Trump encourages adoption

I personally have none and what did you win? I find it a little absurd you would think you show care for the kids by killing them before they are born and then if they do make it by his much government spendson them. The government never took care of me when I was a kid and my wife and and never sought government aid for ours and I would put our carry for ours up against anyone's.

 

I said you support abortion, where did I go wrong? I pointed out your critisism of those advocating more support for and encouraging more placing babies up for adoption. Calm down.

 

So our parents never paid taxes!??! Did you go to school ?, doesn't sound like it since the government pays for schools....did you never use a road or highway? Ever?!!!!
Was your food never deemed safe to eat by the GOVERNMENT regulations?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
And here's another of your little "gotcha moments"" that flopped

In post 22 and 33 I did NOT say I was against adoption.....AND YOU DID NOT PROVE I DID


If you read them slowly without rabidly searching for the "gotcha" and seeing ONLY what you want to see..you possibly could understand...

You never proved I advocated "killing babies" …..


If you insist I approve of killing babies again I will report you, that's flamebait...

And I explained SEVERAL TIMES how I did NOT support abortion I support women's right to their own body.

I criticized TRUMP for pushing adoption because of his agenda to ban abortion...and his obvious lack of caring or respect for "life".


And the second a poster says "calm down" ( a control issue) I know that they know they lost the argument but just can't give up....

 

I'm not the I've makes the argument that only those who have adopted can encourage more of it.

"I support abortion for others but I could never abort my baby....." which begs the question. What does the person personally have against abortion.

 

Could you rephrase this attempt at a sentence ?

""""I'm not the I've maintenance the argument that only those who have adopted can encourage more of it.""""" Hilarious!

 

And I keep asking YOU and YOUR position on the abortion itself and the results.

And then you go off on people who want to support and encourage more adoption with this nonsense

Just amazing where your defense and support of women killing their unborn babies will take you.

 

Adoption is a scary word for abortion zealots. The concept is dangerous.

Instead of getting rid of a "growth", the mother is choosing to give her " baby" life.

A mother that chooses life through adoption , doesn't choose life for a fetus. She chooses life for her child.

Abortion activists find an obsession with parsing words and terminology because it makes their position more palatable.

A mother choosing adoption is not being quiet about the terminology. She would have to KNOW she is the mother of a CHILD BEFORE that child was even born in order to plan for an upcoming adoption....and that blurring of definition is unacceptable for the abortion activist that needs women to feel cold, and repulsed by what is growing within them in order to have it scraped out.

Thus mothers who choose adoption hurt the abortion without guilt design and thus the cause.

A single mother that will choose to keep her fetus/child, is deemed harmless to the abortion cause. Whether she believes she is carrying a fetus, or whether she is carrying a child is hidden from view . So that person is not dangerous to the agenda.

But more adoptions means more "children" before birth and that is frightening for some.

 

The point is that if you oppose abortion, then be ready to adopt an unwanted child. I believe in a woman’s right to choose because it is her body. Men don’t get pregnant. However, I oppose abortion.

 

Sorry that is not a requirement else if you support welfare for the homeless be prepared to bring the homeless into your home. If you support illegal immigration then be ready to let them come live at your house.

 

I did. Funny thing was I had just watch an interview with the guy who worked at Apple and invented "autocorrect" and his talking about it's still many short comings...........

So try again.

 

Bad analogies, no one is trying to make more homeless people and no one is trying to make more illegal immigrants...

There are those who want to make more kids to adopt....so they should adopt more kids.

 

No quite fitting vis-a-vis the requirement being stated that anyone who supports adoption must first adopt. What absurd nonsense for a lack of reasoned debate.

 

Oh, darn, I must've gone deeper than "bumper sticker" level again....

 

They are different entities. A woman's' right to choose has nothing to do with homelessness or illegal immigration.

 

Well then I guess you could say that every single law ever written is about controlling some group of people.
But that’s not just what you stated... you stated that pro lifers don’t care about the children and just want to control women. That statement is a lie. Unless of course you can prove otherwise.
Do you feel that PETA doesn’t care about animals and just want to control all non vegans?
Do you feel that green peace doesn’t care about the whales and they just want to control fisherman?
Do you feel that MADD doesn’t care about people being injured by drunk drivers because they just want to control people that drink?
Do you feel that gun grabbers don’t care about gun violence, they just want to control gun owners?
Or does that train of thought only apply to the pro life crowd?

I didn’t ask you to pick out a small part of your statement and try to justify it, I asked you to provide some evidence that “ pro lifers DON’T CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN and JUST WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN”
And yes, every time I’ve asked you to prove your accusations you’ve failed pathetically.

 

First off, why in the world would you be “happy to say you’ve never seen any supportive mothers” that chose life.
That’s a rather dark thing to be happy about...
On another note, here’s a link that talks about some of the larger support systems that are out there.
There is also a huge support system within the smaller local pro life groups that provide support to the mothers long after the children are born. I could tell you story after story of situations I’ve personally been involved with but it would take quite a bit of typing and you probably wouldn’t believe me anyways because it’s not what you want to hear.
My wife and I have adopted 5 children through our pro life work. If that’s not long term support I don’t know what is.

https://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/17/pro-life-people-care-for-women-and-children-after-birth-too/

 

My wife and I have adopted 5
No you did not win your point, not even close.

 

Good for you

Now what are you going to do about the other half million children that would be born each year? Are you going to find parents for all of them?

 

Thank you for admitting banning abortion IS trying to control women.

"Pro-Lifers" are generally righties...it's the right that constantly wants to cut funding to entities that aid CHILDREN like WIC, SNAP, Welfare, even healthy school lunches and public TV!

None of those people want to take away a person's right to their own body...…"pro-lifers" do....that's the ultimate "control".

I failed because YOU said so ?

 

IF you are lucky or willing to take charity from a religious group but how long does this support last?

 

I'm address this principle that is being declared about unless you have done X then you cannot support X and the folly it represents. That is what was espoused in this thread, unless of have adopted children you cannot support adoption of children.

 

The bad was the if you have not adopted children you cannot support adopting children. Applying that principle to other issues demonstrates its folly.

 

Actually I took it beyond the bumper sticker declaration that was made.

 

Thirty-Six Couples Wait for Every One Baby Who is Adopted

A recent article asked, “Why do more people choose abortion over adoption?” The author, Kristi Brown, commented:


Countless women in the U.S. choose abortion over adoption for their unborn babies every year. When I sat in on counseling sessions at a pregnancy center, I learned that women are often very closed to the idea of adoption. They either want to keep their baby themselves or get rid of the baby now. Adoption statistics are hard to track, since states are not necessarily required to report domestic adoptions. However, the numbers are grim, and much of it is owing to abortion.

If true, such a mindset is troubling. How could we be so hostile to life, particularly given that “there are up to 36 couples waiting for every one baby placed for adoption”?

The data is admittedly sparse, but sufficient. Obtainable statistics indicate that U.S. adoptions generally fall into three categories: a) adoptions from U.S. foster care, involving public welfare agencies (37%); b) private adoptions of U.S. children (38%); and c) private adoptions from international sources (25%). The percentages shown parenthetically represent all 0- to 17-year-old adopted children in the U.S. as of 2007, by source of adoptioni.

Based on these percentages, annual foster care adoption data, and readily available abortion statistics, we can (i) determine if many mothers and fathers really do “feel that killing their children is a better option than choosing families for their children” and, if so, (ii) explore why they might feel that way.

To do so, all yearly adoptions were totaled, with a sub-total for U.S.-sourced adoptions:
https://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/


Why don't we start by trying to help those couples and then you can kill the rest.