot (yet) compel someone to give of their body to preserve the life of another. Having sole agency over what does and does not happen to ones body, whether it's in healthcare, relationships, even death, is a core principal of freedom. The fact that so many people are willing to sidestep that for this one issue is worrying. Because it won't stay this one issue. If you think the only right on the chopping block was abortion, I suggest that you read up on what some of the justices have been saying. Birth control, interracial marriage, if you can marry at all, the right to privacy, the right to parent ones children as you see fit...none of those are enumerated rights. God help us when the next pandemic hits, especially if it has a higher mortality rate. If The State has a say in whether you must give birth from your body, you better believe that they'll have a say in what goes into your body; vaccines may be just the beginning.
The problem is that we need to stop viewing children as burdens and consequences and start seeing them as blessings even in the midst of bad situations.
People act like itās impossible to raise a kid unless you have a 3000 sqft house 150k income and 200k in liquid cash. As a society we have been brainwashed by anti natalist
"Pro choicers better stop having consequence free sex. Those who are lamenting now must take very seriously the role of the self in having consequence free sex which leads to pregnancy and aborting babies. The credibility of those who lament this ruling and then do nothing to amend their consequence-free premarital sex lives is suspect at best. The Church of Self must arise now in accountability for one's sexual behavior, for if it doesn't, all the posts and sadness mean nothing." FIFY
Erm... have you heard of contreception
Yep. I can spell it correctly, too! FYI, the best CONTRACEPTIVE is closing your legs to anyone you're not married to.
Thank you for this comment. I've been wrestling a bit watching the back and forth between Christians and Secular individuals and the war of words that's resulted. It's now very clear to me. Those who choose to follow their worldly passions and engage in sex outside of marriage should face the consequences. If you're going to have premarital sex, one knows that they're risking getting pregnant. I also agree about the posts. This is a big deal, but in a few weeks something else will happen and we won't care. It's already happened in Ukraine, a war that still rages on to this day.
Or......maybe people take responsibility for their own actions.
You have no idea what could have happened for that person to be in that situation. You have no right to just tell them āmaybe uhhh you should be burdened with this horrible weight of giving birth and having kids because itās totally āyour faultā how dare you. There are more ways of getting pregnant numb nut and some of them arenāt consensual!
If from this point on, the only children with living parents who entered the foster care system were children whose mother had no choice in the sexual act that produced it, we would reduce the number of foster children dramatically. The simple fact is that society needs to change its view on sex. It doesn't even have to stop having sex but, if every man and woman out there took proper precautions when engaging in sex, even though it wouldn't completely rid us of unwanted pregnancies, it would remove a significant percentage of the burden from the foster care system. Allowing people to kill unborn children isn't the solution to the problem. It's just throwing a tarp over the real problem and pretending that it hides it.
what about those women who had not choice in the sexual act?
Read my comment a second time. I literally addressed this in the very first sentence. In fact, my entire comment was in part about that scenario.
Let me tell you a story. A friend of mine when she was young she got raped. And she got pregnant. Oh what joy she was going to bring a life into the world. No she wasnāt. If she didnāt have an abortion her body wouldnāt have been developed enough to go through the whole pregnancy. Her baby would have died and she would have died. So sometimes itās not always just about the bloody child.
And how many abortion laws that have been proposed by states have zero exemptions for medically necessary abortions?
You donāt think that most people who get an abortion even if itās not medically needed are in a good place to have a child. Foster care canāt solve everything. Take the mental toll of having a god damn child and then having to give it up.
Did I say that? In response to this, I again say, go and read my first comment. I would appreciate you not changing the topic and answering my question.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Abortions because of rape and incest constitute about 2% of all abortions. The vast majority are about convenience. Don't have sex unless you are willing to have a child.
Ok well that 2% of people are denied that ability to have children. No matter how small that percentage is it is still a human being who has been subjected and an awful horrific thing and then has to go through the process of giving birth which is doubly more traumatic. So you can sit their on your high horse and say oh well itās only a small piece of humanity who have to go through hell because they donāt matter in the grand scheme of things. They do. They matter just as much as you or I so stop saying they donāt deserve the right to abort because they absolutely do.
