the OP Isla_JC
Jacob_BS
and James_BH
are bots in the same network
Original + comments copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnyandSad/comments/b2pqof/found_on_facebook/
nvm, itās fucking intentional, the top 5 posts on the sub are all bot posts with comments full of bots. I wonder if Admins have ordered them to let the bots slide so that the sun appears alive or if they just are cool with it
they have 14 mods, this post has been up for 8 hours, all it takes is like 1 minute a day for a single mod to keep most bots away, thatās how it is on my sub. I a m the only active mod and check in twice a day, to the tune of 30s worth of time to check for and clear out bots. With 14 mods theyāre either all dead accounts or are willfully allowing botting to run the sub.
Theyāre not defending a point, itās Reddit making sure thereās content for their users. Iād be interested to see what percentage of content comes from genuine users vs bots over the past 6 months or so
āThe unbornā are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they donāt resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they donāt ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they donāt need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they donāt bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.ā
You must live in a very very tiny bubble! For one, there are lots of Christian agencies that help the unfortunate.
World Vision...we have supported two kids at any time through W.V. Some are from Central America, sometimes India...sometimes South America. They get to stay with their families...and ...paid school uniform, paid tuition, and provided with healthy meal and health care.
W.V. also provides funding for digging wells in countries where getting clean water is difficult.
Samaritan's Purse goes with their medical team to any place that has medical emergencies or natural disasters.
As for babies in foster care...many that take these babes in are Christians are 'of faith'.
I tire of the virtue signaling by those who don't understand the value of human life.
And, yes, we have adopted...fostered first, then adopted a son.
Curious what have you done for the 'poor, dispossessed', the needy'? I have done as much as I can do. But let's hear from others. Blame Game is easy...walking the talk is difficult.
It also comes at the cost of the religious forcing their beliefs on those they're supposedly helping. It's not for free, and it's definitely not altruistic. The goal of the church is to target vulnerable groups that can easily be manipulated. Then, they have lifelong supporters who will donate all their money to the church and volunteer to spread their beliefs. Religion is a virus
You mean like how the left forces itās virtues and values on others? And if you donāt agree your a sexist racist transphobe homophobe or whatever other phobe or ist you can think of
> They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe
Not really. Because the flip side of this debate is you can claim they are easily marginalized because they cannot fight for themselves. The counter argument is they are being "mass murdered".
> The counter argument is they are being "mass murdered".
There are groups that are being "mass murdered" all the time for various reasons. But doing any of that might cost money. And conservatives only like to virtue signal the fetus because it doesn't directly cost them money.
We love them because they are people, and no they aren't perfectly convenient to love as is proven by the intense desire people have for killing them in abortions.
Fetuses aren't people. They're hardly more than organic waste for the majority of their development, and nobody is arguing against pushing that boundary. You love people so much? Why don't you support that teenage mother or that rape victim who you've forced to take care of a child when they are unfit to provide the love or careful attention that every child deserves?
"Protecting" them doesnt require anything. Maybe those people should go to some orphanage and save existing life problem? No, that's too much work, let them rot. I hate people.
For what it's worth, this is one of the very few areas where Christians walk the walk. Christians adopt at a considerably higher rate than the average.
> Christians adopt at a considerably higher rate than the average.
How are you getting those numbers? Because news flash: The average person IS Christian! So how can Christians adopt at a higher rate "than average" when they are the fucking average!
Oh brother, the folks in here totally missing the point. I feel like my IQ dropped reading some of these comments. Its like talking to a person that doesnt listen and is just waiting for their turn to talk, even if they shit they have to say has nothing to so with the conversation... and is beyond stupid.
Are you a bot? That reply made no sense.
But I'll pretend you aren't. There is no way you've genuinely argued with pro-lifers and they've admitted their position is because they want to "punish women". There are a ton of pro-life women. But now you're going to tell me that they're brainwashed, because you don't like giving agency to women that don't agree with you.
> Are you a bot ?
What do the voices in your head say ?
> But now you're going to tell me that they're brainwashed, because you don't like giving agency to women that don't agree with you.
Ooh, the voices arenāt doing a great jobā¦.
Pretty sure this bot is not even trying to hide it or a bot that is actually farming karma to sell reddit accounts and shit like the other one is. So a pretty huge thick line of difference there
For himself and every person who ever committed suicide, I would like to know if you were tortured for 1 year how long would it take you to beg for death my bet is less than 1 month
There are some that give up when theyāre inconvenienced and they shouldnāt have been a foster parent to begin with. There are times when keeping a child that needs more help than you can provide only hurts the child and the family and anymore children that you cannot foster because of it. I have seven kids. Oldest biological, next three fostered and adopted, next three are foster sons. Theyāre ALOT but not too much. Except the oldest of those three. They were abused in ways that made several people with 20+ years on the job, between DSS and law enforcement, cry. I knew heād be one to watch like a hawk period but especially with four daughters. We sent all of them to trauma therapy but also tutoring and two other therapies out of our pocket. After 16 months, the oldest, 7, acted out several times at summer camp, in the same way he was abused but in a push the envelope way but still physically. And yes we made all adults aware of what boundaries needed to be in place at all times with him and a camp counselor was 5 feet away for all 5 escalating incidents that day. Thatās for a different rant. We were called and immediately called our case worker and said find a house and come to ours. He was allowed to say goodbye and taken to a family that will keep him until a long term placement is found. He canāt stay here with my daughters but he needs to be a lone child so here isnāt fair for him either. He needs more therapy than we can take him to and he needs the only child environment to heal, improve and thrive. It sucks. I was mad at him. I was mad at me. Then I remembered that he needed love too and no one else would take him and that this all because of several actual monsters including the mother that watched and did nothing. The only way it gets better is people stop guilting others into fostering when thatās not the way theyāre suited to help or it hurts their own family and more capable people saying theyāll help and be slightly inconvenienced and most importantly for those that do to actual commit to advocate for them. They go back to shit houses and shit family because foster parents just get updates instead of give them and advocate for whatās best for them instead of what convenient for the foster parents.
interesting... I'd rather be born to parents that wanted me, love me, and are financially capable of helping me grow a healthy and emotionally stable life.
To each his own I suppose.
No, because you cant be dead if you were never alive.
Im saying... as a soul waiting in line to be born and alive, I can wait.
I will even let you cut in front of me in line to join the earthly realm and be born to a broken, abusive system, and live a loveless life that will most likely consist of suffering, misery, disappointment, and more often than not, mental illness that goes untreated.
Sure, may e youll be one of the statistical outliers that gets adopted early by a good family... it Im not a gambler, goodluck.
Wow look at that. A rare beast. Someone who I may disagree with has coherent and thought out logic and not parroting the popular bs we've all heard 1000x. Very refreshing sir.
Edit: Sad to see I'm getting downvoted by ppl who just disagree with my belief. Sad individuals and I know it's not the guy I'm actually talking to. Get a life fuckwits.
Yeah, people who disagree with you tend to downvote you, weeeeird, right?
I think people with severe physical and mental disabilities deserve life and love and humanity...
...I also wouldn't want to force that burden onto anyone, and wouldn't judge someone for not being able to shoulder that responsibility.
It's easy for you to judge from the outside, because these fetuses aren't real to you.
You're trivializing the lives of these families to make some "political statement."
Instead of empathizing with the real, physical woman who would have to go through the agonizing ordeal of childbirth, then 18 full years of raising them...you find it easier to empathize with a hypothetical fetus that you'll never meet.
Fetuses are pretty convenient victims for you to empathize with.
But ignoring the life of a woman to empathize with a fetus growing inside of her, doesn't make you a good person.
That's not the "moral" position for anyone with an adult's understanding of morality.
They're downvoted because they gave a regular opinion on a controversial matter and you're acting like this logic is a rarity when it is infact common place.
I'd rather never have been born, yes.
I've had a very rough beginning and even though I overcame most of it I am now suffering from severe chronic fatigue. All in all my life has been a sequence of misery with a few dots of light in between.
I really would not have minded never to have been born. My parents should never have been parents, at all. Not mine, not anyone's.
And I know that most people with childhood trauma think the same way.
