Contraception use fell and Medicaid births rose after Texas defunded Planned Parenthood.

[Aryeh Jay]

That's why there are so many dog's and cat's adopted from shelters .

Yes, about the same amount that are put down.


https://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and-surrender/pet-statistics

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues...t dogs put down in shelters&o=apn10506&prt=cr


Of the dogs entering shelters, approximately 35% are adopted, 31% are euthanized and 26% of dogs who came in as strays are returned to their owner.

Of the cats entering shelters, approximately 37% are adopted, 41% are euthanized, and less than 5% of cats who came in as strays are returned to their owners.

About 2.4 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs—about one every 13 seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Yes, about the same amount that are put down.

Irrelevant to your former statement.
You stated nobody wants cat's or dog's. Nobody is a pronoun = not any person, no one, not anyone.

You're wrong.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Irrelevant to your former statement.
You stated nobody wants cat's or dog's. Nobody is a pronoun = not any person, no one, not anyone.

You're wrong.

So I did, you are correct.

 

[Followers4christ]

That's not true.
If it were true there wouldn't be one Christian on the planet who is pro-choice.
Furthermore, it is not evident in scriptures that all lives matter to God. Therefore, it cannot be a Christian world view that they do when Christians derive their doctrine and understanding of God/Jesus per the Bible that proves all lives do not matter to God.

Please read post 419 for scriptures and links that give further insight on this subject. Many "christians" that go to church live lives that go against biblical teaching. Just because "christians" are prochoice don't mean that it is based on a biblical foundation. Sexual sin, hate, greed, murder and moral relativism has made its way in to the church.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So there are victimless crimes? How so?

Any law that is based on someone else's preference (when none of their actual rights are being violated) would fit that bill.

Anti-marijuana laws, or attempts to codify censorship of music/movies/art (like Al Gore tried to do back in the day) would be low hanging fruit in terms of examples of this.

When the mentality is "even though this doesn't impact me personally, I don't want someone else doing it because I don't like it", you're dealing with a victimless crime.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This chart shows why abortion is a complicated issue:

A pro-life libertarian (since the chart really pertains to a libertarian POV) would answer: Yes, no, life

A pro-choice libertarian would likely not see the fetus as having a life worthy of legal protection, and would say no victim, no crime.

The other glaring aspect of this (and libertarians recognize this aspect for many things, not just abortion) is that making something illegal doesn't make it go away, and often times makes it more dangerous.

As another famous libertarian once said (on the topic of prostitution): "It's not illegal because it's dangerous...it's dangerous because it's illegal"

I think abortion would fit in with that in many regards. If you take away the safe, sterile environment, staffed with knowlegeable people, you end up with a potentially dangerous situation.

but the more pertinent question in this day and age is: if abortion is legal, should the government pay for it? The only reasoned libertarian answer that I can think of to that question is a resounding no, regardless of when that person defines the beginning of human life.

I would agree that the government and other tax payers shouldn't be paying for it...I think it should remain legal, and safe access to it remain in place, however, I'd concur that everyone shouldn't be having to chip in for this given some of the statistics we know about abortions that take place, for example:

Of the abortions that take place, the reason cited in 46% of cases was "not using contraception", nearly another 20% is "not using contraception properly", and 23% of them are repeat customers. Contraception failures, Rape, Incest, and health issues make up the smallest piece of the pie in terms of reasons for getting one (even though the die-hard pro choice crowd makes those few outliers the core of the argument in order to give it a noble sounding purpose).

The necessity for such a large number of abortions is still largely driven by the aspect of irresponsibility. Until that changes, I'm not a fan of the government cutting checks to pay for a $1200 procedure that should've been a $12 pack of condoms.

But like I mentioned earlier, I'm technically "pro-choice" in terms of keeping abortion legal...however, some pro choice people would take the attitude of "anything less than 100% compliance with our agenda means you don't respect womens' rights"

 

[Tiny Bible]

Please read post 419 for scriptures and links that give further insight on this subject. Many "christians" that go to church live lives that go against biblical teaching. Just because "christians" are prochoice don't mean that it is based on a biblical foundation. Sexual sin, hate, greed, murder and moral relativism has made its way in to the church.