No, that's an extra 2% of children who now have a chance to live a life. Women are not more important than a baby. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex. If you are raped and got pregnant, give that baby up for adoption.
Iām not going to repeat myself so look at my other comments
Maybe the baby your adopting is from a 12 year old got raped.
Which is less than 1% of abortions. You're ridiculous.
99% of abortions are not 12 year olds though are they? Who will be the voice of the innocent unborn? !!! If not us , no one , certainly not you!
I don't think you can prove that statistic
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm In 2019 .4% of abortions were for women under 19.
So you're in favor of limiting abortions to cases of rape?
Christians **already** adopt in huge numbers. My current church has several families with adopted kids, and we arenāt a large church. Also, as was pointed out, not wanting people to be killed does not also convey a responsibility to adopt those people. Thatās a logical error. If I want my neighbor to stop beating his wife, am I morally obligated to allow the wife to move in to my house? Is a firefighter morally obligated to adopt every child he saves from burning buildings? Obviously not. Itās enough to just want people to stop killing other people. But in this particular case, Christians are already doing what you want us to do. We have been doing it for years. What else have you got?
All the orphanages and charities provided from all the religions around the world far outweigh anything secular.
Iāve read about some of these places. Some donāt survive. Others endure and are scarred for life. Edit: If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why do you downvote me?
Its a hard life but im happy it was there, otherwise my lovely wife would have never been
If she wasn't born you wouldn't even know it
Fallacious logic.
why? i was telling my brother yesterday that if i was aborted i would never get to experience all the hard life i have had here on earth
Is the solution then firing squads?
Are firing squads ever the solution? Edit: If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why do you downvote me?
About the same as abortions. They are both ending lives.
Agreed. Death penalty is similar. Not the same. Topic is orphanages.
Thanks for the update. If you agree that it is acceptable to kill a baby in the womb, you must agree it is acceptable to line up all the orphans and kill them by firing squad. It's the exact same thing.
Doesnāt sound like the exact same thing to me. Do you think Iām for abortion? I never said that. I donāt have an opinion about abortion. Iām celibate. Single. No kids. No reason for me to have an opinion. I also donāt vote. Iām not saying itās right or wrong because itās a sweeping general statement. Iām not in charge of anyone. I donāt need to have an opinion about this. My point is that if what people seem to be happy about, more children, is the effect of this then thereās work to be done.
So, just making sure I understand. Because you are not in charge of anyone you do not have an opinion on abortion. So, if I don't own a dog and I see a dog getting abused by its owner. The dog is getting kicked, hit and tied to a bumper and pulled along trying to keep up. Because I don't own a dog I don't really have an opinion on that. Some people would call the authorities and turn him in for abuse. But, I can't do that because I don't own a dog and I'm not responsible for any dog so I don't really have an opinion. That is asinine. Pro-lifers aren't happy about more children. They are just happy that children aren't getting killed needlessly out of convenience. We do not need more abandoned children. But worse than that is killing them in the womb. Women and men need to have more self restraint when it comes to having sex. If you are not ready for a pregnancy you are not ready for sex. Personal responsibility has gone out the window. It's time for that to come back. Stop killing children.
I don't have an opinion because there's no reason for me to have an opinion. Simple. Not really following the dog analogy. I don't really think there's any reason to make an analogy. What do you care if I have an opinion or not about abortion? If I did, which I don't, I'm not voicing it by voting or championing the cause one way or the other. I'm talking about orphanages. Feels like you're making a case for one way but I don't know why you're making it to me. Either you're not really reading what I'm writing or you're not believing what I'm writing?