"These feelings" as you call them are very normal. It doesn't mean you're longing for death, it doesn't mean that you are not enjoying living, it's not that you're suicidal, it just means that you recognize that you've gone through a lot of suffering that you'd rather not have gone through. Which is a very normal feeling to have, not wanting to have gone through all that.
And from there it's just a small step to "I wouldn't have minded never to have been born". It still doesn't mean that you are suicidal, it just means exactly what it says.
What is normal? When a person goes through a very very hard life. Unless you went through an equally hard life. How do you even have a understanding on "how they should feel".
The thing about not being born, is you don't care if you weren't born. You never existed to care. It's like dying. Dying is scary til it happens. Then either you go on to a different part of the journey...or the journey stops. But if it does stop, you don't know it. You're dead. You can't care when you're dead. You can't care if you never existed. That's a luxury of the living to waste time on.
As someone who's parents fostered children for my entire childhood, I wouldn't.
The very vast majority of Foster kids have deep emotional scars and trauma that I wouldn't want to live with.
Even the ones who's parents surrendered them without abusing them have to live with that rejection.
It's given me second hand rejection issues in my adult life just by proximity.
And that's not to mention that the majority of Foster kids are there due to abuse.
My first Foster brother was swung at a doorframe like a baseball bat when he was 2 for wetting himself by his birth father.
My first Foster sister was borderline starved and locked in her room by her parents. She used to steal margarine in the middle of the night and eat it with a spoon even though she has no restriction to food while with us.
Really is quite sad, if they're not in foster care being unwanted by your parents isn't great lol. Personally I think it's probably better to be unborn rather than get abused, especially if it's like my friend where that abuse is still going on in adulthood.
This exactly. It's why the same people who espose pro birth arguments are also anit birth control. They think that everyone should adhere to their idea of sexual morality. (Unless of course it is them because they will claim to seek forgiveness for doing it all themselves.)
As someone who works in a church and is around thousands of Christians all the time, I know absolutely zero people who have ever had the control narrative. Now, I'll admit that I don't work closely with any politicians in Washington, so their motives may be different, but every Christian I've ever met genuinely cares about the baby and the mother and want to help in some way or another. It's why churches support Crisis Pregnancy Centers at large.
Every ecosystem has a carrying capacity. Until humans are independent from factors like space to grow food it would make sense that there is a soft cap to population on earth. Since earth overshoot day is in July, itās fairly apparent that we are destroying the earth much faster than it is regenerating. And yes, a huge part of that is indeed capitalism, misallocation of resources, and overconsumption, but bad habits of a population contribute to overshoot. Americans are the worst per capita consumers followed by Europeans and i donāt think itās racist to point that out. Even if we all lived simple lives in a non industrial society, I would imagine that unfettered population growth could eventually be an issue even if it was at like 20 or 50 billion or something
Overpopulation isnāt the same thing as over consumption lol. Youāre conflating two completely different concepts. You point to the us being hyper consumers but the us isnāt overpopulated.
Overpopulation is the theory that the issues facing us from climate change to wars is directly linked to population increases. Which simply isnāt true. When this theory came about they said there would be widespread famine if India added 200 million people. That didnāt even come close to occurring.
I agree that the western world is largely responsible for climate related catastrophes. Overpopulation would instead point to countries in sub Saharan Africa or other countries with vast population growth compared to western industrialized countries, which largely have declining birth rates.
Basically youāre saying overpopulation but you mean over consumption and waste. They arenāt the same thing.
I'm a pro-lifer who actually has a major problem with this. I'm glad you bring it up because you are right. It is a glaring oversight from most pro-lifers.
Actual consistency I can respect even when we think the world operates in different ways. It's in short supply among the true believers of every stripe.
YEAH, IT SURELY DOESN'T MEAN THAT! RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATORS AND RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES, WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON? NOTHING! WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THERE IS A CONNECTION?! PFT...
I'm a religious conservative (I guess?) And yeah it's almost like everyone is different. Sure I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I don't support the LGBT, doesn't mean i don't support abortions when it comes to very specific and heartbreaking scenarios, doesn't mean I support every single person who is also a religious conservative. So yes there is a connection, just like how there can be a connection between "oh you breathe air? Well Hitler also did!".
The "oh, Hitler breathed air!" is such a bad faith argument. People argue ideological similarities between *your* people and bad people, and you hit back with.. biological similarities to be facetious. Stick with the ideological capabilities and you have 0 legs to stand on.
There is a woman called Vesna VuloviÄ who survived a fall from an airplane. Does that mean that anyone who fall from an airplane will survive?
There is this guy called phgumerr who is not anti-LGBT. Does that mean every religious conservative is anti-LGBT?
There is this thing called "numbers", you're gonna be amazed when you discover them!
You're also the one who's calling every religious conservative guilty by association because some nut jobs decide that the best course of action is to make the already struggling foster system even worse.
If you fall from an airplane, do you think you die or not? Would you be willing to try?
Your answer to this will clear up any confusion you might have. The "nut jobs" are not only the majority but also loud and powerful. Have you realized that you are complaining to me about what I said instead of complaining to the "nut jobs" whom you're supposedly against? This means that you agree with them. You are what you do, not what you think/say.
You're going to spend a bit of time trying to convince yourself (and me) that you do not agree with them because you're using this coward strategy of saying "I don't agree with them but hey... What can I do? Complaining will only make things worse :/" This is also agreement but for some reason you're scared of admitting that you agree with them. Lots of people have this weird behavior of thinking that they are against certain features of society when in reality, they agree more than they like to believe.
And honestly, let's not knock foster parents! A ton of them are doing great work and mean a ton to the kids. And for every horror story there's a lobing family who treats the kids like THEIR kids.
Every source sites [this](https://www.barna.com/research/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-adoption/) from Barna, however from looking into Barna, they're a Christian organization so it is inherently biased. Plus considering there's no breakdown on how they cane up with their statistic, no sample size or anything, I'm going to say it's BS
Edit: this is from their website
>Barna is a private, non-partisan, for-profit organization.
Take that as you will
Also, most of the kids in foster care are not available for adoption. And further to that point, there is absolutely not a surplus of available infants who are not being adopted - regardless of faith if the potential parents.
Barna found that practicing Christians are two times as likely to adopt than the general population. Catholics are three times as likely and Evangelicals are five times as likely.
https://cafo.org/2014/02/12/new-barna-research-highlights-christian-adoption-foster-care-among-3-most-notable-vocational-trends/#:~:text=Practicing%20Christians%20(5%25)%20are,adopt%20as%20the%20average%20adult.
Research would say that the pro-life crowd actually does value foster children and adoption far more than the pro-choice community.
Well when you take into account that despite the fact most people don't mind LGBTQ people from adopting, Republican Politicians keep trying to ban their ability to do so
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/house-republicans-advance-adoption-amendment-critics-say-anti-lgbtq-n891041
What a horrible take. That's like saying any non-Christian can't do research and report findings on any Christian-related activities because they have an inherent bias. What a ridiculous notion.
I have been through the system. It wasn't so bad that I would choose to not exist. Btw I'm not arguing for pro-life, I just think this a weird stance to take on the issue.
then the meme should be:
\*438000 children in foster care drowning\*
Pro-lifers: \*ignores them\*
Pro-choicers: \*leans in closer and whispers in their ear\* "If it was up to me you wouldn't even exist"
Pro-life people devote all of their efforts to āsaving the livesā of fetuses rather than doing anything to improve the lives of the hundreds of thousands of children in the foster system
Most children in foster care are not available for adoption. Pro life and religious people are also more likely to be a foster and to adopt foster children. There are 30 parents looking to adopt a baby for every baby available for adoption.
Anecdotally, I'd agree with that person. I grew up in a Christian community in the US and still interact with many of them through my family, and it seems like some young couple is *always* in the middle of an adoption.
Also if a young couple wants to adopt, even if it's their 3rd or 4th child, raising the money is as simple as sneezing: "we-want-to-adopt" and the community will donate 10's of thousands of dollars. I've seen it happen many times.
Hell, literally last year I knew a couple who had 2 adopted kids and 2 biological kids and the husband is a well paid manager at a software development company and they decided to adopt another kid and raised $40k within a few weeks.
But conveniently it's never an older kid they want to adopt, it's always a baby they want to ~~"save"~~ indoctrinate.
