For those who are staunch anti-abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don_Machiavelli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
** For those who are staunch anti-abortion…
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?**

First off,
the question as it stands is smart-alecky and wicked.
Why wicked?
Simple. Abortion is MURDER. The one responsible to NOT MURDER the baby
is the mother, and of course, the doctor who is going to perform the deed.
This is so, regardless of the presence or absence of “social programs” available
such as government-sponsored adoption of unwanted babies.
People do not have the right to murder their children, period. Whether
they “want” them or NOT.
That said, yes, there are many, many, many proLifers who are willing and eager
to adopt unwanted children.
THAT said, I also agree that the Republican Party’s “proLife” stand seems more one of
rhetoric than substance, and also that many fundamentalist proLifers do seem to be
social darwinists more concerned with what happens to the baby in the womb rather than after the baby comes out the birth canal and into the world.
 
estesbob said:
It appears that so far the Courts disagree with Rence:

Illinois Catholics win initial court battle over ‘gay’ adoption

onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1387642
Click to expand...
Hey, the courts can disagree, I don’t mind. It doesn’t bother me one bit that Catholic Charities follows the rules set forth by the Church, because they should. And I wouldn’t mind if they were allowed to do so. It’s not like it’s a life-and-death situation, and it’s not like they are the only show in town.

My initial reply was to KL’s statement that Illinois was trying to restrict Catholics from adopting by not renewing its contract with Catholic Charities (see KL’s first post), and that’s not true, because as we’ve all said, there are plenty of sources. Gay couples and co-habitating singles don’t have to go to Catholic Charities.

But what I’m also saying is I can understand why the State doesn’t want to, and doesn’t have to, accept a bid for a contract by an entity that is publicly refusing to follow their rules. Why should they, when other entities are also bidding, and more than happy to follow all the State’s rules. From what I understand Catholic Charities’ caseload has already been dispersed to other adoption agencies. And the employees who worked for Catholic Charties have been taken in by the other adoption agencies. All I care about is the children who need to be adopted out, and it looks like they’re being taken care of, no matter what happens.
 
kimmielittle said:
Understood 🙂

I used ‘funding’ to try and drive my point…

ABSOLUTELY
Click to expand...
Not trying to be nitpicky but I think there’s a signifigant difference. Removing funding from a religious organization (Which in this case, I think is unjust) says “We are trying to adhere to the concept of seperation of church and state by not funding your program with tax money.” Withholding the right to stay in business, (Which in this case, I think is GROSSLY unjust) says, “The poitical party in charge now doesn’t like your religious beliefs so we going to take a swipe at you at the expense of innocent children.”
 
Allegra said:
I think we have a misunderstanding here. The question isn’t whether or not the state has the soverignty to make and enforce a law. I think we are all agreed on that. The question is whether or not this particular law is just or beneficial to the people of Illinois. A law isn’t right simply because it exists. I would argue that this law is unjust primarily in that it was designed to discriminate against religiously based adoption agencies and secondarily it deprives the children of Illinois a well-reputed, experienced, and safe adoption service for no good reason. Single people and homosexuals were already able to adopt children from other agencies. What benefit was there to forcing Catholic Charities to cease operation? I would love to see some evidence that this law has in any way decreased the backup of pending adoptions. If it has, I’d be thrilled to hear that all these kids are finally getting the homes they deserve. I also have my doubts about some of these other agencies. I suspect their purpose is more geared toward the “rights” of the adults then making sure they are providing these children with safe, loving homes.
Click to expand...
The law exists because the people being rejected by Catholic Charities (and I’m sure other adoption agencies as well) got angry, and got together and lobbied for the law, and were able to get enough support for it. They felt they were being discriminated against, and lobbied for the new legislation.
 
Rence said:
Catholic Charities themselves are stating their refusal to adhere to the policy to not discriminate against applicants due to sexual orienation and co-habitating. They speak for themselves with regard to the State’s rules and manadory policies. The proof is in their own public statements. If they’re not going to follow the State’s rules, and they publicly state so, the State doesn’t have to accept their bid for a contract. The result of their public refusal to follow the State’s rules resulted in the State not renewing the contract. All they can do is appeal and wait for their appeal to be addressed. That’s how it works.
Click to expand...
Actually wrong 🙂

How can you say they are Mandated? The Court has yet to decide if the Religious Clause exempts them.

The Religious Clause is also State Mandated Rules / Laws. Which the Attorney Generals Office via The Oath of Office has to defend.

I don’t understand your willingness to accept one set of laws and deny the other exists.🤷🤷
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
My niece and nephew are adopted. My relatives would have adopted more except that it is harder to adopt a second time let alone 3 and 4 times.

I don’t believe the government should be involved in social welfare. That is what charity is for, but it is a money making business for the government and it is putting real charities out of business since the government takes our money where charities can only ask for it.

Also it is in the government’s best interest to impede adoption. That way they can keep all the foster and social services offices running.
 
