|
Post by hollymolly on Oct 11, 2016 16:42:42 GMT
I don't think he will win, but 538 gave him an 18 percent chance a few days ago. 18 percent is a lot better than 0 percent. In 2012, I got to vote for my favorite candidate for President in my voting lifetime. I love Mitt Romney for so many reasons...still do. There were tons of Republicans who didn't vote because he didn't have a conservative enough record, and I blame them for his loss. I totally understand those who are voting 3rd party...but I have to vote for the candidate who has a small chance of winning. Thanks for asking hollymolly. That makes so much more sense to me, especially considering the last election. Thank you for explaining.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 11, 2016 16:57:20 GMT
At my former church in Louisiana, there were many folks who were becoming foster parents because they wanted to help kids in need. My husband's cousin is a minister's wife with a kid, but they are planning to adopt their next one. Steven Curtis Chapman, a Christian singer, runs a charity in order to help those who want to adopt. (Called Show Hope) One of the retired couples from that same church moved away from family so that they could be house parents at an orphanage in another state. So I know plenty of Christians who've taken the step to help kids beyond the womb. They just aren't in the headlines. My husband and I are one of those people. We are white upper middle class christians who adopted 3 minority children from foster care. They are the reason why we are voting against Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 17:37:04 GMT
When Bill Clinton first ran for president I didn't vote for him because of the stories about his women. I voted for Bush Senior.
As a Democrat I didn't have a problem voting for a Republican because the word "compromise" was still in Congresses dictionary.
But that was then and this is now and a lot has changed. Both sides have harden and I think it has a lot to do with Dennis Hastert and is stupid rule majority of the majority rule.
I now view the Republican platform as mean spirited that benefits the few at the expense of the many. It would take an awful lot for me to even consider voting for a Republican.
However if the Democrats had a candidate like Trump running I would not hesitate a second to vote for the Republican candidate. I understand the importance of picks for the Supreme Court and living with a mean spirited platform. The reality is the Democrats in Congress would find ways to temper any crazy legislative or Supreme Court picks attempts by the Republicans.
The real danger is the candidate like Trump himself and it boils down to self-preservation for me and those that follow. It's his temperment and actions on the world stage that scares me to death. He would be a thin skinned revenge seeking school yard bully with an army and nuclear arsenal at his finger tips.
|
|
|
Post by apeacalledliz on Oct 11, 2016 18:08:50 GMT
Just responding back to the OP. This was written on facebook by Abby Roberts "Since I keep seeing that idiotic 50 Shades of Grey meme pop up, I'm gonna address it in that "locker room talk" manner, so that all you locker room types understand. Read no further if you don't want to hear swear words.
Just because a woman might want her significant other to grab her pussy (and might read a book about such things) does not mean she wants Donald Trump or any other person to grab her pussy.
In extreme terms: just because a woman might like physical/rough/BDSM sex with a trusted partner, does not mean she would like to be assaulted or raped.
Just because a woman likes to have sexual relations with a trusted partner (or whomever she so desires to consentually have sexual relations with) does not mean she is not "allowed" to be "offended" by talk of sexual exploitation or harassment. There is no "irony" in the fact that women can both LIKE SEX and yet NOT WANT TO BE ASSAULTED SEXUALLY.
So we can all stop sharing that dumb meme now right?"
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 11, 2016 18:10:37 GMT
Go to YouTube and watch the CNN interview with the GOP's Vicki Sciolaro. That is another Trump-supporting "Christian" woman. LMAO at the host's reactions!!! That was funny. Her God isn't my God.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 11, 2016 18:14:57 GMT
I am one of those who's said I will only vote for pro-choice candidates. (Although actually, I've moved on to an even more basic ground-level requirement ... I will now only vote for candidates who publicly admit to believing in evolution.) While Roe v. Wade is "settled law," I have no faith that a Republican president couldn't bring that crashing down with a couple of well-placed Supreme Court appointments. BUT there is no way in hell I'd ever vote for Donald Trump, no matter what his current politics may be. If he were the Democratic candidate, I'd be voting for the Republican or at least third-party. No freaking way would I stand by and quietly allow him to become president. I have no faith our world could survive a Trump presidency. The man transcends politics.