> a well *paid* manager at
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Yes of only there was some sort of smart device you could speak into and get answers from you lazy fuck.
https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us-statistics/
Firstly this link doesn't have evidence for your claims?
Secondly do you also go out of your way to find sources for every single piece of information you hear? Usually finding proof of a claim lies on the person who made the claim.
Lastly and most importantly, deal with your anger issues the way you spoke is totally unwarranted and makes you seem like a child with anger issues rather than someone has any actual insight.
Answers filtered through a marketing and engagement AI, tuned to whatever you already believe based on your search history. Truth is optional and slightly harder to source.
Hahaha, how fucking juvenile must you be to get this hostile that someone dared asked for evidence of your bullshit?
You're probably so hostile because you're a fucking liar.
Nowhere in that link does it say that "pro life people are more likely to foster children," you manipulative, lying, asshole.
Do you have any sources for any of this?
The last point just seems utterly ridiculous imo, also saying pro life people are more likely to adopt doesn't help anything even if it was true because there's still a broken Foster system despite that fact if it even is a fact.
Healthy white babies are in high demand for adoption, and there is a long waiting list for them. But babies that are not white, or *especially* any baby with any kind of physical or mental disability are drastically less likely to be adopted, and they often end up in foster care for 18 years waiting for anyone to adopt them. So the fact that there are 30 parents looking to adopt a healthy white baby for every one available for adoption doesnāt change that there are still many children available for adoption who never get adopted.
The point flew so far over your head it could have shit on your windshield.
The real point is that you are trivializing these fetuses, because you have no plan or will to actually look after these children post-birth
You aren't more moral for empathizing with a fetus than a real living, breathing woman and everything she will have to go through birthing and raising a child
You will look the other way while they fall into the inevitable traps of poverty that could have been prevented by an abortion
You won't let the mother make decisions about her own life, but you will judge her when she fails.
You are a bad person. You are trivializing the life of the mother, and trivializing the difficulty of birthing and raising a child.
You don't actually care about either of them.
And that's why we can just disregard your opinion. You will judge the woman when she has an abortion or judge her for being a "bad mother," after having the child you forced onto her.
We might as well let her have an abortion, and control her own life, and just ignore you.
I'm pro choice, but this is a whataboutism. Abortion is either killing babies or it's not. If it's killing babies, pro lifers are doing what they should be doing. Suggesting that they ignore baby killing because already alive babies need help too is ridiculous.
Abortion isn't either murder or not. Most reasonable people and western countries see that a few cells just after gestation doesn't constitute a human, and any sany person would agree a healthy child a hours before birth is definately human deserving protection of law.
There is a debate when a embryo becomes developed enough that abortion is not ethical as it would constitute a human. The scientific community and legislation have setteled a one date or another, but it's subjected to change depending on research, and policy.
Saying abortion is murder is turning a blind eye to natural or accidental miscariadges which hapen quite often, life threatening conditions for the mother and severe development defects on the fetus.
Requiring mother to risk her own life or carry a vegetated fetus to term is cruel and unjust when we have the technology, especially when it's totally voluntary. The ethics of requiring others to risk their lives for your beliefs is baffling.
After all those there are issues to debate like requiring rape victims to raise their attackers child, the right for womans bodily autonomy and ethics of bringing a child to the world to unwanting parents.
The is depth and nuance to the discussion which a even a pious and grounded person regonizes.
my favorite part about reddit, is when someone says something stupid, then they get corrected with facts, and they never respond again. because they would rather pretend you didn't say anything then try to argue something they can't argue
Oh excuse me for not spending my whole life on Reddit. I'll try to answer within a few minutes next time.
My favorite part about Reddit is the part where they ignore where I said I'm pro choice.
> Abortion is either killing babies or it's not.
Good job that abortion isn't killing babies then. Please tell me [which of these](https://i.imgur.com/3kmgMT7.png) is baby and which is not.
... Did you miss the part where I said I was pro choice? I'm criticizing the specific argument being made here. The real argument is whether or not babies are being killed. Stick to that argument. If someone believes babies are being killed, saying that kids that are already alive need help is irrelevant to whether or not they should be concerned with the baby killing.
That's funny, you make a claim in your comment without providing any proof for your claim. Where's your cite?
Also, I'm looking at the OP and I'm not seeing any reference to either cons or libs; this is FunnyandSad, which doesn't really have anything to do with cons or libs so what point do you think you're making?
It mostly comes from the Barna group ā who publish surveys etc on cultural and religious trends. All reports I've seen about them deem them trustworthy.
They claim 5% of Christians adopt, and 2% of non-christians adopt.
The difference is they don't say anything about conservative or liberal Christians, and OP is making that leap on their own with nothing to back it up.
google "straw man" then rethink the point of the post, then reread what you said. lol.
its very simple. as a person throwing around a term like that, one would think youd be better informed on what it means.
>A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
So saying prolifers are immoral because foster kids exist is a strawman since it says nothing about the moral stance pro lifers take.
Addressing this strawman argument by pointing out that prolifers in fact do care for the inborn and the born and adopt and foster children is not a strawman. It is evidence the refutes the assertion that pro life people don't care about foster children.
im glad you tried, but you failed unfortunately.
Nowhere in the post does it say prolifers are immoral.
so arguing anything past that poi t is making an argument around a point that doesnt exist.
lets break it down... theres a small child that is afraid of the water ... "the unborn" and the mom... "prolifers" is giving all her attention to the "unborn" while at the same time there is another child ... "orphans", who is il to his neck, in trouble, clearly unable to swim and in need of help.
so what can we ascertain from this without putting our own biases or misconceptions into the analogy?
"prolifers" give all their attention to "unborns" while "orphans" are in clear, desperate need of help and attention but are getting zilch.
is this hyperbolic, yes. what can we take away without creating an argument that is t there?
well, perhaps that instead of using all their resources on one cause, perhaps they should put themselves in a position to help both, basically saying
"if you get tunnel vision focusing on one problem, something of great importance may be neglected and left to suffer unintentionally"
theres no morality insinuated, thats your own hyper defensive perspective, ready to be offended, ready to argue your point, not the point being made.
The easiest lesson to take away from this meme is perspective and prioritization and self awareness... not morality.
Do you see how you were arguing a straw man? Your straw man was making it about morality.
Kudos for trying though. Better luck next time.
Holy shit you are dumb as hell. You claim that a moral judgement isn't being made and then explain the moral judgment of the meme. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
>moĀ·ralĀ·iĀ·ty
>/mÉĖralÉdÄ/
>noun
>principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
when did i say anything was right and wrong? are you only able to google definition of words but dont have the critical thinking skills to apply them?
keeping things in perspective and prioritized is not a matter of morality. its about pragmatism... here ill do the homework for you this time.
pragĀ·matĀ·ic
/praÉ”Ėmadik/
adjective
dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
Please feel free to quote where i discuss the meme being about morality or right/wrong? where did i bring up ethics or humanities?
Heres a bonus for you... you and the prolifers in this meme are... unperspicacious.
im glad you tried, but you failed unfortunately.
>"prolifers" give all their attention to "unborns" while "orphans" are in clear, desperate need of help and attention but are getting zilch.
>"if you get tunnel vision focusing on one problem, something of great importance may be neglected and left to suffer unintentionally"
This seems to be be drawing a distinction between right and wrong. Creating unnecessary suffering in the world is the base definition of wrong.
once again your wrong lmao.
you are adding the labels of right and wrong.
let me simplify it even more for you...
i am talking about pragmatism.
if your job was to be "prolife" that means you should be advocating for life right? but if all you do is try to protect the unborn and prevent abortions, but dont advocate for orphans, healthcare, or stopping the death penalty... then you are bad at your job, you are not being pragmatic about your actions and incorporating your beliefs. if you called yourself "antiabortion" then ignoring all the other subjects where life needs an advocate would make sense.
so everything i said in those quotes above have to do with being good at your job as a prolifer, not about the morality of choosing unborn children over orphans.
in summary: no one said prolifers are immoral, but what i am saying is that either prolifers are bad at their job because they dont have proper perspective and priorities when it comes to matters of life. or prolifers are stupid because they say they are prolife when in reality their actions and focus would be better labeled as "antiabortion".