Neither in the Old or New Testaments are there scriptures that expressly forbid abortion. There are scriptures that forbid murder but there is nothing that equates abortion with that.

Today's claim by some pro-choice people that abortion is murder does not pertain to scriptures that concur.

 

[Hetta]

That's why there are so many dog's and cat's adopted from shelters .

Actually, the older dogs and cats are the ones they can't re-home, because everyone wants a puppy or kitten.

 

[Hetta]

Nobody said women are worthless. But what is being said that abortion is a selfish act that kills a baby. So unless the life of the mother is at risk there is no medical reason for an abortion. The christian worldview is abortion is murder and that all lives matter regardless of age or sex.

That may be your Christian worldview, but it doesn't mean it's the worldview for all Christians. You don't get to dictate to the world what they should think.

 

[Kersh]

Please read post 419 for scriptures and links that give further insight on this subject. Many "christians" that go to church live lives that go against biblical teaching. Just because "christians" are prochoice don't mean that it is based on a biblical foundation. Sexual sin, hate, greed, murder and moral relativism has made its way in to the church.

I responded earlier to the passages you cited, but for some reason it didn't quote you in my post. Although I am pro-life, I have to acknowledge that the Bible is remarkably silent on the subject. Exodus 21:22-23 treats the fetus as property of the woman's husband, not as a life to be protected. Jeremiah 1:5 acknowdges that God had chosen Jeremiah to warn Judah of the Babylonian deportation, before Jeremiah had even been conceived. Neither of these passages speak anything at all into the topic of abortion.

 

[Tiny Bible]

Actually, the older dogs and cats are the ones they can't re-home, because everyone wants a puppy or kitten.

And again, that's not true.
And the same retort applies as to what was said to the other account.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Sometimes this account likes to be called “poster” but whatever.

 

[seashale76]

Hmmm. A few years ago, we were thinking about adopting, and the homes at that time were full to overflowing with kids waiting for someone to adopt them. They weren't babies though, you see, and they all want babies. Forget those annoying 5, and 8, and 12 year olds who also would love to have parents.

It's so very easy to condemn people wanting to adopt babies that don't want to adopt older kids when you've not done that yourself, or even fostered older kids. It seems like you're being contemptuous and judgmental. I've not adopted or fostered myself, but I know and have interacted with quite a few older kids that have been. It is NOT an easy thing to do for the child or the adoptive parent. Even with the most patient of parents it can be difficult. Many of those kids come from horribly abusive homes and have seen and experienced things many people simply aren't equipped to handle. Rule number one of adoption is to stop judging or you'll never get approved.

 

[Kersh]

It's so very easy to condemn people wanting to adopt babies that don't want to adopt older kids when you've not done that yourself, or even fostered older kids. It seems like you're being contemptuous and judgmental. I've not adopted or fostered myself, but I know and have interacted with quite a few older kids that have been. It is NOT an easy thing to do for the child or the adoptive parent. Even with the most patient of parents it can be difficult. Many of those kids come from horribly abusive homes and have seen and experienced things many people simply aren't equipped to handle. Rule number one of adoption is to stop judging or you'll never get approved.

As an adoptive parent myself I would suggest that no one should adopt an older child unless they are called to it. Older children in foster care typically come with a lot of baggage, which can be overwhelming to adoptive parents who are not ready for it. OTOH, I believe God calls many couples who never answer the call, and that is why there are so many children in care.

 

[redleghunter]

Good news more live births.

So what if Medicaid claims increase.

 

[AceHero]

There is NO Excuse to kill a child.

True, but there are plenty of reasons for an abortion to take place.

You are advocating force.

You know your right.
I'm advocating to force the right of the child over the mother. Because that is what the mother is carrying. A child and that child has as much right to live than that mother choosing to kill it.

Thanks, didn't know I was doing that till just now.

Why does the fetus deserve more rights than the fully-developed human carrying it?

