Why not adoption/foster care?

[weaver2]

Protecting the unborn’s lives does not place them ahead of the lives of the born. I stand up for the little children!

No you don't. You belong to a party that votes down or repeals every single piece of legislation that would benefit little children.

 

[OceanBlues1]

No you don't. You belong to a party that votes down or repeals every single piece of legislation that would benefit little children.

Agreed. So I don't take his statement about "standing up for little children" seriously at all.

 

[Mashmont]

No you don't. You belong to a party that votes down or repeals every single piece of legislation that would benefit little children.

Making single mothers wards of the state does NOT benefit children. Killing children in the womb does NOT benefit children. Treating children and families as an undesirable station for women does NOT benefit children. Trashing adoption does NOT benefit children. The left does NOTHING that benefits children in any way.

 

[Mashmont]

So, provide a citation of me saying it or retract.

I don't know, maybe try for a GED.

 

[Mashmont]

I would have gone with delusion, myself.

Sounds like you already have.

 

[Mashmont]

The room does believe her. In case you haven't noticed, you are the one the room currently doesn't believe.

So you're on record as agreeing with Lursa that the bible and Christianity teach sex outside marriage and abortion are acceptable?

A sawbuck says you'll dodge the question because you know damn well nobody agrees with her.

Let's see if I'm right. This will be fun.

 

[Indie guy]

What some people fail to understand is some of us don't care about what benefits children. Some of us made the choice to not have children. Some of us took responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Some of us took responsibility to try to control the population a little.

With this said, some people enjoy safe protected sex, unlike certain folks with ED or extreme unattractive qualities who can't get any at all. This applies especially to the above poster.

It is very possible to be sexually active without spewing out a bunch of babies into the world. It's also possible to be sexually active without resorting to abortion.

 

[OceanBlues1]

Making single mothers wards of the state does NOT benefit children. Killing children in the womb does NOT benefit children. Treating children and families as an undesirable station for women does NOT benefit children. Trashing adoption does NOT benefit children.

1. If a single woman aborts an unwanted pregnancy, she's not going to be a single mother. I consider that a benefit.
2. Same as #1.
3. Many women don't want the traditional "family," so forcing them into that situation would be undesirable. Having an abortion to avoid that situation is another benefit.
4. No one is "trashing adoption" by saying it's a choice, not something women should be forced into.

Religious conservative politicians don't do much of anything to benefit children at all, since they tend to vote against programs that help them.

 

[OceanBlues1]

So you're on record as agreeing with Lursa that the bible and Christianity teach sex outside marriage and abortion are acceptable?

Personally, I wouldn't know about all of that. Nor do I care. The fact remains that you don't -- and shouldn't -- get to impose your version of "Christianity" on everyone else. And I'd believe Lursa over yourself on that subject any day of the week, even though I'm neither Christian nor religious.

 

[weaver2]

Making single mothers wards of the state does NOT benefit children. Killing children in the womb does NOT benefit children. Treating children and families as an undesirable station for women does NOT benefit children. Trashing adoption does NOT benefit children. The left does NOTHING that benefits children in any way.

The Democrats created ACA; it would have allowed low income families to buy health insurance for the whole family. It would have benefitted children directly with better health care, made single women independent of medicaid so they could to get jobs and get off of welfare. It provided contraceptives for women so another child would not be added to the welfare rolls and one abortion would have been eliminated . Republicans trashed it

Democrats voted for legislation to aid to pre-school, day-care and pre-Kindergarten; they would have helped poor mothers go back to work sooner and given children a better start in school keeping them off welfare rolls in the future Republicans trashed it.

Democrats have never been against adoption. Ever. They've passed laws making it easier and the paper work less complicated. The only thing Republicans have done is try to pass legislation that allowed Catholic Charities to discriminate against gay and non-Catholic couples wanting to adopt.

Democrats voted for an increase in the minimum wage: it would have increased low income workers chances of independence from the welfare system. Republicans trashed it.

What have Republicans done for children?

 

[maquiscat]

So you're on record as agreeing with Lursa that the bible and Christianity teach sex outside marriage and abortion are acceptable?

If not forbidden is acceptable, then yes. We've already show, with scripture, that such is true. You've, failed to support your side.

A sawbuck says you'll dodge the question because you know damn well nobody agrees with her.

Pay up, you lose again. A direct answer.

Let's see if I'm right. This will be fun.

Well you were finally right with one thing. This is fun.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Mashmont]

If not forbidden is acceptable, then yes. We've already show, with scripture, that such is true. You've, failed to support your side.



Pay up, you lose again. A direct answer.



Well you were finally right with one thing. This is fun.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

You had three choices. One to disagree with Lursa, which would prove my point that the forum disagrees with her. Two was to evade the answer which would show cowardice, and three, which you chose, was to agree with the insanity and ridiculousness of Lursa's post which makes you look just as silly. You were checkmated, and you managed to pick the most embarrassing possible outcome for yourself. Congratulations! So that makes two of you.