Rence said:
. From what I understand Catholic Charities’ caseload has already been dispersed to other adoption agencies. And the employees who worked for Catholic Charties have been taken in by the other adoption agencies. All I care about is the children who need to be adopted out, and it looks like they’re being taken care of, no matter what happens.
Click to expand...
From where did you get this understanding? Its my understanding from what I’ve heard on news the news that things are at a standstill. Perhaps the children were redistributed (although I don’t think that’s likely given the court ruling in the previous post) but are they actually getting into good, safe homes in a timely manner? That’s the question.Catholic Charities was by far the largest adoption agency in Southern Illinois, at least. It’s my understanding that the other agencies are not prepared to deal with this. Also, I’m concerned with these other agencies. Fortunatly I do not currently need to give a child up for adoption but if I did, could these agencies be trusted with my baby? Do they have the credentials Catholic Charities earned over decades? Or is their main agenda to provide children to homosexual couples and single persons, with minimal regard for their well-being?
 
Rence said:
The law exists because the people being rejected by Catholic Charities (and I’m sure other adoption agencies as well) got angry, and got together and lobbied for the law, and were able to get enough support for it. They felt they were being discriminated against, and lobbied for the new legislation.
Click to expand...
I understand, but now it is apparant that the law is unjust and detrimental to the children of Illinois and so it either needs to be struck down in court, or people need to lobby to have it changed.
 
kimmielittle said:
Actually wrong 🙂

How can you say they are Mandated? The Court has yet to decide if the Religious Clause exempts them.

The Religious Clause is also State Mandated Rules / Laws. Which the Attorney Generals Office via The Oath of Office has to defend.

I don’t understand your willingness to accept one set of laws and deny the other exists.🤷🤷
Click to expand...
That’s okay, I don’t understand your demand of proof that Catholic Charities doesn’t follow the State’s rules, when they’ve publicly said they don’t and won’t, because their own words are proof. 🤷

As for the courts not determining whether or not the law applies to Catholic Charities when it applies to everyone else, they’re just going to have to wait and see. However, the State doesn’t have to accept their bid for a contract in the meantime.
 
Rence said:
That’s okay, I don’t understand your demand of proof that Catholic Charities doesn’t follow the State’s rules, when they’ve publicly said they don’t and won’t, because their own words are proof.
Click to expand...
Because they contend under the Human Rights Act Religions Clause - They are exempt!! That too…is State Mandated Law
 
Allegra said:
I understand, but now it is apparant that the law is unjust and detrimental to the children of Illinois and so it either needs to be struck down in court, or people need to lobby to have it changed.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree that it’s detrimental to the children of Illinois because other agencies are ready to take on the case loads, and even hire the employess from Catholic Charities. The last news article I read said that they were already doing this. I’m really not under the assumption that Catholic Charities is the only adoption agency that is out for the best interest of the child. If people are under that assumption, they will lobby for that law to be changed, and they will lobby on behalf of Catholic Charities. I don’t live in Illinois anymore. But if I did, I wouldn’t lobby for either side. I’d let the State and Catholic Charities and the parties who have an interest, lobby for the legislation. And I’m sure they will…
 
vsedriver said:
Also it is in the government’s best interest to impede adoption. That way they can keep all the foster and social services offices running.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make sense to me. The government doesn’t have a best interest. The government is the people we elect to run this mess. The government’s best interest is to stay in office. Don’t worry. The foster care and social services offices are not going to quite running, no matter now many kids get adopted. Right now, they seem to be running over.
 
Rence said:
I don’t agree that it’s detrimental to the children of Illinois because other agencies are ready to take on the case loads, and even hire the employess from Catholic Charities. The last news article I read said that they were already doing this. I’m really not under the assumption that Catholic Charities is the only adoption agency that is out for the best interest of the child. If people are under that assumption, they will lobby for that law to be changed, and they will lobby on behalf of Catholic Charities. I don’t live in Illinois anymore. But if I did, I wouldn’t lobby for either side. I’d let the State and Catholic Charities and the parties who have an interest, lobby for the legislation. And I’m sure they will…
Click to expand...
What news paper did you read that in? I can’t find it anywhere. I can’t say that Catholic Charities is the ONLY adoption agency that is out for the best interest of children, only that it IS an adoption agency that is out for the best interest of children and has been for some time. It has an incredible track record and it isn’t in the best interest of the kids to shut it down.
 
Allegra said:
What news paper did you read that in? I can’t find it anywhere. I can’t say that Catholic Charities is the ONLY adoption agency that is out for the best interest of children, only that it IS an adoption agency that is out for the best interest of children and has been for some time. It has an incredible track record and it isn’t in the best interest of the kids to shut it down.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping:
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
As one who is staunch anti-abortion, this opening post comes off as “machiavellian”
(as in politically crafty).
 
wynnejj said:
As one who is staunch anti-abortion, this opening post comes off as “machiavellian”
(as in politically crafty).
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean, of course it’s Machiavellian, I’m Don Machiavelli, right?

I don’t know if I feel comfortable posting my true opinions about how the government should deal with abortion.
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
1: There are plenty of parents who are willing to adopt children right now.

2: Are you sure the mother wouldn’t want to keep her child?

Keep in mind, doctors are not allowed to show the ultrasound ( so they can locate the position of the child) of the fetus to the mother who is having an abortion.
 
Don_Machiavelli said:
… are you yourself willing to adopt the unwanted babies and convince your friends to adopt them as well?

This is an interest of mine, as it seems that it is Republicans who want the government to ban abortion also do not like the government paying for social welfare (which Democrats support).

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Yep, that is why we have adoption ministries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top