|
|
|
Post by putabuttononit on Oct 11, 2016 18:43:49 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society? Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police? That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life? So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for. I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 11, 2016 18:50:00 GMT
I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. Once again: when you refer to legally aborted fetuses as "murdered* children," you are going to lose most of your readers who support abortion rights. I'm assuming you'd rather we continue to communicate. If so, please stop with the abortion = murder. At least when you're talking out loud. *a legal term that refers to killing another person illegally
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 18:57:51 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society? Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police? That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life? So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for. I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. If that is true, then why are there so many unwanted children already born, who have not been adopted? If a childless couple or even persons with children already, want to adopt so bad, there are many parentless children waiting to be adopted.
|
|
|
Post by apeacalledliz on Oct 11, 2016 18:57:57 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society? Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police? That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life? So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for. I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. Then where are those many, many people for the thousands(hundreds of thousands maybe?) of kids in the foster care system? The point isn't on the "unwanted" part, it's on the once babies are here we as a society have decided that it doesn't matter what happens beyond you can't kill them or physically abuse them. Let them starve because mom and dad can't get SNAP benefits... sure, because mom and dad are lazy suchandsuches just trying to leach off the system. Keep them under educated... absolutely because why should I or you have to pay for the education of someone else's child. Healthcare? that's just crazy talk, healthcare is a luxury not a right(and yes this has been said). Make sure we have under educated society by not creating the means and the way for all kids to continue their education past high school should they so desire, YESSIR because who needs a educated society. By all means, though, glom onto that one word "unwanted", and disregard the whole point of the post.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 11, 2016 18:59:55 GMT
I'm kind of confused by this discussion. When discussing voting and parties, there were an overwhelming number of peas who stated they would never vote for a Republican presidential candidate because of their ability to appoint Supreme Court nominees and specifically concerns about abortion access. I'm no spreadsheet keeper, but there were certainly a lot of likes and yeah thats for those participating in this side discussion about settled law. Are these peas now open to a pro-life Republican candidate as he can't overturn Roe v Wade? (NOT talking specifically about this election and Donald Trump) If not, why exactly would you expect @jodster with an opposing view to not feel similarly? I've been frustrated over the last few days with some of the commentary (NOT this one which has been extremely civil) here as while I fully appreciate people's concerns about a Trump presidency, the level of vitriol for people voting platform is really disturbing. I understand that some here may not hold their nose and vote for a horrible Democratic candidate, but there are a TON who would - and for many of them a pro-choice candidate is their absolute litmus test. Personally, I would like to the debate on BOTH sides move beyond abortion as a litmus test - but I don't think we're there yet and understand my friends on both sides of the aisle who feel passionately about this issue - even if it's not how I vote. [ Because this election is different. Trump is different. Deep down in my heart I'm prolife (tho I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do). I'm a Christian, but I can't vote for someone who reminds me of Hitler. I know he will get in office and flip on his abortion views anyway. But then him and his kind will be gunning for Muslims. After they're done with them who do you think their next target will be? Mexicans? Blacks? Homosexuals? Or how about the handicapped? I just can't have that on my conscience.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 19:10:13 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society? Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police? That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life? So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for. I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know.
|
|
|
Post by putabuttononit on Oct 11, 2016 19:53:06 GMT
I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. These are precious lives, yes. The foster care system isn't working the way it should, and in many states it is failing due to a lot of reasons. I have personally seen the corruption as family members adopted through the foster care system. Children can stay in the system, and end up going from home to home without being declared legally "free" to be adopted. This can be for years, as the bio parents are given chance after chance to get their children back. Then they lose them to the state again and again, as the children age. This is just one example of how the system is failing our children. I have a close friend right now, fostering a two year old and working to adopt him. He was beaten nearly to death by his bio dad yet the state won't terminate his rights and allow this little guy to be adopted, for years now. They wait. The entire foster care system needs to be restructured from the ground up. I volunteer at a camp for children in the foster care system every summer. I see where big changes could be made, to help these kids.
