Those against abortion, have you adopted?

[RaymondG]

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.....

 

[SPF]

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.....

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.

 

[RaymondG]

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.

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?

 

[SPF]

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.

 

[RaymondG]

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

Yes Abortion is an issue that stands on it's own.....this thread, however, is about what those, who fight for the removal of choice, are doing for babies who are born and then given away by the mothers.

 

[SPF]

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?

This is failed logic. Because utilizing it would lead to the position that we should abort 100% of babies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[RaymondG]

This is failed logic. Because utilizing it would lead to the position that we should abort 100% of babies.

I agree...And even though I disagree with the notion anyway, I find it unwise to mention this if one desires to force all to bring every seed into the world, even if they do not want to, themselves. Seems a little counter-productive....as, like you said, abortion can stand on it's own.....no need to mention that we would be forcing children out of heaven and into a foster care system if we start agreeing with you.

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.

You are changing topic again.....we are talking about abortions and not killing children playing in the playground. I lived in an area where this happened often.... 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....or make them feel that they are not wise enough to catch the difference in language, which only serves to subconsciously sway the reader without their knowledge..... Soon you will have most saying "abortion is the same as shooting random people.....therefore abortion is just as wrong as shooting random people." A conclusion made by the unbeknownst implantation of a seed in their mind.....that grows into at tree that YOU desired to see in another.....taking away their mental choice to plant their own seed just like you desire to remove the physical choice of a woman.

Why not talk plainly and allow all to make their own decision base on facts, instead of thrown seeds outside of most readers awareness?

If I believe that self-defense is murder....I would not start calling one who accidentally killed someone who was trying to kill them and their family....a murderer. If I pointed to one, who was in the aforementioned scenario, and said he was a murderer without mentioning the details.....I would be relaying a false image of the person...because I wanted to force my belief on the hearer. I want them to view self -defense as murder.....so I call it only murder.......in hopes that they soon will too. But the law calls it self defense and many people do as well. What do I have to gain by calling it something else? I am capable of relaying the truth without changing facts or the words of the law.

Abortion if the ending of life in the womb.....Murder is the ending of life outside the womb... What does one have to gain my mixing these definitions in a discussion...?

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.

I agree, there are many ways to help children......a lot you mentioned.....and a lot you haven't..... and all ways are equally respectable regardless of name or definition given to the type of help rendered.

 

[SPF]

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 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.

 

[RaymondG]

Why would I perpetuate misleading and deceiving language, even if it is "accepted"?

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.....

Why try to win a debate using misleading terms and definitions? Why not only use facts and truth?

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. Deception is seldom found in the mouth of one carrying truth. If I can change the meaning of one term just because I dont agree with it.....how can you trust any of my statements? How would you know when Im using my own definition of words, or the definition in the dictionary or law?

Why not avoid all the confusion by stating the law as is, instead of saying that the law is what you want it to be..and books and others thoughts matter not?

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.

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.

What would the motive of the person be, who changes the definition slave master and slave, to that of a supervisor and hired worker??? What kind of deception is this? And why would one need to use it?

It subtract from the important issue......slavery...... 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.

It would be good to be able to talk about saving children while not having to talk about people killed on the streets as well. By all means.....lets save them both......but one at a time.... Children are so important that they deserve one stone for themselves.....not to be shared with a second bird.

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.

What if you was in a situation where someone tried to hurt you and your family and you fought them off and they died? You were not charged, as the law called it self- defense. I believe the taking of any human life is murder, for whatever reason. Would you deem it just and right for me to call you a murderer based solely on my belief, even when the law says it wasnt? If I told another that you are a murderer.....you killed someone ......and I left out the details....would you feel that I was right....because I feel the law is using incorrect terminology and they should use mine? Or does it only matter what you believe is correct and incorrect terminology?

What you are saying is that what you believe and feel is truth and you do not care what others feel or what the law says. Although I find no fault in this, it would be unfruitful to try and reason with one who feels this way.