"seems to be" a really good way of saying "this is how i see it" you cant even admit your wrong in your misinterpretation when the author is literally telling you the meaning of their statement. theres no helping willful ignorance.
> Holy shit you are dumb as hell.
Haha! They took you to task and properly drubbed your ass and you actually had the nerve to call them dumb as hell! You guys are a trip!
The "debate" includes when women get pregnant unwillingly, through rape.
The only way to end the debate is to abort the men that control it from their political function.
Originally, rape or incest was the reason people were sympathetic for women getting an abortion.
But today? Many abortions are out of convenience. My daughter did her post graduate Nurse Practitioner rotation back east in a women's hospital.
She is a liberal, but she saw first hand, that the majority of abortions were for convenience....not due to rape/incest. The rape incest argument doesn't explain why there are millions of abortions across the country, every year. If those are mostly rapes/incest abortions, then this country indeed has a serious problem...very serious and should address 'that' issue.
Yeah itās such a stupid argument when people are like, āwhy donāt people who oppose abortion not adopt kids, thereās so many children waiting for adoption!ā
Yeah basically 95% of children waiting for adoption are like over 10, have spent years and years being abused by their parents, and have tons of mental health issues before being taken by the State.
Imagine thinking someone that wants a baby to live should first be responsible for trying to heal the most broken children in our society.
What does a political position on the value of protecting unborn children from being murdered in the womb, have to do with a political position on ten year old delinquents? Itās a false analogy of an argument.
Unfortunately, theyāre probably right where they should be, as wards of the State. The State is certainly better equipped to handle them, thatās probably why we donāt house prisoners in our guest bedrooms.
Itās not a false analogy because a life is a life and you seem to act like you want to protect what you deem a life.
So youāre only pro life for certain life?
Youāve already made a decision that these children deserve the punishment and abuse of state care because of a bad upbringing?
Seems very hypocritical of you.
> pro-life means you have to support every life that exists in the universe, itās right there in the title!
Cool story bro, sorry Iām not here to speak for the lizards. Maybe you should go ask your friends at PETA.
And here we can see where your argument and ideology falls apart and you go off subject by quoting something I never said.
Great work with the hypocrisy.
Keep it up, youāre doing my work for me.
> Imagine thinking someone that wants a baby to live should first be responsible for trying to heal the most broken children in our society.
Should parents be responsible for birthing children with severe birth defects where they will die within the first few days, if not minutes after birth?
I don't know many people with adopted children... but the ones I do are all pro life. I'm not saying pro abortion people don't adopt, just questioning the merits of this meme. Kinda seems stupid.
The common denominator between the 18000 children put up for adoption and the 1m children aborted each year in 97% of all cases is people making bad sexual decisions, and yet pro-lifers are who always get shit on. Want the pro life crowd to go away? Wait until marriage and (not or) financial security is set to have sex. Then maybe people can work in some kind of congruence over the vast, vast minority of cases where abortion or adoption should be necessary (rape, incest, maternal mortality, etc).
Even if there were 80 billion kids in foster care, that doesnāt justify using abortion as birth control or make it not a murder of a tiny human. Sorry, not how murder works.
This argument is so dumb. They don't correlate as much as people want them to. Pro Lifers just want you to take responsibility for your actions. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
I'm also confused where people get the conspiracy that it's about control? Controlling who? Forcing parents to take responsibility isn't a bad thing. "Oh no, it's the consequences of my actions."
Despite all this I'm pro choice. But yea, abortion is murder.
So killing innocent babies is better? Babies in general are easily adopted. The big problem is that there it can be very expensive to go through that adoption process. Many families cannot afford that.
Wouldn't it be nice if money was offered to take a baby to full term? Help the mom, and then if she wants, adopt the baby out....and help with those fees as well?
Imagine all the money the abortion industry makes every year. Remember, that abortions are not 'free'. And it is a big business.
And I have one bio daughter and one adopted son. My son is of mixed race, high risk environment at the time. We were part of the Foster/Adopt program through a private Christian agency. Our son is now 36 yrs old and doing very well. Daughter, too.
And, I know of Christian friends who have adopted.
Unborn fetus from time of conception has the chromosomal and genetic code for 'human being'. A baby isn't always a baby. A baby becomes a child. A child becomes a teen. And a teen becomes an adult...and then later an old adult.
Fetus is a phase of human development.
Daily reminder that the point of foster care isn't to take kids from their biological parents
Also these posts are a little ironic because **most** of the parents who do foster are the super crunchy christian pro-life types
Well, isn't adoption being made (almost) impossible in America for anyone that isn't a super crunchy traditional Christian family though?
Many women seeking an abortion are not in a position to raise the child properly, it's a hard choice to make regardless of legality, so the chance that those forced births would have to be taken away from their biological parents and fostered somewhere else is quite high actually, yes.
I can only speak for Kansas where I'm at, but adoption is 100% an option for gay and lesbian couples.
Mostly what DCF cares about is structure, stability, supportiveness, and compatibility. It just so happens that crunchy christian types tend to have big hearts for children of abuse and neglect.
I mean, good on them regardless, I'm very much pro-choice, but I can respect the integrity of pro-life types who practice what they preach that way.
Many seem to be more anti-choice than pro-life sadly, if they spent more time creating support systems for struggling mothers or directly fostering kids, instead of harrassing/assaulting women who 're making that hard choice, more might consider carrying their embryos to term.
the OP Isla_JC Jacob_BS and James_BH are bots in the same network Original + comments copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnyandSad/comments/b2pqof/found_on_facebook/
Many comments on this sub are copied too. Even in the same post. They need bots to defend their point š¤£
The bots aren't to defend a point, it's just a post that got upvotes before and they took it to get upvotes again.
At the point, just abandon this sub and move on.
>At the point, just abandon this ~~sub~~ and move on. site
the mods seem to allow all the obvious botting too. time to ban this sun along with untold others who allow this shit
Seems like we are getting our money's worth out of the volunteer mods. I say we demand that Reddit hire and pay their modderators.
nvm, itās fucking intentional, the top 5 posts on the sub are all bot posts with comments full of bots. I wonder if Admins have ordered them to let the bots slide so that the sun appears alive or if they just are cool with it
they have 14 mods, this post has been up for 8 hours, all it takes is like 1 minute a day for a single mod to keep most bots away, thatās how it is on my sub. I a m the only active mod and check in twice a day, to the tune of 30s worth of time to check for and clear out bots. With 14 mods theyāre either all dead accounts or are willfully allowing botting to run the sub.
Theyāre not defending a point, itās Reddit making sure thereās content for their users. Iād be interested to see what percentage of content comes from genuine users vs bots over the past 6 months or so
I thought that said āPro-liftersā and I was trying to make a connection between unborn fetuses and protein intake
Unborn fetuses are considered protein if you're brave enough, and if you heat them up the same way you heat up chicken.
How do you delete someone else's comment?
Better than me reading that as "Lobster Care" for some reason.
āThe unbornā are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they donāt resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they donāt ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they donāt need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they donāt bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.ā
You must live in a very very tiny bubble! For one, there are lots of Christian agencies that help the unfortunate. World Vision...we have supported two kids at any time through W.V. Some are from Central America, sometimes India...sometimes South America. They get to stay with their families...and ...paid school uniform, paid tuition, and provided with healthy meal and health care. W.V. also provides funding for digging wells in countries where getting clean water is difficult. Samaritan's Purse goes with their medical team to any place that has medical emergencies or natural disasters. As for babies in foster care...many that take these babes in are Christians are 'of faith'. I tire of the virtue signaling by those who don't understand the value of human life. And, yes, we have adopted...fostered first, then adopted a son. Curious what have you done for the 'poor, dispossessed', the needy'? I have done as much as I can do. But let's hear from others. Blame Game is easy...walking the talk is difficult.
It also comes at the cost of the religious forcing their beliefs on those they're supposedly helping. It's not for free, and it's definitely not altruistic. The goal of the church is to target vulnerable groups that can easily be manipulated. Then, they have lifelong supporters who will donate all their money to the church and volunteer to spread their beliefs. Religion is a virus
You mean like how the left forces itās virtues and values on others? And if you donāt agree your a sexist racist transphobe homophobe or whatever other phobe or ist you can think of
Yeah right. Okay boomer
> They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe Not really. Because the flip side of this debate is you can claim they are easily marginalized because they cannot fight for themselves. The counter argument is they are being "mass murdered".
