As a foster parent I can tell you that we do. I don't know of anyone that has ever though children in foster homes was actually a good thing. It is usually a necessary thing because their home has become unsafe for them, but staying in the foster system for an extended period of time is just not a good thing.I say we should focus just as much attention, or more, on getting children out of the foster care system, as we focus on forcing them into it.....
You help children in the foster care system......so you are more than justified in fighting for causes that could lead many there. Your words should be heard and respected by all.As a foster parent I can tell you that we do. I don't know of anyone that has ever though children in foster homes was actually a good thing. It is usually a necessary thing because their home has become unsafe for them, but staying in the foster system for an extended period of time is just not a good thing.
We took one little boy home from the hospital at 4 days old. He was with us for 18 months. We offered to adopt him when the state finally terminated the parental rights, but blood always wins in the foster system, so they sent him to some second cousin that showed up out of nowhere. He's acclimated, but for him, going from a place of love where he called us mama and daddy, to a stranger, I don't think was a good thing for him.
A lot needs to change with DFCS and how the whole foster system works. But going back to what you said, we do focus on getting children out of the foster care system.
Well, as imperfect as the foster care system is (and it's very much imperfect), it's still a better alternative to killing the child.You help children in the foster care system......so you are more than justified in fighting for causes that could lead many there. Your words should be heard and respected by all.
What about those who turn a blind eye to the children in the system? Those who say "Adoption is always a(better) option," and desire to force this on all who do not agree with them......only later to ignore the child that is delivered and then carried into a state facility?
Do you believe this person would be a good candidate to stand next to you in your fight....or could they bring down your campaign......a little?
Well, as imperfect as the foster care system is (and it's very much imperfect), it's still a better alternative to killing the child.
Do I wish all Christians would foster? Certainly! My wife and I recently changed local churches, but in our previous church which had an average Sunday morning attendance of 250, I think there were two other foster families. 2. That's disappointing.
But to me, abortion is an issue that is perfectly capable of standing all by itself. Meaning, regardless of how good or how bad the foster care system is, or how much or how little people are involved in foster care - those facts have absolutely no bearing what-so-ever upon the morality of abortion.
This is failed logic. Because utilizing it would lead to the position that we should abort 100% of babies.There are some who believe that those aborted go right to heaven......for those, how would entering a foster system, where some are mistreated....(and if they make it to adulthood, risk Hell fire), be better than heaven? How, for them, would the desire to take away others choices, be not for their own good, as opposed to the good of the child?
I don't think killing a child is an acceptable alternative to foster/adoption. But beyond that, I don't believe God puts the authority in my hands to even make that decision. It has nothing to do with how it makes me feel, it's a moral issue for me.Yes it is better for you, The child?????only time would tell. You are thinking about looking at a baby and imagining it being slaughtered.....and it makes YOU feel bad inside and you do whatever you can to make yourself feel better about what YOU see and believe.
Maybe this is less for you because you try to support that child every after it is born as well.....but for those who dont...it might just be about doing what it take to make themselves feel better.
There's a difference between fostering and adoption. While the vast majority of foster parents at my agency actually end up adopting (it's hard not to after you've loved a child for years), they don't let people become foster parents who are "fostering to adopt", you need to foster to foster.I dont find it disappointing. Adoption is not for everyone. There are some not suited for raising children....and these people should not adopt. There are many who support the children in other ways and they should be celebrated just as much as those who are lucky enough to have the ability and capability to adopt.
This is failed logic. Because utilizing it would lead to the position that we should abort 100% of babies.
I don't think killing a child is an acceptable alternative to foster/adoption. But beyond that, I don't believe God puts the authority in my hands to even make that decision. It has nothing to do with how it makes me feel, it's a moral issue for me.
There's a difference between fostering and adoption. While the vast majority of foster parents at my agency actually end up adopting (it's hard not to after you've loved a child for years), they don't let people become foster parents who are "fostering to adopt", you need to foster to foster.
There is also something called respite care, where you sign up just to be able to help foster parents when they need a break themselves. Believe it or not, you can't just have a normal babysitter watch your foster children. Going out on a date with my wife takes a lot of planning as the babysitters we use had to be fingerprinted and approved.
There are lots of ways for Christians to help. You don't have to want to adopt. You can foster, you can offer respite care, or you can provide financially.
Why would I perpetuate misleading and deceiving language, even if it is "accepted"?Why are you not able to use correct terminology when speaking to the public instead of inserting changes based only on your own personal morals and beliefs?
We are not contrasting shooting children on the playground, with adoption.....we are contrasting abortion with adoption.... If you do not use the accepted language, you confuse people.
Why would I perpetuate misleading and deceiving language, even if it is "accepted"?
This is not analogous to what you are doing at all. What you are doing is equivalent to calling a slave master a factory supervisor, and a slave, a hired factory worker. This is what one, who wishes to lessen the magnitude of slavery, would say to get the hearer to believe that slavery is ok. There is nothing wrong with being a supervisor or a hired worker......therefore slavery is ok.This would be like if we lived before the civil war and I was saying slavery was wrong because the slaves were just as morally valuable people as you or I... It would be analogous to you telling me to stop calling slaves morally valuable people because the accepted language is that they aren't.
The fact is I am using correct terminology. The problem is that society has been lied and deceived by the enemy and is wrongly disregarding the value of the unborn. So I will absolutely continue to use the right terminology in hopes that others will learn what is true.
I prefer to see it as using the correct terminology, and hopefully those listening will become educated and also start using the correct terminology.The point was that your language is misleading because you change the meanings of known terms to match your own beliefs and morals without stating the you are doing such. To the weak minded, they will start to replace the actual definition with yours.....
That's interesting. Murder according to who, God, or secular culture? Obviously you mean secular culture, where laws change and are fluid. However, I'm more interested in what God, VIA His immutable character says about something. I believe that abortion certainly is murder from the mind of God. If that is true, then in reality, abortion actually is murder. Calling what something actually is in reality is not wrong.Abortion currently is not murder..... Saying this, is the truth and it does not mean that I agree with the definition......It only means that I agree that this is the definition and I do not wish to try and deceive anyone.
I don't recall ever making such a comparison. You'll need to show me where I did so.Just like your comparison of shooting preachers in the pulpit to mothers who abort children because of grave illness, subtract from an important issue: Saving the lived of unborn Children.
Then I would say we should probably have a discussion about definitions, because you're definitely wrong.I believe the taking of any human life is murder, for whatever reason
I could cut and paste a dozen or so statistics which show how rich average Americans, or the poorest Americans for that matter, are as compared many of the poor people of the world.As with many issues, people voice their support so long as it doesn't land in their backyard. The homeless shelter on their street, for example................ So, those of you against abortion, have you adopted? If not, why not?
No the argument is, if you care about the child.....you should care about them even after they leave the womb. The care should last beyond the womb if we are indeed taking away women ability to choose for themselves, solely because we care about the child. And there were many ways to support outside of abortions.
You agree with one who would force millions of children into the forster system, and never think about them once they are there? One who never desires to donate to them or encourage others to adopt?
Whether abortion =murder or abortion is equivalent to the murder of a preacher with a family, is a different debate topic.