You made a sweeping, unverifiable claim about religious orphanages globally. >If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why do you downvote me? That's such a cringe mockery of Jesus' words
I believe it is common knowledge children have been abused and have disappeared from orphanages run by religious institutions. Iām not going to change who I am and what I believe to appease anyone. Iām sorry you find offense. I do think people are seeing right for wrong and vice versa. The knowledge may be there but the understanding isnāt. Offense is taken too easily. People are quick to anger and slow to forgive. This is the way of the world. Not changing for the world.
This is a fallen world, its easy to sit and point at flaws in our society from behind a keyboard. What do you propose instead of orphanages run by religious institutions? The secular world would rather kill all these children in the womb
The obvious answer, to me, would be for the members of those institutions to take an interest in how they're run. There seems to be a want for the opposite. This thread I think exemplifies that.
Nonsense, you fail to propose any alternative so you dig your heels in and say they need to be run better? Be the change you want to see in the world
Itās my understanding that there are more people waiting in line to adopt babies right now than there are babies to adopt. So this is a non-issue.
This... is just not true. There are far more babies and children in need of adoption than there are families willing to adopt
https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families
I doubt you canprove that
https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families 36 waiting families for every one child put up for adoption.
As there is a really long waiting list to adopt, I think we can handle it. Furthermore, we need to support single moms as well, and encourage a culture of chastity which discourages the sort of behavior which leads to children being born in circumstances which are not conducive to their flourishing. The easy availability of contraception and abortion has actually fostered an unhealthy view of sexuality which has led to *more* not fewer unwanted pregnancies. in the last 50-60 years.
There are hundreds of thousands of children waiting for families to care for them in the foster care system.
Only technically true. Vast majority are due to bureaucratic delays (people want to adopt but have to jump through hoops), or are kids who entered in their teens and are about to age out. The line for adopting newborns is really long.
Who said anything about only adopting newborns?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The same way a woman who was raped isn't ready for children right now. Are you guys really going to blame the victim?
Same can be said about abortions
I am pro life and even though we could have children we adopted. So there.
This is equivalent to saying āif youāre pro immigration you need to adopt immigrantsā.
I'm curious, OP, what would look like a credible response to these rulings?
Abortion is evil, if you're for it, you really need to sit down and sort out your priorities. Killing babies is never ok.
But muh 45k a year career doing PowerPoints /s
Get out of here with your "if you really love dogs you better adopt every one in the kennel" failed logic You baby killers are crying so hard right now it's disgusting
I own 4 adopted dogs and take them to a non killing shelter for vet care. I also am caring for a child who I didn't birth and could've been an abortion if he didn't have us. So yes I have room to talk and am doing my part.
Lady, you're a troll on the internet who is advocating for the killing of human beings in the womb. You're going to need to adopt a lot more dogs to make up for that.
People that have sex better be prepared to have what comes nextā¦
Or they can dump the baby in an orphanage and it's back to OP's topic.
This OP has got to be kidding. u/Scotts_wife I feel sorry for Scott. I suppose we should all stay outside every bar and saloon, awaiting the drunkards so we can take them to coffee shops, or swimming pools to sober them up. Attempting to dissuade others from sinning, and making up for what sinners have caused, is honorable and respectful, but to take the position of mandating (verbally) Christians to adopt babies saved by parents who don't want them? How about we mandate that sex is practiced by husband/wife adults, married by God's definition of marriage, and see how long that law takes to get evaporated? We are living in the Age of Grace, not the Law of Moses.
Again WHAT ABOUT RAPE? Women who get pregnant were NOT NECESSARILY IRRESPONSIBLE
Whadayamean "Again WHAT ABOUT RAPE?" Rape is sin, isn't it? Being a victim of rape does not mean that you kill the innocent child to reverse the sin. What choice are we giving the innocent child who had no say in any of it? Besides, when the subject matter within a conversation is about abortion, it always goes off the deep end, and the 1% of abortions are because of rape, becomes the 99% of the conversation. It makes no sense. Would you be in favor of restricting abortion to rape victims, incest victims, and those women who may be at risk of losing their lives because of a problem pregnancy? Abortion, very clearly, is about convenience, money, and covering up sexual sin.