Again, what is it with the irrelevant rhetoric. I could try to adopt the hundreds of millions of non-American orphans...guess what so could you.

It's not at all irrelevant. I'm pointing out that there are plenty of born children who could use this passion for their well-being that you've been displaying. I find that a lot of pro-life advocates are curiously unconcerned with kids after they're born.

They're pro-natalists, really.

 

[AceHero]

At conception that collection of cells does not have a heart beat.

Got one question for you.

If one male human and one female human, copulate, and a sperm fertilizes an egg. That's conception correct?

okay next question.

What is it?

Not all fertilized eggs will be implanted though.

But they mainly were a provider of abortions. No one knows for sure if they sold parts of babies bodies in a large scale or not. We do know at least a few did.

There is no proof that any abortion clinics "sold" "baby" "parts."

Why is it such a terrible thing for people to have children? The tragedy should be that the church has allowed the government to do the work that churches should be doing.
We are to care for orphans and widows. Instead people are bemoaning the fact that more children are being born. What a sad mental state we have when we'd rather kill children in the womb than be inconvenienced by caring for them outside of the womb.

Some women are simply are not ready or willing to be mothers. Even with all the support in the world, there's no reasons for people to become parents if this isn't the right time for them.

 

[redleghunter]

Let's see now we have to fund Planned Parenthood because we can't have all of these "inconvenient/unwanted" children running around that are way too expensive to raise or pay for until they get adopted...

BTA it's perfectly fine for us to keep importing thousands and thousands of 3rd world/banana republic children that we have to pay for, and when the time comes import the rest of their families and have to pay for them too...

So what doesn't make a whole lot of sense about this scenario???

Is it because you don't like your own culture? Or is their culture superior to ours? Or is it because "we stole their land/resources"? (The contortions people go thru to shirk their "responsibilities" is utterly amazing)...

It seems to me that this is just another one of those "answers to a non existent problem"???

Are you applying common sense again?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I am sure that some want to punish young people who have sex outside of marriage. I don't think that this fits well with the Christian concept of grace, and I think it shows the child a great deal of disrespect. I oppose abortion, because I believe that every child is a blessing and should be treated as such. When we say to women with unplanned pregnancies, "well that's what you get for not keeping your legs closed", we lose sight of the very reason that we should hate abortion in the first place.

Well said.

That's why the majority of work I do for the pro-life cause is trying to make sure there are pregnancy centers and resources. It's not much, but I do what I can.

Generally speaking, you won't find me in front of an abortion clinic protesting, but you find he there telling women they do have other options.

no, when there are more people wanting to adopt kids then there are kids, you can be chosey, but a child should have a family, not have someones beliefs or opinions deny good parents. I don't care what someone believes if they are fitting parents, the childs right to a family should trump religious beliefs.

Then go through a private non-religious agency.

There are more people wanting to adopt babies than there are babies. It is typically the agencies that handle infant adoptions that have restrictive policies, precisely because they can be choosey, and it fits with their mission.

Agencies that handle older child (foster care) adoptions are typically not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, unless such discrimination is clearly in the best interests of the child (such as adopting a Muslim child to a Muslim family often makes more sense than placing him or her with a non-Muslim family).

We were also told that we'd probably only be placed with white children because that just made sense from a cultural standpoint.

We also were not even permitted to consider older children, because we already had children in the home.

 

[Kersh]

We were also told that we'd probably only be placed with white children because that just made sense from a cultural standpoint.

We also were not even permitted to consider older children, because we already had children in the home.

Very strange. I know each State is different, but Federal law prevents blatant racial discrimination. Race can be considered, but it may not be used as the sole reason for denying a match. My wife and I were told that our willingness to accept children of any race would expedite things. Our State (Michigan) is about 10-15% African-American, but in foster care (at least when we were looking) was about 50/50. Our children are of a different race than us, and this has presented minimal difficulties. I have also known of many people who adopt older children even though they have other children in the home. Some kids, because of specific behavioral or trauma issues need to be the only child in the home, but most thrive when placed with asoptive siblings.