User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 11:12:15 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 11:43:15 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagoth-Ur: There was a reason we excluded entire cultures from immigrating into this fair land. A primitive culture will inevitably fail in any society created by an advanced culture. Then the question becomes, what to do with them? Off course, in the West, the answer is 'Force the advanced culture to support the primitive culture.' |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 11:46:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:02:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:04:52 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:12:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:12:53 PM EDT
[#7]
What kind of numbers would we be looking at in terms of unwanted children?
With modern birth control and its cheap availability how many abortions are actually being carried out now? Are we talking about the addition of thousands of unwanted children per state, hundreds of thousands, or millions? |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:15:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: What kind of numbers would we be looking at in terms of unwanted children? With modern birth control and its cheap availability how many abortions are actually being carried out now? Are we talking about the addition of thousands of unwanted children per state, hundreds of thousands, or millions? Abortion has done nothing but skyrocket since birth control became available. Birth control, somewhat counterintuitively, shifted the burden of negligent pregnancy completely to the female party. She inherits that problem completely by failing to implement the solution, which is birth control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:30:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Good vibes and happy thoughts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:34:37 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Naturally. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 12:49:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 1:19:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 2:29:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Naamah]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 2:48:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: runcible]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: What kind of numbers would we be looking at in terms of unwanted children? With modern birth control and its cheap availability how many abortions are actually being carried out now? Are we talking about the addition of thousands of unwanted children per state, hundreds of thousands, or millions? I always laugh when I hear the claim that women in the ghetto have lots of kids to get more welfare. I've got news for you... they ain't that savvy. They have lots of kids 'cause they fuck a lot and don't use protection. Period. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 3:49:25 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glocker99: As an adoptive parent, there is a large shortage of babies to adopt and it is very expensive to complete the process. As to the comment that all adoptive children have mental problems is not even remotely true, if anything adoptees are loved even more than biological children. There is a saying that nobody adopted a child by mistake, can't say that about biological children. Once you start raising a child, it doesn't matter where the child came from, you will have successes and failures whether the child is adopted or biological. QFT. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 3:56:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: C3H5N3O9]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. Define slacktivism |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 3:57:47 PM EDT
[#17]
I am more than willing for the government to use all the money that they steal from me on orphanages instead of giving it to all the leaches of society who should be working for their own shit.
I would even (and have done so for school groups and scouts) volunteer some of my time for vocational exposure when they are old enough. Do I get to say killing unborn babies is bad, now? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 4:04:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By runcible: The availability of birth control means nothing to people with no long-term planning skills. I always laugh when I hear the claim that women in the ghetto have lots of kids to get more welfare. I've got news for you... they ain't that savvy. They have lots of kids 'cause they fuck a lot and don't use protection. Period. Ha, you're absolutely right about that. The single moms I've met over the course of my life weren't hatching some complicated plan to take advantage of social welfare benefits, they were just idiots who weren't taking their birth control pills. Still, I wonder what the abortion numbers are in the USA? If hypothetically all those children were instead born what kind of influx would be looking at? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 4:07:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Parental responsibility is a thing of the past. Multiple generations of parents see government as the de facto parent for their children, without any thought of what an utterly dysfunctional parent that would be. It’s the new normal.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 4:25:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 5:14:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: I am more than willing for the government to use all the money that they steal from me on orphanages instead of giving it to all the leaches of society who should be working for their own shit. I would even (and have done so for school groups and scouts) volunteer some of my time for vocational exposure when they are old enough. Do I get to say killing unborn babies is bad, now? Tax dollars don’t count. And if you’re willing, why not start now? These kids need all the positive role models and adults in their lives that they can get. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 5:24:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. Not at all. You don’t accept my arguments as rational, nor do I accept your arguments as rational. And I don’t give any credence or respect whatsoever to someone who is willing to put other people’s bodies, time, talent, and treasure on the line for their own personal morals, but isn’t willing to invest any of their own beyond what is legally obligated (taxes). Slacktivists are hypocrites, and hypocrites are morally bankrupt and have no place lecturing others on morality. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” -James 1:22 |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 5:28:52 PM EDT
[#23]
