Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
THOR 70
Well-known member
Do you really believe your own rhetoric? It actually blows my mind. I’m convinced you’re a government troll at this point.
You’re right, since I don’t adopt kids I should just support killing them in the first place. You really think like this?!
I am raising kids with morals so that they won’t avoid responsibility and do selfish things like get pregnant/impregnate someone and proceed to commit murder cause it’s an inconvenience. So to answer your question, I am very much a part of the solution.
At this point, I am replying to you out of pity...but I think you’re just trolling.
thebigt
Legend
last i looked victims of rape AREN'T lawfully bound to keep a fetus, even a minor can get a abortion with or without parental approval...i don't know what point you are trying to make?
thebigt
Legend
this meme is every bit as extreme as the governor of virgina who you called extreme.
thebigt
Legend
if you were American you would know that the supreme court of the united states=all states.
thebigt
Legend
your point is moot...rape victims do NOT have to keep a fetus. do you even know what the law even is?
Jiigzz
Legend
Are you paying attention to this thread or not?
Jiigzz
Legend
So what's your genius plan for the children who get put in foster homes but never adopted, and so have noone to teach them?Do you really believe your own rhetoric? It actually blows my mind. I’m convinced you’re a government troll at this point.
You’re right, since I don’t adopt kids I should just support killing them in the first place. You really think like this?!
I am raising kids with morals so that they won’t avoid responsibility and do selfish things like get pregnant/impregnate someone and proceed to commit murder cause it’s an inconvenience. So to answer your question, I am very much a part of the solution.
At this point, I am replying to you out of pity...but I think you’re just trolling.
Because 20,000 kids each year make it to the end of high school without ever having been adopted, and then get chewed out by the system. And considering the average age of a child in foster is 8, that's an average of 8+ years that a child has no stable family to guide them.
Its a fairy tale to think that every child put up for adoption actually becomes adopted, yet people like to clutch to that idea because it makes them feel better about their pro life stance, only they stop being pro life when it comes to actually caring for the child post birth
Last edited:
Jiigzz
Legend
The below seems to indicate that court approval must be obtained where parental consent is not acquired.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states may not give parents an absolute veto over their daughter’s decision to have an abortion, most state parental involvement requirements include a judicial bypass procedure that allows a minor to receive court approval for an abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent. Some states require judges to use specific criteria when determining whether to grant a waiver of parental involvement. These criteria can include the minor’s intelligence, emotional stability and understanding of the possible consequences of obtaining an abortion. Many states require a judge to use the unusually strict legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to determine whether a minor is sufficiently mature and the abortion is in her best interest prior to waiving the parental involvement requirement
thebigt
Legend
yes, and i also know what the law is-evidently you do not-eh?
abortion is not illegal!!!
thebigt
Legend
nowhere does it say that it is illegal for a child to get a abortion...for me i consider it a good thing that it isn't easy for a child to make a decision like abortion without or against parental consent.
but at least you did finally read what the law is without winging it, lol.
Jiigzz
Legend
Never argued it was.
thebigt
Legend
then what have you been arguing about-what ifs, or what people think?
are you the thought police now?
Jiigzz
Legend
If a court rules that a child cannot get an abortion and they do anyway, then that would be unlawful.
thebigt
Legend
the child would have had due process under the law though-eh? you can't just say that it is unlawful because the law would have been followed.
it is legal to buy a gun but if i buy a gun off the street because i can't get the proper authorization to buy a gun it is illegal to buy that gun-you feel me?
Jiigzz
Legend
This whole thread basically argues what ifs lol. Why is it an issue now?
thebigt
Legend
what if... i said the covid was a conspiracy to get rid of old people
what if....what if....what if...so many what ifs-so little time.
Last edited:
coastred
New member
what if... i said the covid was a conspiracy to get rid of old people
what if....what if....what if...so many what ifs-so little time.
But I mean what if though
BamBam54
Well-known member
what if... i said the covid was a conspiracy to get rid of old people
what if....what if....what if...so many what ifs-so little time.
In that case, the conspiracy would be that the Dems need/want to kill off old people because their higher medical costs are messing up the Obamacare statistics.....
Has there ever been a virus like this that is lethal to old people but virtually harmless to young children???
thebigt
Legend
short answer-NO
ValiantThor08
Board Sponsor
No, it's plain, there is no other way to interpret it. Jesus said, if my kingdom was of the world, my servants would fight. No other way to take a plain statement.
ValiantThor08
Board Sponsor
Don't tell that to the parents muffling their little kids with bacteria laden face diapers.
thebigt
Legend
then when this causes those children to become sick with cold or flu symptoms it's the covid-eh?