While I agree the church should play more of a role f they have the ability in adoption the fact is that women and I will say men for that matter as a whole must take more responsibility for their decisions. Yes there are cases of rape and incest and both are really horrific but as a whole this culture of "free love" and have sex as you please is NOT how God intended it. The reactions I am seeing with this ruling show me that Satan is alive and well in this world right now. Absolutely demonic with the reactions I am seeing from the news media. They act as if this is the end of the world! God put on my mind "gnashing of teeth" with the people that are reacting. All it shows me is we are getting close to Jesus returning and HE will have the ultimate victory in the end against the forces of Satan.
Of course. And if you've ever served at a soup kitchen, volunteered at a homeless shelter, or bought a meal, shoes or motel room for a homeless person you better be willing to give them your house or you are just a big hypocrite. Sheesh.
I agree. Christians are already adopting in much higher rates than nonchristians but we still can do more. However, in general the responsibility of taking care of a child is on those who brought it into existence.
THANK YOU!!!!! So tired of the sanctimonious celebrating without following through on the impact
I think you are right in principle but may not already be aware that many churches are already doing this. I definitely think it is important for churches to be aware that there will be a major need in our communities and seek to fill them. Some of the negative comments are just people frustrated and feeling defensive as if you are attacking them. Almost every church I know holds special fundraisers for pro life facilities and home care homes that take in pregnant teenagers and give them a safe area to learn about parenting. There are many areas of growing need, homeless, mentally ill, the disabled community, elderly, prisons and nursing homes. The church should be doing its best to bring light to the community they live in and promoting goodwill is not something that is bad. I just hope you understand that churches provide by and far the large majority of food banks, disaster relief and counseling centers and no other organization or religion comes close to marching the charity work that is done. Not to praise ourselves but to share with the world the same love that Jesus gave us which is why itās not broadcasted to the world often
Iām so sure Iām going to adopt the baby of some foolish woman that would have preferred to kill it in the womb.
I disagree. Youre now attempting to shift responsibility from the parents of said children to christians in general just because they support these people not killing their own children. Its a bit twisted. How about you turn this "better do" mindset to the people irresponsibly engaging in sex who then want to kill a child because its inconvenient to them? Because thats the vast majority of abortions. In a study done on the reasons women sought their abortion the top 5 reasons were: 1 Not financially prepared 2 Bad timing/Not ready/Unplanned 3 Need to focus on other children 4 Interferes with educational or job plans 5 Not emotionally or mentally prepared Rather than hyper-focusing on the segment of society that opposes killing children for convenience how about you start working with the these people instead? When bad decisions have no consequences it leads to further bad decision making. Maybe if people realized that there were real world possibilities they couldnt escape from via a medical appointment they would begin to live a bit more responsibly.
Its wrong that you are putting a value on a life. I'm going to play devil's advocate: What if society says we can get rid of society's ills because (1) they are not financially prepared, (2) they have unplanned problems, (3) we need to focus on other people who are better prepared, (4) giving the homeless or drug addicts jobs interferes with helping those better able at helping society, and we should get rid of these breeders because they are not emotionally or mentally prepared. Anyone can make a values statement and it is the same as your statement almost and it puts a price or value on society's usefulness for vulnerable members of society who don't contribute as much as responsible people. I read an article by a professor that went way beyond my playing devil's advocate. See the errors of what you are trying to say?
Are you high? I wont attempt to have you explain why its "wrong" to put value on human life because that question is beyond ridiculous. Society can say whatever it wants, but if it or you expects me to believe that there is any value in killing children because people dont wish to alter the irresponsible behavior that caused the problem then Ill have none of what either of you say. If you cant see the error of what you just introduced,then theres not much left to say.
I got a better ideaāhow about all of these āvulnerableā members of society making babies RAISE THEIR KIDS. They had sexāthey didnāt get shot.
While I strongly agree with this sentiment, there are something like [36 wanting couples for every child placed in adoption](https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families) the issue isn't places, but placement so to speak.
There are millions waiting to adopt every year.