|
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,663
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Oct 11, 2016 19:56:42 GMT
Somewhat a side-topic, but this discussion made me ponder whether being pro-life is really more important than being someone who works to better the lives of those with less power in our society? Is ensuring unwanted babies are born more important than ensuring that the current living people don't suffer from racism, sexism, and violence - even at the hands of the police? That a candidate who is for making segments of our populations lives worse - Muslims (restricting immigration and travel, asking them and them alone to report their neighbors), African Americans and Latinos (with stop-and-frisk), women (by presenting a role model to men and boys that sexual assault is okay), the disabled (by making it okay to publicly make fun of them), etc. - is the best candidate because he claims to be pro-life? So, does pro-life mean ONLY unborn lives? Looking at the term, it seems to imply that it means pro-life across the lifespan, but in practice, it appears that lives only matter in-utero; once the baby is born, whatever society does to that baby is fine, or at least less important, MUCH less important in making a decision on who one votes for. I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. Bull Shit, If that were the case their would not be so many children in foster care. Now if you mean perfect white infants there maybe more people wanting to adopt them. Don't get me wrong I know there are people who are willing to take any child, there's just not enough. Do you know what happens to children put in foster care? I know there are some good foster care home, just not enough. No, if Roe V wade were overturned there would not be enough people or foster homes to take the children.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Oct 11, 2016 20:08:40 GMT
What I do not understand is why the Republicans are still choosing presidential candidates on the litmus test of abortion rights and gay marriage when those are now settled law (in once case, for over 40 years). Does anyone really think the SC is going to go back and overturn those decisions just because there's a Republican in the White House? Even when Scalia was alive they showed no signs of doing so. These things are the law of the land. The rights to abortion and to same-sex marriage have been deemed constitutional. Why, then, are GOP voters still insisting on candidates who do not support the established law of the land? How is that helpful? How does that move forward the business of our nation? I am just so frustrated with the party of "we didn't get what we wanted/didn't get to impose our religious views on the population any longer, so we're going to keep fighting that battle over and over in the hopes that the outcome might change." Definition of insanity, anyone? Good gravy, get over it and move on. We have other fish to fry.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 20:14:00 GMT
Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. These are precious lives, yes. The foster care system isn't working the way it should, and in many states it is failing due to a lot of reasons. I have personally seen the corruption as family members adopted through the foster care system. Children can stay in the system, and end up going from home to home without being declared legally "free" to be adopted. This can be for years, as the bio parents are given chance after chance to get their children back. Then they lose them to the state again and again, as the children age. This is just one example of how the system is failing our children. I have a close friend right now, fostering a two year old and working to adopt him. He was beaten nearly to death by his bio dad yet the state won't terminate his rights and allow this little guy to be adopted, for years now. They wait. The entire foster care system needs to be restructured from the ground up. I volunteer at a camp for children in the foster care system every summer. I see where big changes could be made, to help these kids. Are you purposely evading questions that are put to you? Yes, there are problems in the foster care system. There are problems in EVERY system. How do you explain the vast number of children up for adoption if many, many people are willing to adopt them? There are not lines and waiting lists full of people waiting and willing to adopt . If there are, please provide numbers and sources and not single anecdotal stories.
|
|
|
Post by tara on Oct 11, 2016 20:14:45 GMT
Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. These are precious lives, yes. The foster care system isn't working the way it should, and in many states it is failing due to a lot of reasons. I have personally seen the corruption as family members adopted through the foster care system. Children can stay in the system, and end up going from home to home without being declared legally "free" to be adopted. This can be for years, as the bio parents are given chance after chance to get their children back. Then they lose them to the state again and again, as the children age. This is just one example of how the system is failing our children. I have a close friend right now, fostering a two year old and working to adopt him. He was beaten nearly to death by his bio dad yet the state won't terminate his rights and allow this little guy to be adopted, for years now. They wait. The entire foster care system needs to be restructured from the ground up. I volunteer at a camp for children in the foster care system every summer. I see where big changes could be made, to help these kids. Being foster parents was the most stressful thing i have ever been through. We loved the kids but the system gave us nightmares. Imagine taking an emotionally scarred child into your home. Getting them to trust you and having to give them back to the parents who abused. We had to send 10 kids back and each one took a big part of my heart. Our youngest we had for two and a half years before we had to file for legal custody. Court dates and lawyers were involved. I never want to see the inside of a court room again.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 11, 2016 20:30:00 GMT
Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. These are precious lives, yes. The foster care system isn't working the way it should, and in many states it is failing due to a lot of reasons. I have personally seen the corruption as family members adopted through the foster care system. Children can stay in the system, and end up going from home to home without being declared legally "free" to be adopted. This can be for years, as the bio parents are given chance after chance to get their children back. Then they lose them to the state again and again, as the children age. This is just one example of how the system is failing our children. I have a close friend right now, fostering a two year old and working to adopt him. He was beaten nearly to death by his bio dad yet the state won't terminate his rights and allow this little guy to be adopted, for years now. They wait. The entire foster care system needs to be restructured from the ground up. I volunteer at a camp for children in the foster care system every summer. I see where big changes could be made, to help these kids. How many couples are lining up to adopt babies whose moms were drug abusers or alcoholics and are born with defects or addicted themselves? How many people are adopting HIV+ babies? Just imagine what would happen if all the pro-life protesters and organizations got together and used their money and energy behind lobbying for changes to the Foster Care system, rather than shutting down Planned Parenthood? I bet things would change MUCH more quickly. Rather than being simply anti-abortion, they could be seen as pro-life. Oh, and, by the way, which candidate shares in the responsibility for the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act? Hillary Clinton
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 20:31:41 GMT
Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. These are precious lives, yes. The foster care system isn't working the way it should, and in many states it is failing due to a lot of reasons. I have personally seen the corruption as family members adopted through the foster care system. Children can stay in the system, and end up going from home to home without being declared legally "free" to be adopted. This can be for years, as the bio parents are given chance after chance to get their children back. Then they lose them to the state again and again, as the children age. This is just one example of how the system is failing our children. I have a close friend right now, fostering a two year old and working to adopt him. He was beaten nearly to death by his bio dad yet the state won't terminate his rights and allow this little guy to be adopted, for years now. They wait. The entire foster care system needs to be restructured from the ground up. I volunteer at a camp for children in the foster care system every summer. I see where big changes could be made, to help these kids. In round numbers, about 30% of the children classified as either waiting for adoption (parental rights not yet terminated, but adoption - not reunification - is the goal for the child) or parental rights terminated/available for adoption are adopted each year. That's a whole lot of precious, extant lives that deserve a lot better. I guess they are not as precious as potential future lives, though. But I am SURE that if approximately 1MM more babies were born each year because abortion was not an option (ok, of course it wouldn't be that many because plenty of women would find illegal ways to still get it done), suddenly there would be hundreds of thousands more families stepping up to adopt. I'm just sure of it.
|
|
MerryMom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,539
Jul 24, 2014 19:51:57 GMT
|
Post by MerryMom on Oct 11, 2016 20:33:17 GMT
When I don't agree with someone or something, I exercise my right to not view it, not listen to it, etc. In some situations, I feel strongly enough about something to speak up, write a letter, complain on-line, write a letter to the editor, appear in front of the school board, etc.
The OP seems to suggest that it is all or nothing. If I don't agree with something, then I must speak out publicly ("new-found morality"). I didn't know that I am "obligated" to speak out publicly and complain about anything that I don't agree with or am offended by.
I disagree with the OP's premise.
|
|
MerryMom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,539
Jul 24, 2014 19:51:57 GMT
|
Post by MerryMom on Oct 11, 2016 20:41:03 GMT
Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. These are precious lives, yes. The foster care system isn't working the way it should, and in many states it is failing due to a lot of reasons. I have personally seen the corruption as family members adopted through the foster care system. Children can stay in the system, and end up going from home to home without being declared legally "free" to be adopted. This can be for years, as the bio parents are given chance after chance to get their children back. Then they lose them to the state again and again, as the children age. This is just one example of how the system is failing our children. I have a close friend right now, fostering a two year old and working to adopt him. He was beaten nearly to death by his bio dad yet the state won't terminate his rights and allow this little guy to be adopted, for years now. They wait. The entire foster care system needs to be restructured from the ground up. I volunteer at a camp for children in the foster care system every summer. I see where big changes could be made, to help these kids. As a child welfare professional for nearly a quarter of a century, please let me educate you on some items that also go into a COURT terminating parental rights. Although the laws may vary from state to state, the basic premise is the same. In order to terminate parental rights for both the mother and the father, the state (or children services agency) must provide by either "clear and convincing evidence" standard or "preponderance of the evidence" that the child cannot be safety reunified back to both parents. In addition, the state must prove their efforts to provide the services. In addition, the state or child welfare agency must prove that it identified, located, informed, and evaluated all maternal and paternal relatives as a possible placement resource. If the relative lives out of state, you must go through ICPC (Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children) in that state. That adds a minimum of 6-12 months to the process. If either parent appeals the termination of parental rights to the appellate court, then it is another 6-12 months to get the decision back from the appellate court. I suspect that what happened in the OP's example (in a subsequent post), is that the agency was exploring all relative possibilities. Please educate yourself on the facts regarding what goes into the termination of parental rights before you lay the blame at the feet of the child protection agency. Also please understand that there are people at the heart of this discussion (children, parents, child protection workers, attorneys, judges/magistrates, guardian ad litem). You have clearly never had to explain to a five year old as to why he is never going to see his mother and/or father again (even when it is best for the child). These children still have a bond and love the parent. The very act of removing a child (even when for his or her own safety) adds to the trauma. Yes there are a lot of people who "say" they want to adopt children, but honestly, they really don't want to adopt child welfare children.