An Irishman already came up with a solution to this about 100 years ago, albeit as a joke.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 5:40:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Tax dollars don’t count. And if you’re willing, why not start now? These kids need all the positive role models and adults in their lives that they can get. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: I am more than willing for the government to use all the money that they steal from me on orphanages instead of giving it to all the leaches of society who should be working for their own shit. I would even (and have done so for school groups and scouts) volunteer some of my time for vocational exposure when they are old enough. Do I get to say killing unborn babies is bad, now? Tax dollars don’t count. And if you’re willing, why not start now? These kids need all the positive role models and adults in their lives that they can get. We did community outreach with the church for a few years. I hate to admit it, but it was pretty much a waste of time. Bailing a canoe with a hole bigger than your bucket. It was heartbreaking. If there were a program to raise kids under good conditions, instead of in a shit hole with shit people surrounding them, efforts like mentorship would be effective and worthwhile. Mentoring the scouts, some of whom had a less than perfect home life but their mom cared enough to let them spend time with us, saw much better effects. Very rewarding to see boys grown into productive, responsible men. The more I participate in any discussion about this topic, the more I come to believe that orphanages are one of the best shots we have at breaking the very deep cycle of dependence that exists. Paying losers to breed losers is obviously not working. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 6:09:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: We did community outreach with the church for a few years. I hate to admit it, but it was pretty much a waste of time. Bailing a canoe with a hole bigger than your bucket. It was heartbreaking. The more I participate in any discussion about this topic, the more I come to believe that orphanages are one of the best shots we have at breaking the very deep cycle of dependence that exists. Paying losers to breed losers is obviously not working. Working with kids coming out of traumatic situations can be heartbreaking. Trauma is all they know, and their responses to situations aren’t usually healthy. Too often, you can’t save them. But if everyone just gives up and quits on them, they have no one. There is no one to do that work. As it is, the number of people is woefully small. And orphanages had their own traumas too. Lots of them. Researching how that went breaks your heart just as much as witnessing the current failures. There really aren’t good answers. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 6:37:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Not at all. You don’t accept my arguments as rational, nor do I accept your arguments as rational. And I don’t give any credence or respect whatsoever to someone who is willing to put other people’s bodies, time, talent, and treasure on the line for their own personal morals, but isn’t willing to invest any of their own beyond what is legally obligated (taxes). Slacktivists are hypocrites, and hypocrites are morally bankrupt and have no place lecturing others on morality. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” -James 1:22 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. Not at all. You don’t accept my arguments as rational, nor do I accept your arguments as rational. And I don’t give any credence or respect whatsoever to someone who is willing to put other people’s bodies, time, talent, and treasure on the line for their own personal morals, but isn’t willing to invest any of their own beyond what is legally obligated (taxes). Slacktivists are hypocrites, and hypocrites are morally bankrupt and have no place lecturing others on morality. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” -James 1:22 As I said, you don't know me or what I do with my life. Nor do I need to give you a resume. All I've seen from your posts in this thread is that the foster care system is terrible and some kids are difficult to adopt out. The implication being that those kids should have been killed as fetuses instead. That's not a reasonable argument and I already explained why. Did you make another argument that I missed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 7:32:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? Foster children really have very little to do with this, if anything at all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 7:38:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KaerMorhenResident: What kind of numbers would we be looking at in terms of unwanted children? With modern birth control and its cheap availability how many abortions are actually being carried out now? Are we talking about the addition of thousands of unwanted children per state, hundreds of thousands, or millions? There are about a million abortions a year in the US. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 7:58:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Love them all. The more kids the more wonderful life will be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 8:20:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: As I said, you don't know me or what I do with my life. Nor do I need to give you a resume. All I've seen from your posts in this thread is that the foster care system is terrible and some kids are difficult to adopt out. The implication being that those kids should have been killed as fetuses instead. That's not a reasonable argument and I already explained why. Did you make another argument that I missed? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. Not at all. You don’t accept my arguments as rational, nor do I accept your arguments as rational. And I don’t give any credence or respect whatsoever to someone who is willing to put other people’s bodies, time, talent, and treasure on the line for their own personal morals, but isn’t willing to invest any of their own beyond what is legally obligated (taxes). Slacktivists are hypocrites, and hypocrites are morally bankrupt and have no place lecturing others on morality. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” -James 1:22 As I said, you don't know me or what I do with my life. Nor do I need to give you a resume. All I've seen from your posts in this thread is that the foster care system is terrible and some kids are difficult to adopt out. The implication being that those kids should have been killed as fetuses instead. That's not a reasonable argument and I already explained why. Did you make another argument that I missed? You read into my narratives what you wanted to see, what gave you something to argue against, but I did not state nor imply what you took from it. The foster system is terrible, and some kids are difficult, even impossible to adopt out. Which is why each and every person vehemently arguing in favor of banning abortion should be ready and willing to step up to meet the needs of the children they’re insisting be brought into this world. You already know their parents aren’t going to meet their needs, because they’re willing to terminate them before they’re even born. Don’t demand from other that which you are unwilling to do. There aren’t enough case workers and foster homes and CASAs and adoptive parents for the children in the system right now, much less the millions more you want to add. Notice, that doesn’t mean “KILL THE BABIES!!!” like you seem to want to infer. It means put your money where your mouth is and get involved. Don’t expect people to think you relevant if all you ever do is talk about what everyone else should be doing. You don’t need to give me a resume, but without one, you’re just another hypocrite. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:15:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By runcible: There is a reason that two cultures can't share a society if one is far more advanced than the other. A primitive culture will inevitably fail in any society created by an advanced culture. Then the question becomes, what to do with them? Off course, in the West, the answer is 'Force the advanced culture to support the primitive culture.' Or we assume our natural place as masters of our domain and exclude the hostiles, and those whom side with them, akin to what General Washington did with the loyalists after we won. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:19:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:32:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Martlet: Foster children really have very little to do with this, if anything at all. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Martlet: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? Foster children really have very little to do with this, if anything at all. I agree. It's a common whatabout to toss out for the pro-abortion crew though. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:41:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: You read into my narratives what you wanted to see, what gave you something to argue against, but I did not state nor imply what you took from it. The foster system is terrible, and some kids are difficult, even impossible to adopt out. Which is why each and every person vehemently arguing in favor of banning abortion should be ready and willing to step up to meet the needs of the children they’re insisting be brought into this world. You already know their parents aren’t going to meet their needs, because they’re willing to terminate them before they’re even born. Don’t demand from other that which you are unwilling to do. There aren’t enough case workers and foster homes and CASAs and adoptive parents for the children in the system right now, much less the millions more you want to add. Notice, that doesn’t mean “KILL THE BABIES!!!” like you seem to want to infer. It means put your money where your mouth is and get involved. Don’t expect people to think you relevant if all you ever do is talk about what everyone else should be doing. You don’t need to give me a resume, but without one, you’re just another hypocrite. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. Not at all. You don’t accept my arguments as rational, nor do I accept your arguments as rational. And I don’t give any credence or respect whatsoever to someone who is willing to put other people’s bodies, time, talent, and treasure on the line for their own personal morals, but isn’t willing to invest any of their own beyond what is legally obligated (taxes). Slacktivists are hypocrites, and hypocrites are morally bankrupt and have no place lecturing others on morality. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” -James 1:22 As I said, you don't know me or what I do with my life. Nor do I need to give you a resume. All I've seen from your posts in this thread is that the foster care system is terrible and some kids are difficult to adopt out. The implication being that those kids should have been killed as fetuses instead. That's not a reasonable argument and I already explained why. Did you make another argument that I missed? You read into my narratives what you wanted to see, what gave you something to argue against, but I did not state nor imply what you took from it. The foster system is terrible, and some kids are difficult, even impossible to adopt out. Which is why each and every person vehemently arguing in favor of banning abortion should be ready and willing to step up to meet the needs of the children they’re insisting be brought into this world. You already know their parents aren’t going to meet their needs, because they’re willing to terminate them before they’re even born. Don’t demand from other that which you are unwilling to do. There aren’t enough case workers and foster homes and CASAs and adoptive parents for the children in the system right now, much less the millions more you want to add. Notice, that doesn’t mean “KILL THE BABIES!!!” like you seem to want to infer. It means put your money where your mouth is and get involved. Don’t expect people to think you relevant if all you ever do is talk about what everyone else should be doing. You don’t need to give me a resume, but without one, you’re just another hypocrite. Yet, when I ask you if you would support an abortion ban, you refuse to answer. If you support keeping abortion legal, then yes, you are advocating for the killing of those unwanted children. So, do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:46:33 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hhsmiley: If women know they just can't abort a baby on a whim, and have to live with their poor life choices, they will not take such a cavalier attitude towards sex. There would be no massive "unwanted children" problem. Abortion is a symptom. Society just accepting that "sport fucking" is all good is the disease. We need to bring back the societal stigma against being a slut (both male and female). You may really like wantonly fucking and disagree, but you can't argue with the problems it's causing. Currently, there are no negative consequences for irresponsible sexual behavior and no reason for the behavior to change. If there are negative consequences, behavior will change. It's pretty basic psychology. Nobody seems to talk about this. Bold assumption… we’re talking about a segment of society who makes decisions like “let’s commit armed robbery to get $40 from the gas station register” and doesn’t care that said robbery carries a 10-25 year prison sentence… they won’t give a fuck about having kids. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:47:06 PM EDT
[#36]
It's the year
Ocean's dying, plankton's dying... it's people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them! -- Charlton Heston 1973 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:51:45 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TxRabbitBane: Parental responsibility is a thing of the past. Multiple generations of parents see government as the de facto parent for their children, without any thought of what an utterly dysfunctional parent that would be. It’s the new normal. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 9:53:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AZLaw: Love them all. The more kids the more wonderful life will be. Amen. 