Beau
Well-known member
For me, it was to bring one into my home. He "graduated" from Foster Care and he had no place to live, I gave him a room, provided him with meals, included him in all family events and holidays and vacations, and never changed a penny to anyone for anything. He lived with me for 5 1/2 years. I treated him exactly as I did my (other) sons. He remains a part of my family to this day and he calls me Dad (and I call him son). While living with me, he got his undergraduate degree in Computer Science. He now has an MBA.
I taught and invested in him. I saw it as my responsibility.
ValiantThor08
Board Sponsor
Must be because influenza doesn't exist anymore
thebigt
Legend
BamBam54
Well-known member
It all goes back to voting and power...
Use covid to change election laws and allow millions of new mail-in ballots
Ignore covid to allow illegal migrants to gain entry and become eventual voters
Certified votes count when it helps Democrats in 2020
Certified votes don't count for the Iowa house seat that a Republican dared to win, that Pelosi is trying to over turn.
Etc, etc.
Last edited:
BOSSMAN
Well-known member
Very nice. I did the same, adopted at 18 months old. He is now 19 years old and living life to the fullest. Gave him everything just like my other two kids. Gave him a platform for success and he has a tight grip on it.
Beau
Well-known member
My hat is off to you.
You've done something very admirable and have led by example. I hope that you find, as I have, that you will wind up the greasiest beneficiary, and that the gift you afforded him - actually turned out to be a tremendous gift to yourself as well.
Kudos.
ax1
Legend
Well, there is lifetime of being lazy, overeating pure garbage food and consuming certain vices such as alcohol....than mass death from pollution, etc..... but those types of statistics dont matter because there is nothing to gain politically from it.
Jiigzz
Legend
Again, YOU say it is plain. I can assure you there are people who believe Christians are at war with non-believers.
That is why there are so many denominations of Christianity, because they all have different nuances.
Jiigzz
Legend
Thats awesome man. It really is.
Has everyone who believes in pro-life made the same sacrifices you have to better another disadvantaged life?
Fostering is admirable, but look at all the people who liked your post who rely on people like you to make the sacrifices for them, even though they are quick to judge everyone else.
The reality is 20,000 children every year do not have such luxury of being fostered or adopted. Obviously some do, but for 20,000 every year, that dream is never realised.
Beau
Well-known member
Using a small sample size of 1 (me), 100% of me did, and that is all I can control. And I am also 100% glad I did. I hope others will do the same, but I have to leave that up to them.
Here is a point of reflection: I am fairly certain that if I asked my (third) son if we was glad he wasn't aborted, he would say yes. I, too, am glad he was not aborted. I would propose that everyone who knows him are glad as well.
Jiigzz
Legend
The point is that people are happy to tell people that adoption is the answer, while then getting upset when 20,000 get through to adulthood without a stable family and require welfare to help them through.
Where's the logic?
Jiigzz
Legend
100%.
Have you asked that same question to the 20,000 who each year make it to adulthood without ever having a good stable home? Some will be successful, some will live normal lives, but what about those who end up needing welfare to survive? Why get mad at them for their unstable environment? For those who think taxes are criminal, who would pay for these children and adults if not the govt? For those that hate welfare, who would pay for these people if not you?
It would make way more sense to be pro life if you were also pro welfare. But yet people will fight against abortion AND then get angry when the same people grow up with issues as a result of their childhood.
Be against abortion, but then also be for providing after birth as well. Be against abortion, but the be pro male birth control. Reality is, most people are against both because it requires them actually sacrifice something.
Last edited:
ValiantThor08
Board Sponsor
One thing all denominations will agree with is, Jesus does not command his disciples to compel people into His kingdom with physical war, verbally sharing the gospel yes, but not by physically killing or hurting someone.
dixonk
Well-known member
I would gladly trade abortions to not ever pay taxes again. Kill them all...just keep your stinking fingers out of my pocket. Let charities pay for them but don’t force me at gunpoint to take care of people against my will.
thebigt
Legend
i am against abortion and i am also against capital punishment-i am truly pro-life.
btw-i also think welfare while often abused is necessary.
furthermore i am 1000000% anti-illegal immigration.
Last edited:
THOR 70
Well-known member
Yep those 20,000 lives should have just been murdered from the womb since nobody adopted them.
Why do you keep trying to use the guilt of not adopting to justify murder? Just because someone is pro life/doesn’t adopt, does not mean they are in the wrong. Not in the slightest. I’ve never seen such a weak argument put forth by you.
Beau
Well-known member
Answer #1: Of course I've not asked 20,000 people. Phrasing a question likes this seeks to invalidate what has been done at an individual level. I have no intention of asking anyone else because I contend that 100% of people, regardless of socio-economic conditions, would choose to have been born, rather than aborted. No argument will convince me otherwise. I do not at all understand your question about why I would be "mad at them for their unstable environment". Your question does not apply to me, nor do I believe it applies to anyone else on this thread (although I am not entitled to speak for others). Since it is not in any way related to anything I've said, I will ignore that part of the question. As a side note - I seriously hope you do not routinely ask people if they would have preferred to be aborted.
