Opinion on the Roe v. Wade Leak

[Josh]

Well said. Legal abortion did not prevent Christians from adopting children. We'll see if post-Roe makes any difference.

If it doesn’t, does that make abortion morally acceptable?

[Ernie]

I did post the link, but I don't interpret it the same as HK. It seems to me the language they used was chosen to convey respect for Roe. Didn't Senator Collins come out of a meeting with one of them report that respect to the press. There are several ways to look at it, maybe Sen. Collins was lying, maybe they mislead her, maybe they used slightly tricky language to deflect attention from the issue, similar to Justice Brown Jackson on gender issues, I don't know. I'm not confident both will vote to overturn.

What might Justice Brown Jackson overturn?

[Ken]

There are very serious risks and social problems that revolve around adoption too (particularly involving children from neglect or substance abuse situations). I don’t like to see those problems and challenges minimised.

Ultimately, complaining not enough Christians are adopting children is not a valid reason to murder babies.

The far better and more Christian approach would be to make more adoptions unnecessary by supporting women and families more.

Require mandatory paid maternity leave of 6-9 months for all pregnant women so women can take time off to have babies
Provide universal free childcare so that women can afford to go back to work after having children if the choose to or need to
Provide universal free healthcare so that people aren't burdened with the costs of maternity care, child birth, and infant care.

Many countries can and do provide these things. And have far far fewer unwanted children as a result. The US is singularly cruel in how it treats young mothers and pregnant women compared to most other countries of comparable income. But here in the US it is more important that stockholders of companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart maximize their wealth rather than care for their employees and society.

[Ken]

I did post the link, but I don't interpret it the same as HK. It seems to me the language they used was chosen to convey respect for Roe. Didn't Senator Collins come out of a meeting with one of them report that respect to the press. There are several ways to look at it, maybe Sen. Collins was lying, maybe they mislead her, maybe they used slightly tricky language to deflect attention from the issue, similar to Justice Brown Jackson on gender issues, I don't know. I'm not confident both will vote to overturn.

What might Justice Brown Jackson overturn?

It is all just a Kabuki show in the Senate. Senator Collins knew exactly who she was voting to confirm with Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Just like she knew exactly who she was voting to confirm with Brown Jackson. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knew this. The exact language of their decisions and how exactly they were going to go about them might have been ambiguous. But there was absolutely no secret that the conservative majority was going to go one direction on abortion and the liberal minority in another direction. That is exactly why these confirmation battles are so intense.

Senator Collins took a lot of money from women's groups and pro-choice groups over the years who wanted to support pro-choice Republicans. And she has spent years trying to construct a public persona as a pro-choice moderate. But she voted for the current conservative majority along with the rest of the GOP and doesn't now get to claim that she was "deceived." The only deception was perhaps self-deception. But more likely she is just lying and knew exactly what she was voting for all along.

[barnhart]

I did post the link, but I don't interpret it the same as HK. It seems to me the language they used was chosen to convey respect for Roe. Didn't Senator Collins come out of a meeting with one of them report that respect to the press. There are several ways to look at it, maybe Sen. Collins was lying, maybe they mislead her, maybe they used slightly tricky language to deflect attention from the issue, similar to Justice Brown Jackson on gender issues, I don't know. I'm not confident both will vote to overturn.

What might Justice Brown Jackson overturn?

I was using her as an example of how nominees deflect pointed questions.

[Josh]

There are very serious risks and social problems that revolve around adoption too (particularly involving children from neglect or substance abuse situations). I don’t like to see those problems and challenges minimised.

Ultimately, complaining not enough Christians are adopting children is not a valid reason to murder babies.

The far better and more Christian approach would be to make more adoptions unnecessary by supporting women and families more.

Require mandatory paid maternity leave of 6-9 months for all pregnant women so women can take time off to have babies
Provide universal free childcare so that women can afford to go back to work after having children if the choose to or need to
Provide universal free healthcare so that people aren't burdened with the costs of maternity care, child birth, and infant care.

Many countries can and do provide these things. And have far far fewer unwanted children as a result. The US is singularly cruel in how it treats young mothers and pregnant women compared to most other countries of comparable income. But here in the US it is more important that stockholders of companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart maximize their wealth rather than care for their employees and society.

Perhaps women should get married before having a baby.

I checked my Bible and it doesn’t say I need to work hard to make life easy for women who sleep around.

[nett]

There are very serious risks and social problems that revolve around adoption too (particularly involving children from neglect or substance abuse situations). I don’t like to see those problems and challenges minimised.

Ultimately, complaining not enough Christians are adopting children is not a valid reason to murder babies.

The far better and more Christian approach would be to make more adoptions unnecessary by supporting women and families more.