 

[SPF]

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.....

I prefer to see it as using the correct terminology, and hopefully those listening will become educated and also start using the correct terminology.

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.

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.

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.

I don't recall ever making such a comparison. You'll need to show me where I did so.

I believe the taking of any human life is murder, for whatever reason

Then I would say we should probably have a discussion about definitions, because you're definitely wrong.

 

[His student]

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?

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.

I would venture to say that many of those who rail against people who are pro life are generally liberal and thus tend to make a fuss about the disparity of income among the poor and the rich etc.

But I know of few of those folks who give any really large percentage of their income to the poor in the third world or the inner cities. I would venture to say that few of them who do give - give a percentage of income that wold equal the cost of raising and educating a child thru college.

The argument of alleged hypocrisy is as good for the gander as it is for the goose IMO.

By the way - I answered NO. We have not adopted. We have, however been involved in foster care and we give a good percentage of our income to support the poor of the world and particularly those who are the fatherless of the inner city minorities who managed somehow to escape the agenda of Planned Parenthood.

Again - I'm not going to cobble together a bunch of statistics and opinions from different groups.

But a great percentage of those who are very much against abortion are so inclined because they are conservative Christians. A great percentage of those who are pro choice are either secular folks or liberal Christians.

As such, I believe it is fair to say that these conservative Christians, as a percentage, give more to charities which help the world's poor than those who support abortion rights in general. Many of those poor who are helped by those who are against abortion are those who were not aborted (you know - the ones you seem to be saying should be adopted by them).

I further postulate that conservative Christians adopt poor children more frequently as a percentage than those who are more liberal or who are secular.

Lots of surmising going on here I suppose. But I'm thinking that dumping most of the cares of the poor in the laps of those who are against abortion is exceedingly unfair.

 

[Andrew77]

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.

Then that is a bad argument. Because I haven't seen a single Christian, or pro-life person yet, that was saying stabbing a baby through the skull and sucking out it's brains 5 inches before being birthed was bad, but stabbing them through the skull and sucking out their brains after birth is good.

So I don't see anyone who cares for a baby before it is born, but not after it is born. Bad argument.

The care should last beyond the womb if we are indeed taking away women ability to choose for themselves

False. We are not taking away the woman's ability to choose to not get pregnant. We are not taking away the ability of the woman to choose to not give the child up for adoption. We are not taking away the ability of the woman to choose to work to pay for the choices she has made.

The only option we are removing, is the option to murder your child.

You agree with one who would force millions of children into the forster system, and never think about them once they are there?

So i take it you support child abuse? Because I am assuming that if some guy was abusing the crap out of his child... you would not put them in foster care and never think about them once they are there?

Or would you want to child removed from abusive parents, even if you were not sitting around all day thinking about that kid in foster care?

Bad argument.

Whether abortion =murder or abortion is equivalent to the murder of a preacher with a family, is a different debate topic.

False. Whether putting to death a baby before it is born, is murder or not, is central to the entire discussion. Every answer to every question on this topic, hinges on whether or not we are discussion murder.

If it is not murder, then we don't need to worry about adoption, because every child we don't won't will be metaphorically tossed into the Nile River by the Egyptians.

But if it is murder.... then all these questions are irrelevant. Does your inconveniences warrant murder? Does your life style, justify murder? Does whether or not someone else is willing, or society is willing to fund/care for someone, justify murder?

NO. Murder is not justified by these things. So everything in this discussion is garbage, because murder is never justified.

Even is every single person in this entire country, said they absolutely refused to pay for, or care for, or adopt, or support, or feed, or even pat on the head as they walked by on the way to work any unwanted child.......

....that still would never at any point in time, justify murdering a baby before it is born, when it has a heart, and feels pain, and has a mind.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed. There is too much flaming and disruptive behavior.
The topic is emotional and heated, but that is all the more reason to keep it civil and not use inflammatory language. ​