 

[weaver2]

So far you haven't gotten anything right about the tenets of Christianity. You have zero credibility. The forum doesn't believe believe anything you say.

She understands Christianity. She isn't interested in understanding your brand of anti-woman, anti-Constitutional, anti-Christian nationalistic bigotry. Nobody is interested in it. It's mean and ugly.

If your religion satisfies some inner need in your life thats your choice. Just don't be surprised when nobody thinks it's very Christian.

 

[Mashmont]

She understands Christianity. She isn't interested in understanding your brand of anti-woman, anti-Constitutional, anti-Christian nationalistic bigotry. Nobody is interested in it. It's mean and ugly.

If your religion satisfies some inner need in your life thats your choice. Just don't be surprised when nobody thinks it's very Christian.

I'm the only one in this room endorsing Christian principles. The leftwing atheists in here are making a mockery of it. Blaspheming it. Saying Jesus supports fornication when He condemned it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Maybe if you'd get a few of the Christian beliefs correct, the room might believe you.

You're the only one saying you don't believe me.

 

[Mashmont]

You're the only one saying you don't believe me.

Nobody believes you, though some of your fellow atheist leftwingers might say they do to prop you up.

 

[maquiscat]

You had three choices. One to disagree with Lursa, which would prove my point that the forum disagrees with her. Two was to evade the answer which would show cowardice, and three, which you chose, was to agree with the insanity and ridiculousness of Lursa's post which makes you look just as silly. You were checkmated, and you managed to pick the most embarrassing possible outcome for yourself. Congratulations! So that makes two of you.

Have you not noticed all the thread against you? Oh, wait! Maybe you're a Gully Drawf with maths. "One and one and one and uh...one.....Two!" What's embarrassing is that you can't support your arguments so you just ad him in response.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I don't care what an atheist like you believes.

We don't care what an atheist like you believes either.

:applaud:applaud

 

[Mashmont]

Have you not noticed all the thread against you? Oh, wait! Maybe you're a Gully Drawf with maths. "One and one and one and uh...one.....Two!" What's embarrassing is that you can't support your arguments so you just ad him in response.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

You mean three leftwing atheist extremists in this room with me constitute the entire forum?

 

[Mashmont]

:applaud:applaud

It's so neat when leftwing atheists prop each other up against big mean ol' Mash. But you people are still losing. Are there more atheists you can bring in to help?

 

[Lursa]

Protecting the unborn’s lives does not place them ahead of the lives of the born. I stand up for the little children!

No facts, no discussion, still wrong.

Let me know when you are capable of carrying on a discussion with arguments and supported facts and opinions, not just what you've suckled from the teat of your cult.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

Pot meet kettle. This is exactly what you’re doing. You make inanely false statements over and over. No, the Bible does NOT endorse sex outside marriage. No, the Bible does NOT endorse abortion. Yes, God DOES prohibit immoral sexual behavior. Yes, the definition of children DOES include the unborn.

No facts, no discussion, still wrong. I have posted facts and links and refuted you time after time. You have failed to do so.

Let me know when you are capable of carrying on a discussion with arguments and supported facts and opinions, not just what you've suckled from the teat of your cult.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

It's so neat when leftwing atheists prop each other up against big mean ol' Mash. But you people are still losing. Are there more atheists you can bring in to help?

No facts, no discussion, still wrong. I have posted facts and links and refuted you time after time. You have failed to do so.

Let me know when you are capable of carrying on a discussion with arguments and supported facts and opinions, not just what you've suckled from the teat of your cult.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Dannytoro1]

When I talk to pro-choice people it seems that a big reason abortions exist is so the baby does not get born into a financially unstable family or an abusive one. However, I think that abortion is not the solution. If a woman is not financially stable she should not be having unprotected sex and should understand the consequences of her actions, in my opinion. This brings me to my main question...(drum roll please..) Why pick abortion over things like adoption or foster care? There are thousands of couples/families that are infertile and cannot get pregnant on their own. I myself have two adopted siblings who now have a better life and a future. Any thoughts and opinions would be great, Thanks!

Well, for one Adoption is not always what it is cracked up to be. For many years I plied adoptee forums and there are a lot of badly effected adoptees.
i carried no great anst about it. But was miffed Newfoundland kept closed adoption records. I found out across Canada, taking Aboriginal Children was a method of keeping the Aboriginal communities in check. It even had a name. "The Sixties Scoop". Where all manner of federal, state and religious groups actively stalked aboriginal infants. Adopted them abroad{especially with us military families}.

And throw up impediments like closed adoption records. Finally in 2001 Newfoundland opened the records. And one phone call later I found 8 brothers and sisters, my grandmother and aunt. And a great many other relatives.

But there are still tons of folks who will never know their heritage. And even if it's bad news, people have the right to know IMO.

 

[Mashmont]

No facts, no discussion, still wrong. I have posted facts and links and refuted you time after time. You have failed to do so.

Let me know when you are capable of carrying on a discussion with arguments and supported facts and opinions, not just what you've suckled from the teat of your cult.

Let me know when you are.

Did you really post the same stupid comment three times? lol.