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Oct 11, 2016 21:13:53 GMT
I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. One reason is that many of us are poorly resourced for the reality of caring for a child whose needs are very significant. My family looked into foster-adoption and we realized (and still realize) how ill equipped we are to voluntarily take on the needs of a child with a significant medical, emotional, or behavioral problem, this being true of a very large number of the waiting children. Not all, but a great number. This is not shameful, it is real life, and for this reason I am reluctant to make this argument. It is ultimately part of a not particularly productive conversation we have in this country about reproduction, abortion, healthcare, family support, the legal system, and other relevant social issues. I am often frustrated by lawmakers whose policies protect the fetus much more readily than benefit born humans of any age. But the thing is that the problem is bigger than foster children who don't get adopted by pro-lifers. The problem is the fact that we have not equipped our communities to deal with the various issues that result in there being 100,000 children waiting to be adopted out of foster care.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 11, 2016 21:57:26 GMT
Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. One reason is that many of us are poorly resourced for the reality of caring for a child whose needs are very significant. My family looked into foster-adoption and we realized (and still realize) how ill equipped we are to voluntarily take on the needs of a child with a significant medical, emotional, or behavioral problem, this being true of a very large number of the waiting children. Not all, but a great number.
This is not shameful, it is real life, and for this reason I am reluctant to make this argument. It is ultimately part of a not particularly productive conversation we have in this country about reproduction, abortion, healthcare, family support, the legal system, and other relevant social issues. I am often frustrated by lawmakers whose policies protect the fetus much more readily than benefit born humans of any age. But the thing is that the problem is bigger than foster children who don't get adopted by pro-lifers. The problem is the fact that we have not equipped our communities to deal with the various issues that result in there being 100,000 children waiting to be adopted out of foster care. Yes, most parents shouldn't/couldn't care for babies with many complex needs. It is a fantasy that all embryos would develop into healthy babies that people would adopt before they even left the hospital. That simply isn't reality. And if Roe v Wade is overturned, it will only get exponentially worse. More women who do not want to, are in a variety of poor circumstances, are addicted to drugs or booze, have diseases like HIV+ and hepatitis c, are too young to actually parent a child, etc., will be forced to give birth and the system will be flooded with special needs infants that many parents realistically won't be able to adopt due to their own resources.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 22:17:43 GMT
One reason is that many of us are poorly resourced for the reality of caring for a child whose needs are very significant. My family looked into foster-adoption and we realized (and still realize) how ill equipped we are to voluntarily take on the needs of a child with a significant medical, emotional, or behavioral problem, this being true of a very large number of the waiting children. Not all, but a great number.
This is not shameful, it is real life, and for this reason I am reluctant to make this argument. It is ultimately part of a not particularly productive conversation we have in this country about reproduction, abortion, healthcare, family support, the legal system, and other relevant social issues. I am often frustrated by lawmakers whose policies protect the fetus much more readily than benefit born humans of any age. But the thing is that the problem is bigger than foster children who don't get adopted by pro-lifers. The problem is the fact that we have not equipped our communities to deal with the various issues that result in there being 100,000 children waiting to be adopted out of foster care. Yes, most parents shouldn't/couldn't care for babies with many complex needs. It is a fantasy that all embryos would develop into healthy babies that people would adopt before they even left the hospital. That simply isn't reality. And if Roe v Wade is overturned, it will only get exponentially worse. More women who do not want to, are in a variety of poor circumstances, are addicted to drugs or booze, have diseases like HIV+ and hepatitis c, are too young to actually parent a child, etc., will be forced to give birth and the system will be flooded with special needs infants that many parents realistically won't be able to adopt due to their own resources. Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 1, 2024 16:53:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 22:27:31 GMT