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 10:03:34 PM EDT
[#39]
I've never seen an orphanage. I have seen foster children.
I've seen a financial manager husband and stay at home mom of three girls try to adopt via foster care. After numerous parenting classes that had to be taken to qualify (despite three children excelling) they gave up after the umpteenth child was sent back to their unfit parents when they got back out of rehab or jail for the umpteenth time. That system is so broken people spend vast sums of money to adopt children from Africa and Eastern Europe. People are literally waiting in line to adopt newborns. The demand for 16 year old juvenile delinquents born while abortion was perfectly legal is unsurprisingly low. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 7:54:43 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Working with kids coming out of traumatic situations can be heartbreaking. Trauma is all they know, and their responses to situations aren’t usually healthy. Too often, you can’t save them. But if everyone just gives up and quits on them, they have no one. There is no one to do that work. As it is, the number of people is woefully small. And orphanages had their own traumas too. Lots of them. Researching how that went breaks your heart just as much as witnessing the current failures. There really aren’t good answers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: We did community outreach with the church for a few years. I hate to admit it, but it was pretty much a waste of time. Bailing a canoe with a hole bigger than your bucket. It was heartbreaking. The more I participate in any discussion about this topic, the more I come to believe that orphanages are one of the best shots we have at breaking the very deep cycle of dependence that exists. Paying losers to breed losers is obviously not working. Working with kids coming out of traumatic situations can be heartbreaking. Trauma is all they know, and their responses to situations aren’t usually healthy. Too often, you can’t save them. But if everyone just gives up and quits on them, they have no one. There is no one to do that work. As it is, the number of people is woefully small. And orphanages had their own traumas too. Lots of them. Researching how that went breaks your heart just as much as witnessing the current failures. There really aren’t good answers. I agree, there are no good answers. I said before there are only bad and less bad answers. Any answer better than leaving them to languish where they sit (or kill them) is less bad. I've done some research on orphanages. Yes, there are horror stories. There are lots of success stories, too. It's a little like the homeschool phenomenon where all HS kids are perceived as loner/awkward/outcast/you-name-it. People are noticing the noticeable ones. They don't notice all the successful ones. You're going to hear all the bad from orphanages and rarely the good. I've no clue if they could ever be reimplemented any more than psych wards. But, I'm firmly convinced they're better than what we have now but certainly not perfect. Nothing ever will be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 8:11:32 AM EDT
[#41]
Must kill the children’s as their life will not be perfect. Must kill, it is only way to save them. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 8:11:36 AM EDT
[#42]
What would we do with them? Easy answer
Build more prisons |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 8:19:38 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: I agree. It's a common whatabout to toss out for the pro-abortion crew though. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Martlet: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? Foster children really have very little to do with this, if anything at all. I agree. It's a common whatabout to toss out for the pro-abortion crew though. Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 8:20:48 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Yet, when I ask you if you would support an abortion ban, you refuse to answer. If you support keeping abortion legal, then yes, you are advocating for the killing of those unwanted children. So, do you? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By HKocher: Originally Posted By Obo2: The adoption numbers are not higher because there are not that many babies to adopt. Adoptions would go up if more children were born. Would they? Are there really that many families willing to adopt based on charity or lack of fertility? I seriously doubt it. There are a ton of families willing to adopt babies. Specifically white babies without health issues or birth defects. To a lesser degree Asian and Hispanic. To a much lesser degree black. But babies with health issues or birth defects aren’t very adoptable. Neither are older kids. And often what happens is a woman has the baby, then decides she wants to keep it. Then she spends a year or two screwing everything up and the kid gets taken away. Then she straightens up and the kid gets handed back to her (plus whatever damage was incurred during the separation). Then she does ok for a while, then screws up again. Maybe she’s had another kid or three. Now the first kid is 7 or 8, and there’s another sibling or two, and DFCS is still required to give her a case plan to work to get the kids back. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t, but they’re still trying to reunify. A year later, she hasn’t made progress, so they start the process to terminate parental rights. A year later, that finally happens. Kid 1 is now 10, plus they want to keep the siblings together. Kid 2 was sexually abused a couple times, and kid 3 had serious anger issues. Finding a family to take all 3 together is tough. Splitting them up is a terrible option. So you have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 7 year old, and no one wants them because the adopters out there want healthy non-black babies. Life is hard. But it's still better than death. A trite cop out. “It’s better than death!” is strictly your opinion, and it does not a thing in the world to improve the situations or lives of children put in that position. If you are willing to be passionate about getting the kids out of the uterus alive, you are obligated to be passionate about what happens to them after. And if you are passionate, you take steps to improve those lives. Sure. We should try to improve those kids' lives, streamline the adoption process, and improve cultural expectations of personal responsibility. But even if those things fail, it's not an acceptable solution to say "well, things would be easier if these people were just dead". Yes, it's my opinion that a hard life is better than no life. You can disagree and believe that some people would be better off dead than alive, but what you can't do is act on that belief by killing them. Even if the kid's mother believes that, she still isn't justified in killing her kid. I understand your position. So what are you doing beyond advocating for birth to help improve the lives of these children? But do you agree with the position? I understand your position as well, but I disagree with it. What's the required minimum threshold of charitable activity towards foster children before I'm allowed to advocate for not killing them? I don’t agree with you entirely, no. And go ahead and throw out your contribution. Give me an idea of what you voluntarily do to help children who are unwanted, neglected, or abused. Taxes don’t count. That's not an answer. What's the threshold? Like I said, name your contribution. Something. Anything. What are you actively doing? How are you actively helping? Good vibes and happy thoughts. Naturally. Is that not enough to be able to voice an opinion? You can absolutely have and voice an opinion. You just get relegated to the company of those who constantly complain but aren’t willing to get off their asses and actually contribute. You care as long as you know someone else is having to bear the load but walk away as soon as you’re actually able to anything of substance to assist. Nothing but hot air. The red hen cares not a fig for your opinion if you’re unwilling to actually help. Well, we all have our focus areas. I'm not doing much to cure cancer either. Are you busy telling doctors how, when, and where to cure cancer or arguing the ethics of curing cancer? Or telling them that if they aren’t putting their lives on the line to cure cancer, they’re committing murder? For this not being a focus area of yours, you’re certainly focusing on it a lot. But only to tell others what to do and how to do it. Not to actually do anything yourself. I'm just a dude on the internet. You don't know what I'm involved in or aren't, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Same as I don't know you or what you're involved in, and that also doesn't matter. I've made my arguments based on right and wrong, not an appeal to authority or based on how many volunteer hours I have with the local orphanage. You started by engaging on the merits, then quickly switched to a credential measuring contest. I can only interpret that to mean that you've exhausted any rational arguments you might have had. Not at all. You don’t accept my arguments as rational, nor do I accept your arguments as rational. And I don’t give any credence or respect whatsoever to someone who is willing to put other people’s bodies, time, talent, and treasure on the line for their own personal morals, but isn’t willing to invest any of their own beyond what is legally obligated (taxes). Slacktivists are hypocrites, and hypocrites are morally bankrupt and have no place lecturing others on morality. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” -James 1:22 As I said, you don't know me or what I do with my life. Nor do I need to give you a resume. All I've seen from your posts in this thread is that the foster care system is terrible and some kids are difficult to adopt out. The implication being that those kids should have been killed as fetuses instead. That's not a reasonable argument and I already explained why. Did you make another argument that I missed? You read into my narratives what you wanted to see, what gave you something to argue against, but I did not state nor imply what you took from it. The foster system is terrible, and some kids are difficult, even impossible to adopt out. Which is why each and every person vehemently arguing in favor of banning abortion should be ready and willing to step up to meet the needs of the children they’re insisting be brought into this world. You already know their parents aren’t going to meet their needs, because they’re willing to terminate them before they’re even born. Don’t demand from other that which you are unwilling to do. There aren’t enough case workers and foster homes and CASAs and adoptive parents for the children in the system right now, much less the millions more you want to add. Notice, that doesn’t mean “KILL THE BABIES!!!” like you seem to want to infer. It means put your money where your mouth is and get involved. Don’t expect people to think you relevant if all you ever do is talk about what everyone else should be doing. You don’t need to give me a resume, but without one, you’re just another hypocrite. Yet, when I ask you if you would support an abortion ban, you refuse to answer. If you support keeping abortion legal, then yes, you are advocating for the killing of those unwanted children. So, do you? I’ve already stated my position. Have you forgotten? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 9:55:52 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. He agrees because it’s factual. Prenatal adoption isn’t the same, or even related to, foster care. Foster care is for children whose parents want(ed) them. The goal of foster care is parental reunification. Prenatal adoption is just that: Children who aren’t kept by their parents. It is estimated that for every child put up for adoption, there are 36 families looking to adopt. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 10:02:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Ridgerunner9876]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 12:24:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Martlet: He agrees because it’s factual. Prenatal adoption isn’t the same, or even related to, foster care. Foster care is for children whose parents want(ed) them. The goal of foster care is parental reunification. Prenatal adoption is just that: Children who aren’t kept by their parents. It is estimated that for every child put up for adoption, there are 36 families looking to adopt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Martlet: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. He agrees because it’s factual. Prenatal adoption isn’t the same, or even related to, foster care. Foster care is for children whose parents want(ed) them. The goal of foster care is parental reunification. Prenatal adoption is just that: Children who aren’t kept by their parents. It is estimated that for every child put up for adoption, there are 36 families looking to adopt. Which is fine, if those mothers reach out to adoption agencies. Most don’t (which is why there are so many couples waiting to adopt babies). Most who opt to carry the pregnancy also opt to keep the baby for a while, but later end up having encounters with DFCS. Which is where the foster care system gets involved. Which is why the foster system is a concern. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 12:33:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Naamah: Which is fine, if those mothers reach out to adoption agencies. Most don’t (which is why there are so many couples waiting to adopt babies). Most who opt to carry the pregnancy also opt to keep the baby for a while, but later end up having encounters with DFCS. Which is where the foster care system gets involved. Which is why the foster system is a concern. Ok. Then we agree it has nothing to do with the abortion discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 12:34:26 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ridgerunner9876: Originally Posted By Naamah: Of course you agree. It allows you to Scarlet O’Hara your way through the consequences of eliminating abortion, namely the birth of a bunch of children who will get Safe Haven’d (who takes care of them?) or neglected and abused and potentially trafficked, eventually coming into contact with the child welfare system (who takes care of them?). If you don’t think about that, if you aren’t actively involved in improving that, you’re voluntolding others to carry the weight of your morality. Others get to carry that burden while you sit on your laurels handing out thoughts and prayers to the people left to deal with the consequences. It is bizarre that telling people to be responsible for their actions and at the same time to not use murdering their unborn child as a means of being responsible for it, is a controversial position. "You should be responsible for your actions. You should not murder children" "Oh, yeah? Well, what are you doing to help take care of the children of these irresponsible people? You can't tell them to not murder their child if you're not willing to be responsible if they birth it". This does not look like a good position. eta: I realize that there is a certain segment of the population who will never be responsible or smart about anything they do. It, then, becomes (again) what is the least bad answer. Some say killing the baby is the least bad answer. Maybe it is (not so much for the kid) . If we want to use that logic, killing the irresponsible adults along with the fetus would solve a lot more societal problems. “Be more responsible!” is ivory tower logic if you really, truly believe it will work. And while it’s comfortable to sit in the ivory tower and dictate, it doesn’t offer solutions that work in the real world. If people are concerned about murdering the babies, they should be equally concerned with what happens to those children after they’re born. The birth canal isn’t a finish line. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2024 12:35:36 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Martlet: Ok. Then we agree it has nothing to do with the abortion discussion. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Martlet: Originally Posted By Naamah: Which is fine, if those mothers reach out to adoption agencies. Most don’t (which is why there are so many couples waiting to adopt babies). Most who opt to carry the pregnancy also opt to keep the baby for a while, but later end up having encounters with DFCS. Which is where the foster care system gets involved. Which is why the foster system is a concern. Ok. Then we agree it has nothing to do with the abortion discussion. It does when you’re talking about adding potentially millions of children to the DFCS roster without a plan to address who’s going to take care of those children. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