Require mandatory paid maternity leave of 6-9 months for all pregnant women so women can take time off to have babies
Provide universal free childcare so that women can afford to go back to work after having children if the choose to or need to
Provide universal free healthcare so that people aren't burdened with the costs of maternity care, child birth, and infant care.

Many countries can and do provide these things. And have far far fewer unwanted children as a result. The US is singularly cruel in how it treats young mothers and pregnant women compared to most other countries of comparable income. But here in the US it is more important that stockholders of companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart maximize their wealth rather than care for their employees and society.

The far more Christian approach would be to make theft and murder unnecessary by supporting thieves and criminals more. Should we decriminalize those things?

[justme]

Perhaps women should get married before having a baby.

I checked my Bible and it doesn’t say I need to work hard to make life easy for women who sleep around.

perhaps men should get married before making babies.

i do think that my Bible would indicate that a man who doesn't provide for his family, (the babies he makes) is worse than an infidel. meaning, it doesn't say that i need to work hard to make life easy for men who sleep around. that man is responsible for his own babies.

that being said, i do think that the Bible indicates that a person does need to take care of the widows and orphans. so yes, in my opinion, there is a requirement to work hard to take care of someone who in your mind doesn't deserve it. you do have an obligation to take care of the babies that are created.

[Ken]

There are very serious risks and social problems that revolve around adoption too (particularly involving children from neglect or substance abuse situations). I don’t like to see those problems and challenges minimised.

Ultimately, complaining not enough Christians are adopting children is not a valid reason to murder babies.

The far better and more Christian approach would be to make more adoptions unnecessary by supporting women and families more.

Require mandatory paid maternity leave of 6-9 months for all pregnant women so women can take time off to have babies
Provide universal free childcare so that women can afford to go back to work after having children if the choose to or need to
Provide universal free healthcare so that people aren't burdened with the costs of maternity care, child birth, and infant care.

Many countries can and do provide these things. And have far far fewer unwanted children as a result. The US is singularly cruel in how it treats young mothers and pregnant women compared to most other countries of comparable income. But here in the US it is more important that stockholders of companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart maximize their wealth rather than care for their employees and society.

The far more Christian approach would be to make theft and murder unnecessary by supporting thieves and criminals more. Should we decriminalize those things?

So in your world pregnant women are the equivalent of criminals?

[temporal1]

Josh:
Perhaps women should get married before having a baby.
I checked my Bible and it doesn’t say I need to work hard to make life easy for women who sleep around.

perhaps men should get married before making babies.

i do think that my Bible would indicate that a man who doesn't provide for his family, (the babies he makes) is worse than an infidel. meaning, it doesn't say that i need to work hard to make life easy for men who sleep around. that man is responsible for his own babies.

that being said, i do think that the Bible indicates that a person does need to take care of the widows and orphans.
so yes, in my opinion, there is a requirement to work hard to take care of someone who in your mind doesn't deserve it.

you do have an obligation to take care of the babies that are created.

This is an important Sticky Wicket.

The results are in.
Since the 60’s, well-intended gov policies have disrupted, undermined, destroyed traditional families.

This has been discussed, probably in a few threads, i recall “Fatherlessness and youth violence.”
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2510

i’m all-for support+encouragement for mothers+their babies, which takes varied forms, including taxes, however, what has unfolded is a gov system that encourages unmitigated fornication, allowing males and females to have multiple partners, females service males, males go their way, often unwanted, mothers+gov, society is left with responsbility .. it’s often worded that gov welfare replaces husbands+fathers.

to repeat:
men are often PUSHED OUT .. females prefer “no questions asked” gov support.
it is known to become a multigenerational way of life.

IT’S NO GOOD FOR WOMEN, BABIES, CHILDREN, TEENS, OR MEN. NO WINNERS.

Often, in the best circumstances, grandparents now raise second families.
Where this happens, the ideal would be for the bio parents to be working+supporting the grandparents as they do the heavy lifting.

i do not know of 1 case where this is happening. ^^ (bio parents supporting their children raised by grandparents.)

May we look forward to policy makers to
1) admit error,
2) along with promise to END POOR POLICIES, return to proven societal standards that uphold traditional families, personal responsibility, accountability?
3) to foresee a matriarchal society reliant on and created by gov funding is NOT an improvement? (putting women to work, with babies placed in gov holding tanks, is not a net gain).

i foresee some cobbled-together form of matriarchy is well underway. look at churches, and government, the workplace.
where women lead, men recede. look at results. what if God knew what He was doing, after all??

The Fatherlessness/youth violence thread has some interesting sources/taped videos, etc.
Children NEED their fathers. Male+female children.