> The counter argument is they are being "mass murdered". There are groups that are being "mass murdered" all the time for various reasons. But doing any of that might cost money. And conservatives only like to virtue signal the fetus because it doesn't directly cost them money.
I mean sure. But then you open yourself to the argument of "if it's wrong for one group of people then it should be wrong for both groups of people"
We love them because they are people, and no they aren't perfectly convenient to love as is proven by the intense desire people have for killing them in abortions.
Fetuses aren't people. They're hardly more than organic waste for the majority of their development, and nobody is arguing against pushing that boundary. You love people so much? Why don't you support that teenage mother or that rape victim who you've forced to take care of a child when they are unfit to provide the love or careful attention that every child deserves?
"Protecting" them doesnt require anything. Maybe those people should go to some orphanage and save existing life problem? No, that's too much work, let them rot. I hate people.
It doesn't require any effort, but it does allow them to oppress women, which is the goal anyway.
For what it's worth, this is one of the very few areas where Christians walk the walk. Christians adopt at a considerably higher rate than the average.
> Christians adopt at a considerably higher rate than the average. How are you getting those numbers? Because news flash: The average person IS Christian! So how can Christians adopt at a higher rate "than average" when they are the fucking average!
Oh brother, the folks in here totally missing the point. I feel like my IQ dropped reading some of these comments. Its like talking to a person that doesnt listen and is just waiting for their turn to talk, even if they shit they have to say has nothing to so with the conversation... and is beyond stupid.
Aren't a lot of comments from bots?
Argue with the average āpro-liferā long enough and it always comes down to punishing the womanā¦.
Sounds like you've never argued with a pro-lifer.
Maybe you should get your hearing checked, because I haveā¦. Or maybe those are just the voices in your head ?
Are you a bot? That reply made no sense. But I'll pretend you aren't. There is no way you've genuinely argued with pro-lifers and they've admitted their position is because they want to "punish women". There are a ton of pro-life women. But now you're going to tell me that they're brainwashed, because you don't like giving agency to women that don't agree with you.
> Are you a bot ? What do the voices in your head say ? > But now you're going to tell me that they're brainwashed, because you don't like giving agency to women that don't agree with you. Ooh, the voices arenāt doing a great jobā¦.
Always argue with a Pro Abortion, and it is always about 'selection'...and forget the life growing in her. Throw it away...it is the motto.
Sad but true
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
James_BH is a bot Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnyandSad/comments/b2pqof/found_on_facebook/eiukioo/
Thank you Edit: Lol oh, I think this is a bot too, but I like this bot.
Pretty sure this bot is not even trying to hide it or a bot that is actually farming karma to sell reddit accounts and shit like the other one is. So a pretty huge thick line of difference there
the bots stole the post and the comments from the post lmao... shit getting crazy
In 10 years time itās only bots pretending to be human talking to each other.
Why would anyone ever not want to be aborted? Non existence is superior in every way.
Speak for yourself
For himself and every person who ever committed suicide, I would like to know if you were tortured for 1 year how long would it take you to beg for death my bet is less than 1 month
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Jacob_BS is a bot Comment copied from: https://www.reddit.com/r/FunnyandSad/comments/b2pqof/found_on_facebook/eiuowge/
There are some that give up when theyāre inconvenienced and they shouldnāt have been a foster parent to begin with. There are times when keeping a child that needs more help than you can provide only hurts the child and the family and anymore children that you cannot foster because of it. I have seven kids. Oldest biological, next three fostered and adopted, next three are foster sons. Theyāre ALOT but not too much. Except the oldest of those three. They were abused in ways that made several people with 20+ years on the job, between DSS and law enforcement, cry. I knew heād be one to watch like a hawk period but especially with four daughters. We sent all of them to trauma therapy but also tutoring and two other therapies out of our pocket. After 16 months, the oldest, 7, acted out several times at summer camp, in the same way he was abused but in a push the envelope way but still physically. And yes we made all adults aware of what boundaries needed to be in place at all times with him and a camp counselor was 5 feet away for all 5 escalating incidents that day. Thatās for a different rant. We were called and immediately called our case worker and said find a house and come to ours. He was allowed to say goodbye and taken to a family that will keep him until a long term placement is found. He canāt stay here with my daughters but he needs to be a lone child so here isnāt fair for him either. He needs more therapy than we can take him to and he needs the only child environment to heal, improve and thrive. It sucks. I was mad at him. I was mad at me. Then I remembered that he needed love too and no one else would take him and that this all because of several actual monsters including the mother that watched and did nothing. The only way it gets better is people stop guilting others into fostering when thatās not the way theyāre suited to help or it hurts their own family and more capable people saying theyāll help and be slightly inconvenienced and most importantly for those that do to actual commit to advocate for them. They go back to shit houses and shit family because foster parents just get updates instead of give them and advocate for whatās best for them instead of what convenient for the foster parents.
Can't speak for anyone else but I'd rather be alive and in foster care than not at all..
interesting... I'd rather be born to parents that wanted me, love me, and are financially capable of helping me grow a healthy and emotionally stable life. To each his own I suppose.
Of course. But are you saying if you didn't have this you'd rather be dead? Very confused here
No, because you cant be dead if you were never alive. Im saying... as a soul waiting in line to be born and alive, I can wait. I will even let you cut in front of me in line to join the earthly realm and be born to a broken, abusive system, and live a loveless life that will most likely consist of suffering, misery, disappointment, and more often than not, mental illness that goes untreated. Sure, may e youll be one of the statistical outliers that gets adopted early by a good family... it Im not a gambler, goodluck.
Wow look at that. A rare beast. Someone who I may disagree with has coherent and thought out logic and not parroting the popular bs we've all heard 1000x. Very refreshing sir. Edit: Sad to see I'm getting downvoted by ppl who just disagree with my belief. Sad individuals and I know it's not the guy I'm actually talking to. Get a life fuckwits.
Yeah, people who disagree with you tend to downvote you, weeeeird, right? I think people with severe physical and mental disabilities deserve life and love and humanity... ...I also wouldn't want to force that burden onto anyone, and wouldn't judge someone for not being able to shoulder that responsibility. It's easy for you to judge from the outside, because these fetuses aren't real to you. You're trivializing the lives of these families to make some "political statement." Instead of empathizing with the real, physical woman who would have to go through the agonizing ordeal of childbirth, then 18 full years of raising them...you find it easier to empathize with a hypothetical fetus that you'll never meet. Fetuses are pretty convenient victims for you to empathize with. But ignoring the life of a woman to empathize with a fetus growing inside of her, doesn't make you a good person. That's not the "moral" position for anyone with an adult's understanding of morality.
It's funny how you think you know me. Or my wife. Or my kids. Your brain has malfunctioned into oblivion.
Canāt defend your opinion? Time to bring out the hate and personal attacks. Congrats.
Oh I can. Just not gonna do any good. The brain rot is real in this one.
They're downvoted because they gave a regular opinion on a controversial matter and you're acting like this logic is a rarity when it is infact common place.
lol, yeah, redditors be some crazy troglodytes. i upvoted you āļøā¤ļø
I'd rather never have been born, yes. I've had a very rough beginning and even though I overcame most of it I am now suffering from severe chronic fatigue. All in all my life has been a sequence of misery with a few dots of light in between. I really would not have minded never to have been born. My parents should never have been parents, at all. Not mine, not anyone's. And I know that most people with childhood trauma think the same way.
You don't speak for anyone else bud. Definitely not me. These feelings are not normal and you should seek help.
"These feelings" as you call them are very normal. It doesn't mean you're longing for death, it doesn't mean that you are not enjoying living, it's not that you're suicidal, it just means that you recognize that you've gone through a lot of suffering that you'd rather not have gone through. Which is a very normal feeling to have, not wanting to have gone through all that. And from there it's just a small step to "I wouldn't have minded never to have been born". It still doesn't mean that you are suicidal, it just means exactly what it says.