Answer #2: Although I am pro-life, what I really am is pro-responsibility. Statistics fully (as in 100%) support the contention that the lack of active fathers in the lives of children causes irreparable harm. It is also very highly correlated with these same children later being involved in drug use and domestic violence. The absence of a father in the home is the single most highly correlated condition associated with incarceration. And father's bail on their responsibly "because they can", and almost always out of selfishness. And, the absence of fathers in the American home has increased; significantly.
Some contend that fathers have been "replaced" by welfare because a man's financial support has been replaced by a subsidy and he is therefore no longer needed (before anyone goes ballistic at me, I said some contend, not that I contend). However I do believe that the breakdown of the fundamental building block of society (an intact-family) continues to wreak havoc on society. FWIW - I am not interested in the argument claiming that divorce (or a father not being involved) is somehow preferred to an unhappy marriage/relationship. The study that reached that conclusion has long since (and many times) been refuted. Having personal involvement in divorce, it (to children) is a complete undermining of the foundation on which their lives were built.
And, yes, we can keep doing the same things in the same way and then looking to someone else to bail us out. As most government programs do, almost all subsidy programs just throw money at the problem, but never not attempt to treat anything except the symptoms (actually solving the problem would lessen the dependency on those doling out the subsidies). Addressing the root cause is almost always politically out of favor. The root cause (at least in the case of abortion) is that people are having sex irresponsibly with others who have not committed to them, come hell or high water. If you are not willing to raise a child with the person you are having sex with, don't do the things that might cause her to be pregnant. Wow, how revolutionary is that? Irresponsibility and selfishness are almost always the primary reason most of society's evil occur. How about this? Unless and until you are in a committed relationship don't ever have unprotected intercourse with someone. If you are going to have sex, then at least be smart enough to use more than one means to prevent conception. The probability of conception using multiple forms of birth control is approximately 0%. And - that is what responsible adults do. Doing so would virtually eliminate the "need" for abortions.
But irresponsible people act only on "feelings", they fail to take preventative steps, and suddenly "one thing leads to another". I have been a guy a long time and "one thing leading to another" rarely just happens. Sex doesn't happen by default, it almost always happens by intentional design. And to the irresponsible what is the solution? Abortion.
It needn't be a big deal (they say) because once we have redefined when human life starts, we can assuage ourselves and tell ourselves that we are not "really killing anything". That way, we won't feel bad (since everything is all about feelings, after all). No, the solution is to be responsible enough to prevent conception, and to make sure the person you are having sex with is willing to be a parent if those preventative measures fail. Period. Live your life intentionally. That includes assuming the responsibility to parent a child, if you created it.
Answer #3: If people are having sex, please do not expect ME to bear all of the financial burden of the problem they willingly chose to create. The feedback loop of life can be cruel, but it is one way people learn what to do, and what they should never do. This feedback loop clearly establishes cause and effect. When that is broken, there is no downside to doing (or repeating) bad decisions (how many women have had multiple abortions and/or how many men have impregnated more than one woman unintentionally?).
A true man stands up to the situation he created, and doesn't look to others to pay his way. If a woman is not 100% CERTAIN, that the guy who is about to pound her, actually cares for her and is willing to be responsible, maybe she is considering having sex with the wrong person and she should say "no". Being selective is a good, not bad, thing. Does that place an unfair burden on the woman? Biologically, it would appear to. If men could become pregnant, they would probably be a lot more careful. If true, then the burden seems to go with those who own the reproductive territory. If it is fair, I don't know and really don't care - because we have to live in the real world. We live in the world that is, not the world that would be fair.
Last edited:
Ricky10
Well-known member
Well if it makes you feel any better, I’m sure that’s not the only thing they are infected with..
I wonder how long it takes to become a border patrol officer? Since they aren’t really into walls under this administration, I am convinced that all I would need is a flame thrower.
Who am I kidding, I’m just going to go down there with a flame thrower regardless. Someday, I will be deemed one of America’s greatest heroes...worthy of a statue! Then some activist douche will tear it down and inadvertently cause a forest fire that gets blamed on climate change.
Still worth it
ax1
Legend
Why not just slaughter foster kids? Why should they continue to suffer a life of misery and poverty? Do you care to start the trend?
Jiigzz
Legend
People don't expect you to pick up the financial burden when they seek out an abortion, that's the whole point. However you stopping them from doing so then expecting them to somehow financially support the child makes no sense.
In this entire thread I've been talking about rape victims, so obviously not 2 adults who are having consensual sex. The female shouldn't be expected to proactively use contraception in case she is raped. Never once have i argued using it as a form of birth control, so let's be clear on that.