Why aren't they adopting the over 100,000 children currently available for adoption in the US foster care system, most of whom will age out of the system without ever being adopted. Those are lives too, you know. One reason is that many of us are poorly resourced for the reality of caring for a child whose needs are very significant. My family looked into foster-adoption and we realized (and still realize) how ill equipped we are to voluntarily take on the needs of a child with a significant medical, emotional, or behavioral problem, this being true of a very large number of the waiting children. Not all, but a great number. This is not shameful, it is real life, and for this reason I am reluctant to make this argument. It is ultimately part of a not particularly productive conversation we have in this country about reproduction, abortion, healthcare, family support, the legal system, and other relevant social issues. I am often frustrated by lawmakers whose policies protect the fetus much more readily than benefit born humans of any age. But the thing is that the problem is bigger than foster children who don't get adopted by pro-lifers. The problem is the fact that we have not equipped our communities to deal with the various issues that result in there being 100,000 children waiting to be adopted out of foster care. I absolutely agree with you - 100%. The issue is very complex and very sad, and our country has done virtually nothing to fix it. As elaine describes above, the whole mess would only be made worse by the legal changes the anti-abortion movement desire, and it would be the children paying the price.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Oct 11, 2016 23:52:55 GMT
I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. I said earlier that I have a friend who is staunchly pro-life. I am staunchly pro-choice. I am SO fortunate that she has never hurled the 'murdered babies/children' comment around because I can say unequivocally that would have shut the conversation down and seriously strained our friendship. And, just for the record, pro-choice doesn't automatically equal pro-abortion. What it really means that the person who holds that opinion values the right of every woman to make the choice for herself based on what is best for her and/or her family needs without the input of the government or any other entity or person. This position is predicated on the idea that it is a legal decision, not a moral judgement based on religious values that not everyone follows.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Oct 11, 2016 23:59:21 GMT
Having been a foster parent for over 6 years and having 7 foster kids through our home in that time and one we adopted, I can tell you that termination of parental rights is a very long and tedious process. While a foster parent may believe it's best for the child, the agency and court may think otherwise. The number one mandate after child safety is reunification and parental training. It takes years sometimes to get rights revoked and adoption started. We had 2 of the 7 who were permanently placed, our daughter being one of them. The rest went home and 2 of those ended up back in care less than 6 months later.
My own daughter was 5 months when we had her placed with us. Her bio mother was a drug addict who cared more about drinking and partying than she did her kids. It took her missing visits, coming high to visits, feeding the baby foods when told not to, not taking classes, not returning the baby on time, supervised visits, non supervised visits, putting the baby in danger and more until they finally realized she could not be rehabilitated. The kicker was when she showed up at court drunk. The judge finally clued in that this woman didn't care to improve for her daughter. Even when she had four previous kids removed over 6 years, she still got the benefit of the doubt. For years we put up with her crap and putting us through hell.
When the judge finally revoked her rights, it was almost 2 and a half years of fighting to adopt our DD.
It isn't instantaneous and most people don't want the hassle of waiting and fighting the system. That is one reason lots of kids are not adopted.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Oct 12, 2016 0:00:46 GMT
I do not and will not vote for a president simply based on whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. IMO, it's like being worried that you forgot to lock the front door when the tornado is tearing down your house.
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Oct 12, 2016 0:31:30 GMT
And rape culture? It's everywhere. Have you seen Adam Levine's video Animal? That's just one tiny example of what's absolutely accepted as "entertainment". He's a god to a lot of people, his popularity hasn't been hurt by glamourizing stalking, rape, and violence against women, it's been heightened. Since when is tattooed up Adam Levine the representative for what is tasteful? He's having sex with his wife with red paint poured on them. I don't get how a meat/moose hunter as yourself can be upset by all the meat and blood in the video? I'd like to clarify, I don't think you can across the board call these murdered children "unwanted". They are unwanted by the people who gave them life. There are many many people who would like to be given the opportunity to adopt. So you think the average infertile couple has $30K to adopt? Here's the thing, if forced to give birth most people won't want to give up their babies. They will raise them in single parent, poor, or unstable households and those children in turn have a good chance to be the next generation of criminals. Overturning roe vs wade will result in unsafe backroom abortions which you can't have in a civilized country that has the technology. 100 years from now they will laugh at us that we performed abortions in hospitals with no issues but made people who didn't fit the checklist go to centers that might have protests going on outside.
|
|
|
Post by scrappintoee on Oct 16, 2016 6:16:02 GMT
Amen. I'm so glad I live where I do. I've been able to protect my littles from the secular world of atheists, feminists and liberals who do nothing but promote rape culture, talk trash about women and feed their kiddos processed food. Clean air and a clean Jesus-loving heart give me a high vantage point to see the hypocritical masses below. I'm not judging or laughing. I'm just so saddened for all those poor souls that don't really know Jesus or the freedom of open carry. I'll pray for all you who just don't see how hypocritical you are. sanctimommy!!! It's SO good to see you post again!
|
|