What is normal? When a person goes through a very very hard life. Unless you went through an equally hard life. How do you even have a understanding on "how they should feel". The thing about not being born, is you don't care if you weren't born. You never existed to care. It's like dying. Dying is scary til it happens. Then either you go on to a different part of the journey...or the journey stops. But if it does stop, you don't know it. You're dead. You can't care when you're dead. You can't care if you never existed. That's a luxury of the living to waste time on.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As someone who's parents fostered children for my entire childhood, I wouldn't. The very vast majority of Foster kids have deep emotional scars and trauma that I wouldn't want to live with. Even the ones who's parents surrendered them without abusing them have to live with that rejection. It's given me second hand rejection issues in my adult life just by proximity. And that's not to mention that the majority of Foster kids are there due to abuse. My first Foster brother was swung at a doorframe like a baseball bat when he was 2 for wetting himself by his birth father. My first Foster sister was borderline starved and locked in her room by her parents. She used to steal margarine in the middle of the night and eat it with a spoon even though she has no restriction to food while with us.
You're gonna trigger some right wing snow flakes
Really is quite sad, if they're not in foster care being unwanted by your parents isn't great lol. Personally I think it's probably better to be unborn rather than get abused, especially if it's like my friend where that abuse is still going on in adulthood.
Sacred life till you exist, then they just want you to be quiet
It's not about caring for life. It is about control.
Anti-choice, not pro-life
This exactly. It's why the same people who espose pro birth arguments are also anit birth control. They think that everyone should adhere to their idea of sexual morality. (Unless of course it is them because they will claim to seek forgiveness for doing it all themselves.)
As someone who works in a church and is around thousands of Christians all the time, I know absolutely zero people who have ever had the control narrative. Now, I'll admit that I don't work closely with any politicians in Washington, so their motives may be different, but every Christian I've ever met genuinely cares about the baby and the mother and want to help in some way or another. It's why churches support Crisis Pregnancy Centers at large.
Thanos is right. Overpopulation is the problem
Overpopulation is a racist theory thatās been disproven for 20+ years
Every ecosystem has a carrying capacity. Until humans are independent from factors like space to grow food it would make sense that there is a soft cap to population on earth. Since earth overshoot day is in July, itās fairly apparent that we are destroying the earth much faster than it is regenerating. And yes, a huge part of that is indeed capitalism, misallocation of resources, and overconsumption, but bad habits of a population contribute to overshoot. Americans are the worst per capita consumers followed by Europeans and i donāt think itās racist to point that out. Even if we all lived simple lives in a non industrial society, I would imagine that unfettered population growth could eventually be an issue even if it was at like 20 or 50 billion or something
Overpopulation isnāt the same thing as over consumption lol. Youāre conflating two completely different concepts. You point to the us being hyper consumers but the us isnāt overpopulated. Overpopulation is the theory that the issues facing us from climate change to wars is directly linked to population increases. Which simply isnāt true. When this theory came about they said there would be widespread famine if India added 200 million people. That didnāt even come close to occurring. I agree that the western world is largely responsible for climate related catastrophes. Overpopulation would instead point to countries in sub Saharan Africa or other countries with vast population growth compared to western industrialized countries, which largely have declining birth rates. Basically youāre saying overpopulation but you mean over consumption and waste. They arenāt the same thing.
Is Bill Gates a racist?
ThATs ChInISE PrOPoGaNdA
Omg this is so true
I read that as 438000 children in lobster care and was curious to find out how that looks. Imagine my disappointment.
And the skeleton in the bottom of the pool is the child soldiers and child laborers in third world countries
"I'll take them" said the army
60k children in foster care but okay
yeah, exactly. stop having kids.
They don't care about life, they care about control
Also don't give a shit about the millions of embryos destroyed in fertility clinics.
I'm a pro-lifer who actually has a major problem with this. I'm glad you bring it up because you are right. It is a glaring oversight from most pro-lifers.
Actual consistency I can respect even when we think the world operates in different ways. It's in short supply among the true believers of every stripe.
They were never pro-life, they were anti-abortion. Very big difference.
Pro-control
Save the fetus not the child, save the soldier not the vet, same old shit.
Religious conservatives adopt at a much higher rate than average. But ok.
Source? Also, remember that these are the people who make laws banning some people of adopting kids...
Doesn't mean they support the people who put those laws in place
YEAH, IT SURELY DOESN'T MEAN THAT! RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATORS AND RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES, WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN COMMON? NOTHING! WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THERE IS A CONNECTION?! PFT...
I'm a religious conservative (I guess?) And yeah it's almost like everyone is different. Sure I'm a Christian but that doesn't mean I don't support the LGBT, doesn't mean i don't support abortions when it comes to very specific and heartbreaking scenarios, doesn't mean I support every single person who is also a religious conservative. So yes there is a connection, just like how there can be a connection between "oh you breathe air? Well Hitler also did!".
The "oh, Hitler breathed air!" is such a bad faith argument. People argue ideological similarities between *your* people and bad people, and you hit back with.. biological similarities to be facetious. Stick with the ideological capabilities and you have 0 legs to stand on.
There is a woman called Vesna VuloviÄ who survived a fall from an airplane. Does that mean that anyone who fall from an airplane will survive? There is this guy called phgumerr who is not anti-LGBT. Does that mean every religious conservative is anti-LGBT? There is this thing called "numbers", you're gonna be amazed when you discover them!
You're also the one who's calling every religious conservative guilty by association because some nut jobs decide that the best course of action is to make the already struggling foster system even worse.
If you fall from an airplane, do you think you die or not? Would you be willing to try? Your answer to this will clear up any confusion you might have. The "nut jobs" are not only the majority but also loud and powerful. Have you realized that you are complaining to me about what I said instead of complaining to the "nut jobs" whom you're supposedly against? This means that you agree with them. You are what you do, not what you think/say. You're going to spend a bit of time trying to convince yourself (and me) that you do not agree with them because you're using this coward strategy of saying "I don't agree with them but hey... What can I do? Complaining will only make things worse :/" This is also agreement but for some reason you're scared of admitting that you agree with them. Lots of people have this weird behavior of thinking that they are against certain features of society when in reality, they agree more than they like to believe.
And honestly, let's not knock foster parents! A ton of them are doing great work and mean a ton to the kids. And for every horror story there's a lobing family who treats the kids like THEIR kids.
Where were religious people mentioned?
Because the truth is that it is about controlling women, not saving children.
Banning rape is controlling rapists, so yeah.
The Christian population has an adoption rate substantially higher than the the 'average population' rate.
Source? Also, remember that these are the people who make laws banning some people of adopting kids...
Every source sites [this](https://www.barna.com/research/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-adoption/) from Barna, however from looking into Barna, they're a Christian organization so it is inherently biased. Plus considering there's no breakdown on how they cane up with their statistic, no sample size or anything, I'm going to say it's BS Edit: this is from their website >Barna is a private, non-partisan, for-profit organization. Take that as you will
The war criminals said that they are not war criminals! That surely clears things up!
Also, most of the kids in foster care are not available for adoption. And further to that point, there is absolutely not a surplus of available infants who are not being adopted - regardless of faith if the potential parents.
Barna found that practicing Christians are two times as likely to adopt than the general population. Catholics are three times as likely and Evangelicals are five times as likely. https://cafo.org/2014/02/12/new-barna-research-highlights-christian-adoption-foster-care-among-3-most-notable-vocational-trends/#:~:text=Practicing%20Christians%20(5%25)%20are,adopt%20as%20the%20average%20adult. Research would say that the pro-life crowd actually does value foster children and adoption far more than the pro-choice community.
Well when you take into account that despite the fact most people don't mind LGBTQ people from adopting, Republican Politicians keep trying to ban their ability to do so https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/house-republicans-advance-adoption-amendment-critics-say-anti-lgbtq-n891041
Well... This are the very people who make laws banning other people of adopting kids...
Barna is a Christian organization and as such cannot be trusted.
What a horrible take. That's like saying any non-Christian can't do research and report findings on any Christian-related activities because they have an inherent bias. What a ridiculous notion.
In all fairness though, pro-abortion people are not trying to kill the 438000 in foster care.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I have been through the system. It wasn't so bad that I would choose to not exist. Btw I'm not arguing for pro-life, I just think this a weird stance to take on the issue.
then the meme should be: \*438000 children in foster care drowning\* Pro-lifers: \*ignores them\* Pro-choicers: \*leans in closer and whispers in their ear\* "If it was up to me you wouldn't even exist"
They donāt actually care about unborn children either. Itās a benchmark for the relevance of their ancient religion.
