Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yearly there are approximately 145,000 children in foster care available for adoption at no cost.
Oh it's certainly something we're looking at and wouldn't be against. Close friends of ours at church are farther along in that process and they got their first opportunity to foster. There was a 16 year old girl who needed to be placed. My friends were all set to take her in. Well, she ran away before they even had the chance to meet her, so that was the end of that. The 140K kids in foster care do need homes. The unfortunate truth is that they are severely messed up and there might be no fixing that. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to try, now that our own kids are getting old enough for it to work. But you know going into fostering/adopting an older child that they might just be too broken for you to help them, try as you might.
I'm massively more interested in providing a home as an alternative to a baby being murdered. Saving a child from death vs saving a child from a messed up childhood? The choice is obvious. The moral imperative to save a life is far far far far greater. But for some reason, it costs an average of $40,000 to adopt a baby. Quite frankly there are more couples with the $40,000 cash in hand, waiting to adopt a baby right now, than there are abortions in any given year.
This is a complicated question. Men and women are different by nature. Prior to abortion and contraceptives, women needed to be selective when choosing whether to engage in sexual activity. This had a stabilizing effect on society. Women, in general, are the choosers when it comes to sex and relationships. So it is their responsibility to control access to sex.
But, in the past, men were also more likely to not be promiscuous. This allowed marriage and child bearing to occur at any earlier age, which was beneficial for society.
So, in conclusion, neither gender should be promiscuous.
Did you read all about this in your "Facts of Life" book from 1952?
And, no, if two people are involved in the creation of a baby, then both people should have an equal say when it comes to the fate of said baby.
If they do not have equal rights when it comes to the consequence of the action (the baby), then they should not have equal responsibility when it comes to preventing that consequence.
I am referring to posters on this very forum who have been very clear in their posts... they want to eliminate abortions but have no intention of paying one dime more for the extra babies who will be born.
Women are going to have to think twice about having unprotected sex with men they are not married to.
I bet you wish the MS limit of 15 weeks wasn't challenged in SCOTUS don't ya? The pro-choice crowd got greedy about upholding viability laws that were extremely outdated due to advances in science.
As for your 7-2 conservative leaning court back in 1973, back then there was little philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats. A liberal/democrat back then would be right-center in today's environment.
Those picks do not rightfully belong to anybody, the Senate is not bounded to rubber stamp any nominee the president tries to sent to SCOTUS. You need to take a Civics class.
You mean they shouldn't have challenged a law that was obviously in violation of RvW, just pass on Miss. and let the next state walk it down to 4 weeks, then down to 0. Sure this was about viability and all those changes in science, problem is that isn't mentioned in the ruling. LOL
Certainly the conservatives on that court were more reasonable and worked out compromises for the good of the nation, same for the justices in the 90's. SCOTUS has been conservative for the past 10 years but now they have gone full throttle activist.
Presidential picks have turned out to lean differently in the past, Sadra O'Connor is a perfect example. But other than Roberts, if you think these people are going to go anywhere but far right in their decisions you are being naive. Trump said his mission was to overturn RvW and when Barrett replaced RBG they had the team all set up.
No one trusted this court before with their pro-business, pro-religion opinions, now they have totally politicized the supreme court. Bad for the country, terrible for the nation.
You can be certain that those prudish Victorians had sex, maybe lots of it. But how they differ from modern leftists is that they didn't make it the cornerstone of their lives. They didn't march in the streets demanding the right to be allowed to kill their own babies. They didn't define themselves by their sexual orientation. They certainly didn't wear You-Know-What hats like what were worn by the protesters on the day after Trump's inauguration. They kept their sex lives their own concerns, conducted in private.
One might reasonably call them hypocrites, and I'm not defending them for that. But at least they understood the concept of decorum. Something completely lost among way too many leftists these days.
Women back in the day quietly went to the local midwife for their abortions and didn't disturb their men with women's business.
For some reason women are not allowed to do that anymore because the state legislatures now believe it is their duty to control women. We have gone backwards.
Women back in the day quietly went to the local midwife for their abortions and didn't disturb their men with women's business.
For some reason women are not allowed to do that anymore because the state legislatures now believe it is their duty to control women. We have gone backwards.
If the state is paying abortion facilities, yes it is their business. The government wasn't paying the local midwife back in the day.
I don't understand how people think they can be autonomous with other people's money.
"...While a strong majority support Roe v. Wade, they also support limitations on abortion. Polls also show that 65% of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80% would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester. (The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks....")
, if you think these people are going to go anywhere but far right in their decisions you are being naive. .
how is this far right?
it's the libs that have been wanting more government...well....they got it
...the libs set this whole thing up
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