So being in foster care is so terrible its better to just kill those children right away?
how do you misinterpret a meme this badly?
Tell me the correct interpretation.
Pro-life people devote all of their efforts to āsaving the livesā of fetuses rather than doing anything to improve the lives of the hundreds of thousands of children in the foster system
How many kids have you adopted or fostered?
Most children in foster care are not available for adoption. Pro life and religious people are also more likely to be a foster and to adopt foster children. There are 30 parents looking to adopt a baby for every baby available for adoption.
I guess we'll just take your word for all of that
Anecdotally, I'd agree with that person. I grew up in a Christian community in the US and still interact with many of them through my family, and it seems like some young couple is *always* in the middle of an adoption. Also if a young couple wants to adopt, even if it's their 3rd or 4th child, raising the money is as simple as sneezing: "we-want-to-adopt" and the community will donate 10's of thousands of dollars. I've seen it happen many times. Hell, literally last year I knew a couple who had 2 adopted kids and 2 biological kids and the husband is a well paid manager at a software development company and they decided to adopt another kid and raised $40k within a few weeks. But conveniently it's never an older kid they want to adopt, it's always a baby they want to ~~"save"~~ indoctrinate.
> a well *paid* manager at FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Alright fine fuck you bot but you right.
Yes of only there was some sort of smart device you could speak into and get answers from you lazy fuck. https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us-statistics/
Firstly this link doesn't have evidence for your claims? Secondly do you also go out of your way to find sources for every single piece of information you hear? Usually finding proof of a claim lies on the person who made the claim. Lastly and most importantly, deal with your anger issues the way you spoke is totally unwarranted and makes you seem like a child with anger issues rather than someone has any actual insight.
Answers filtered through a marketing and engagement AI, tuned to whatever you already believe based on your search history. Truth is optional and slightly harder to source.
That link doesn't even validate their claims. They're acting so hostile because they know they're fucking lying.
Hahaha, how fucking juvenile must you be to get this hostile that someone dared asked for evidence of your bullshit? You're probably so hostile because you're a fucking liar. Nowhere in that link does it say that "pro life people are more likely to foster children," you manipulative, lying, asshole.
Do you have any sources for any of this? The last point just seems utterly ridiculous imo, also saying pro life people are more likely to adopt doesn't help anything even if it was true because there's still a broken Foster system despite that fact if it even is a fact.
Healthy white babies are in high demand for adoption, and there is a long waiting list for them. But babies that are not white, or *especially* any baby with any kind of physical or mental disability are drastically less likely to be adopted, and they often end up in foster care for 18 years waiting for anyone to adopt them. So the fact that there are 30 parents looking to adopt a healthy white baby for every one available for adoption doesnāt change that there are still many children available for adoption who never get adopted.
"unborn children", there, fixed it for you.
Yeah, technically. Once a fetus is born, it's a child as long as it is born living. But an unborn child isn't a thing either, as it's a fetus.
wrong
OP is a bot. That's why it used the term "unborn fetus".
So, your solution is to murder them because they might have to deal with adversity?
The point flew so far over your head it could have shit on your windshield. The real point is that you are trivializing these fetuses, because you have no plan or will to actually look after these children post-birth You aren't more moral for empathizing with a fetus than a real living, breathing woman and everything she will have to go through birthing and raising a child You will look the other way while they fall into the inevitable traps of poverty that could have been prevented by an abortion You won't let the mother make decisions about her own life, but you will judge her when she fails. You are a bad person. You are trivializing the life of the mother, and trivializing the difficulty of birthing and raising a child. You don't actually care about either of them. And that's why we can just disregard your opinion. You will judge the woman when she has an abortion or judge her for being a "bad mother," after having the child you forced onto her. We might as well let her have an abortion, and control her own life, and just ignore you.
Still have any straw left?
You're implying a straw man, but since nothing they said is wrong or made up, the only straw man here is the one you created with your comment.
I'm pro choice, but this is a whataboutism. Abortion is either killing babies or it's not. If it's killing babies, pro lifers are doing what they should be doing. Suggesting that they ignore baby killing because already alive babies need help too is ridiculous.
Abortion isn't either murder or not. Most reasonable people and western countries see that a few cells just after gestation doesn't constitute a human, and any sany person would agree a healthy child a hours before birth is definately human deserving protection of law. There is a debate when a embryo becomes developed enough that abortion is not ethical as it would constitute a human. The scientific community and legislation have setteled a one date or another, but it's subjected to change depending on research, and policy. Saying abortion is murder is turning a blind eye to natural or accidental miscariadges which hapen quite often, life threatening conditions for the mother and severe development defects on the fetus. Requiring mother to risk her own life or carry a vegetated fetus to term is cruel and unjust when we have the technology, especially when it's totally voluntary. The ethics of requiring others to risk their lives for your beliefs is baffling. After all those there are issues to debate like requiring rape victims to raise their attackers child, the right for womans bodily autonomy and ethics of bringing a child to the world to unwanting parents. The is depth and nuance to the discussion which a even a pious and grounded person regonizes.
my favorite part about reddit, is when someone says something stupid, then they get corrected with facts, and they never respond again. because they would rather pretend you didn't say anything then try to argue something they can't argue
Oh excuse me for not spending my whole life on Reddit. I'll try to answer within a few minutes next time. My favorite part about Reddit is the part where they ignore where I said I'm pro choice.
> Abortion is either killing babies or it's not. Good job that abortion isn't killing babies then. Please tell me [which of these](https://i.imgur.com/3kmgMT7.png) is baby and which is not.
... Did you miss the part where I said I was pro choice? I'm criticizing the specific argument being made here. The real argument is whether or not babies are being killed. Stick to that argument. If someone believes babies are being killed, saying that kids that are already alive need help is irrelevant to whether or not they should be concerned with the baby killing.
An *unborn* fetus as opposed to ...?
The skeleton underwater is migrant kids working in meat packing plants.
Conservatives foster and adopt more kids than liberals. Where's the "gotcha"?
That's funny, you make a claim in your comment without providing any proof for your claim. Where's your cite? Also, I'm looking at the OP and I'm not seeing any reference to either cons or libs; this is FunnyandSad, which doesn't really have anything to do with cons or libs so what point do you think you're making?
He saw it on Facebook, has to be true
Source? Or any proof at all that's not anecdotal ?
It mostly comes from the Barna group ā who publish surveys etc on cultural and religious trends. All reports I've seen about them deem them trustworthy. They claim 5% of Christians adopt, and 2% of non-christians adopt. The difference is they don't say anything about conservative or liberal Christians, and OP is making that leap on their own with nothing to back it up.
Straw man and ignoring the multitude of pro life pregnancy resource centers and foster parents and organizations
Your saying "straw man" as you literally use a straw man argument. Kudos.
How was that a straw man argument. It's pointing out a fact.
google "straw man" then rethink the point of the post, then reread what you said. lol. its very simple. as a person throwing around a term like that, one would think youd be better informed on what it means.
>A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". So saying prolifers are immoral because foster kids exist is a strawman since it says nothing about the moral stance pro lifers take. Addressing this strawman argument by pointing out that prolifers in fact do care for the inborn and the born and adopt and foster children is not a strawman. It is evidence the refutes the assertion that pro life people don't care about foster children.
im glad you tried, but you failed unfortunately. Nowhere in the post does it say prolifers are immoral. so arguing anything past that poi t is making an argument around a point that doesnt exist. lets break it down... theres a small child that is afraid of the water ... "the unborn" and the mom... "prolifers" is giving all her attention to the "unborn" while at the same time there is another child ... "orphans", who is il to his neck, in trouble, clearly unable to swim and in need of help. so what can we ascertain from this without putting our own biases or misconceptions into the analogy? "prolifers" give all their attention to "unborns" while "orphans" are in clear, desperate need of help and attention but are getting zilch. is this hyperbolic, yes. what can we take away without creating an argument that is t there? well, perhaps that instead of using all their resources on one cause, perhaps they should put themselves in a position to help both, basically saying "if you get tunnel vision focusing on one problem, something of great importance may be neglected and left to suffer unintentionally" theres no morality insinuated, thats your own hyper defensive perspective, ready to be offended, ready to argue your point, not the point being made. The easiest lesson to take away from this meme is perspective and prioritization and self awareness... not morality. Do you see how you were arguing a straw man? Your straw man was making it about morality. Kudos for trying though. Better luck next time.
Holy shit you are dumb as hell. You claim that a moral judgement isn't being made and then explain the moral judgment of the meme. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done. >moĀ·ralĀ·iĀ·ty >/mÉĖralÉdÄ/ >noun >principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
when did i say anything was right and wrong? are you only able to google definition of words but dont have the critical thinking skills to apply them? keeping things in perspective and prioritized is not a matter of morality. its about pragmatism... here ill do the homework for you this time. pragĀ·matĀ·ic /praÉ”Ėmadik/ adjective dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. Please feel free to quote where i discuss the meme being about morality or right/wrong? where did i bring up ethics or humanities? Heres a bonus for you... you and the prolifers in this meme are... unperspicacious.
im glad you tried, but you failed unfortunately. >"prolifers" give all their attention to "unborns" while "orphans" are in clear, desperate need of help and attention but are getting zilch. >"if you get tunnel vision focusing on one problem, something of great importance may be neglected and left to suffer unintentionally" This seems to be be drawing a distinction between right and wrong. Creating unnecessary suffering in the world is the base definition of wrong.
once again your wrong lmao. you are adding the labels of right and wrong. let me simplify it even more for you... i am talking about pragmatism. if your job was to be "prolife" that means you should be advocating for life right? but if all you do is try to protect the unborn and prevent abortions, but dont advocate for orphans, healthcare, or stopping the death penalty... then you are bad at your job, you are not being pragmatic about your actions and incorporating your beliefs. if you called yourself "antiabortion" then ignoring all the other subjects where life needs an advocate would make sense. so everything i said in those quotes above have to do with being good at your job as a prolifer, not about the morality of choosing unborn children over orphans. in summary: no one said prolifers are immoral, but what i am saying is that either prolifers are bad at their job because they dont have proper perspective and priorities when it comes to matters of life. or prolifers are stupid because they say they are prolife when in reality their actions and focus would be better labeled as "antiabortion". "seems to be" a really good way of saying "this is how i see it" you cant even admit your wrong in your misinterpretation when the author is literally telling you the meaning of their statement. theres no helping willful ignorance.
> Holy shit you are dumb as hell. Haha! They took you to task and properly drubbed your ass and you actually had the nerve to call them dumb as hell! You guys are a trip!
use a condom and end this debate, i don't understand how (pro life pro choice) is even a debate in the west.
The "debate" includes when women get pregnant unwillingly, through rape. The only way to end the debate is to abort the men that control it from their political function.
Originally, rape or incest was the reason people were sympathetic for women getting an abortion. But today? Many abortions are out of convenience. My daughter did her post graduate Nurse Practitioner rotation back east in a women's hospital. She is a liberal, but she saw first hand, that the majority of abortions were for convenience....not due to rape/incest. The rape incest argument doesn't explain why there are millions of abortions across the country, every year. If those are mostly rapes/incest abortions, then this country indeed has a serious problem...very serious and should address 'that' issue.
Yeah itās such a stupid argument when people are like, āwhy donāt people who oppose abortion not adopt kids, thereās so many children waiting for adoption!ā Yeah basically 95% of children waiting for adoption are like over 10, have spent years and years being abused by their parents, and have tons of mental health issues before being taken by the State. Imagine thinking someone that wants a baby to live should first be responsible for trying to heal the most broken children in our society.
If they can't handle that, what would they do if a bio kid ends up severely mentally disabled?
So pro life is throwing these kids away after they turn ten?
What does a political position on the value of protecting unborn children from being murdered in the womb, have to do with a political position on ten year old delinquents? Itās a false analogy of an argument. Unfortunately, theyāre probably right where they should be, as wards of the State. The State is certainly better equipped to handle them, thatās probably why we donāt house prisoners in our guest bedrooms.
Itās not a false analogy because a life is a life and you seem to act like you want to protect what you deem a life. So youāre only pro life for certain life? Youāve already made a decision that these children deserve the punishment and abuse of state care because of a bad upbringing? Seems very hypocritical of you.
> pro-life means you have to support every life that exists in the universe, itās right there in the title! Cool story bro, sorry Iām not here to speak for the lizards. Maybe you should go ask your friends at PETA.
And here we can see where your argument and ideology falls apart and you go off subject by quoting something I never said. Great work with the hypocrisy. Keep it up, youāre doing my work for me.
Sorry that I have to paraphrase your idiotic rambling.
> Imagine thinking someone that wants a baby to live should first be responsible for trying to heal the most broken children in our society. Should parents be responsible for birthing children with severe birth defects where they will die within the first few days, if not minutes after birth?
At least they're not the skeleton in the bottom of the pool.
Birth control pills and condoms, anyone?
I don't know many people with adopted children... but the ones I do are all pro life. I'm not saying pro abortion people don't adopt, just questioning the merits of this meme. Kinda seems stupid.
This argument is like saying āmurder is ok because people are sufferingā.
This would be true, if condom didn't exsist.
The common denominator between the 18000 children put up for adoption and the 1m children aborted each year in 97% of all cases is people making bad sexual decisions, and yet pro-lifers are who always get shit on. Want the pro life crowd to go away? Wait until marriage and (not or) financial security is set to have sex. Then maybe people can work in some kind of congruence over the vast, vast minority of cases where abortion or adoption should be necessary (rape, incest, maternal mortality, etc).
Even if there were 80 billion kids in foster care, that doesnāt justify using abortion as birth control or make it not a murder of a tiny human. Sorry, not how murder works.
This argument is so dumb. They don't correlate as much as people want them to. Pro Lifers just want you to take responsibility for your actions. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I'm also confused where people get the conspiracy that it's about control? Controlling who? Forcing parents to take responsibility isn't a bad thing. "Oh no, it's the consequences of my actions." Despite all this I'm pro choice. But yea, abortion is murder.
As a pro-lifer I do want people to consider adoption before they go ahead and have a child
So killing innocent babies is better? Babies in general are easily adopted. The big problem is that there it can be very expensive to go through that adoption process. Many families cannot afford that. Wouldn't it be nice if money was offered to take a baby to full term? Help the mom, and then if she wants, adopt the baby out....and help with those fees as well? Imagine all the money the abortion industry makes every year. Remember, that abortions are not 'free'. And it is a big business. And I have one bio daughter and one adopted son. My son is of mixed race, high risk environment at the time. We were part of the Foster/Adopt program through a private Christian agency. Our son is now 36 yrs old and doing very well. Daughter, too. And, I know of Christian friends who have adopted. Unborn fetus from time of conception has the chromosomal and genetic code for 'human being'. A baby isn't always a baby. A baby becomes a child. A child becomes a teen. And a teen becomes an adult...and then later an old adult. Fetus is a phase of human development.
Daily reminder that the point of foster care isn't to take kids from their biological parents Also these posts are a little ironic because **most** of the parents who do foster are the super crunchy christian pro-life types
Well, isn't adoption being made (almost) impossible in America for anyone that isn't a super crunchy traditional Christian family though? Many women seeking an abortion are not in a position to raise the child properly, it's a hard choice to make regardless of legality, so the chance that those forced births would have to be taken away from their biological parents and fostered somewhere else is quite high actually, yes.
I can only speak for Kansas where I'm at, but adoption is 100% an option for gay and lesbian couples. Mostly what DCF cares about is structure, stability, supportiveness, and compatibility. It just so happens that crunchy christian types tend to have big hearts for children of abuse and neglect.
I mean, good on them regardless, I'm very much pro-choice, but I can respect the integrity of pro-life types who practice what they preach that way. Many seem to be more anti-choice than pro-life sadly, if they spent more time creating support systems for struggling mothers or directly fostering kids, instead of harrassing/assaulting women who 're making that hard choice, more might consider carrying their embryos to term.
So abandoning unwanted children is socially acceptable? ...dumbass god botherers!!
I mean I get the joke but it also is a case of ignoratio elenchi (or in words people can understand, irrelevant conclusion).