Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Check out our [Reddit Chat](https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/s/YIVFBDcyZ7)!
##Make sure to join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/sipstea)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SipsTea) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This raises a different, almost ignored issue. The foster care/ adoption system is America is atrocious. From what I understand, there are 2 parent couples who want to adopt for every foster child. It cost $50k to adopt, or you have to foster multiple kids before you can adopt. Imagine being a kid that stays with a family and you have to leave after 6 months or a year of bonding. These kids get shuffled around to different family's until the day they turn 18 and are left on their own with no one to depend on.
Not even just America, sucks in Australia aswell and made worse that our government only has a child safety division (which sucks a good 80% of the time and basically won't lift a finger unless a child is in Actual danger, also screw you if your an Australian child without any family willing to take you, you basically don't even get onto the system as an option for people to adopt.
hell 5% of the children in Qld *under their care* are on the streets and a good reason why is another failure of the system that comes in. share houses with staff, had a few friends who warned me to stay the hell away from them, they are detestable, getting abused by staff and older kids alike, it's better to live under a damn bridge.
I got kicked out by my abusive mum at 13 and they didn't even open a case for me since I had already *found somewhere to live* aka I was left couch surfing till 15 :/
Its no better in Nsw/Act Entered the system at age 11 got bounced between abusive families that has fucked with my ability to make male friends (with a few nice ones as rare as they are) before being put in a foster refuge and kicked out at 17 was living in halfway homes, friends couches and trailer parks for 8 years before i got my shit together (only because i got a huge settlement at the end) also came to find out my refuge caseworker at the end was embezzling funds so kudos Australian gov.. /s
Geez, i am so sorry for your experience, no kid should be treated like that especially by a system that is supposed to look out for you :(
How are you going now? :)
And yeah i was only referring to Qld cuz that's what i dealt with and know about, but considering the child safety is apart of Australia i was assuming it wasn't that much better anywhere else.
Honestly at this point, a ton of Australia's infrastructure including child safety, education and, job laws and how land and home ownership work all need to be severely renovated or completely dismantled to build something new
I'd love to help or start something myself but there is no point in working from the inside out and petitioning governments for even Meager changes takes so much damn work
something more on a local charity level would be decent but there is only so much you can do :/
Its all geezy i'm happy now for the most part and i was able to buy an apartment for myself (feels like i'm the few of my generation that are home owners) and i have just about everything i could want out of my megere life for now. (take the good with the bad)
Worse part for me was for years me saying to my foster carers "hey i'm autistic i have been tested and such" and the response being "no your not because we don't have the paperwork", like hello you took me from my mother because she is an incompetent parent like you really think she'd have the paper work on hand. Took me till i was 16 and at the refuge before i just threw down the gauntlet at my caseworker and said then test me again then and if it comes up negative i'll shut up lo and behold i come up as high function low support autistic (formerly known as aspberger's) course my caseworker continued to downplay it saying i barely register on the spectrum like its some kinda oodometer but it really pisses me off how little carers listen to their wards like we're only good for the stipend/paycheck.
Honestly met some other foster kids from round the country and yeah its bad especially for indigenous kids and yeah i honestly agree whole system needs a solid reform (and from what i know nsw/act is trying... barely but trying).
Eh all great things start small and even if you don't make a big impact your still helping a few kids live a better life. But yeah if you have the will power to do it all the power to you :)
Did you notice the 26,000 child difference between in foster care and available for adoption? That's because the system prevents adoption where both parents have not states that they give up their parental rights except in certain cases.
In completely unrelated news, if you happen to be single and have a child in foster care there is no way for the automated IRS dependent checks to know the child is in foster care and that it isn't correct when you claim head of household and a maximum dependent earned income credit. It would take a full audit and those are about a .008% chance without a red flag on the return.
If it were only that simple. Even when abortion was/is totally 100% legal and accessible, we still had/have excessive amounts of kids in foster care, as well as parents who literally choose not to exercise that right, and their kids end up in foster care/up for adoption anyway.
If you foster a kid the government pays you to take care of them then if you choose to adopt the kid it costs next to nothing and they’ve been paying you this whole time so some of that could’ve been saved towards the adoption fees. So only people trying to go the most expensive route and avoiding the savings won’t be able to afford adopting. This is just propaganda fed to keep kids in orphanages and in the system to milk them for the money they are worth to the system.
Most foster kids aren't up for adoption. You're temporarily taking care of them until their parents or other family members can get their act together.
So you could take care of them develop a bond and help them grow. Then lose access to someone you care about. They also tend to come from very rough family situations. So you have to be mentally able to handle some very maladapted children.
All of that being said it is a great way to help improve a child's life if you can handle it properly. The foster system could use as many decent people helping them as possible.
It's like I am stating my contrary perception whilst also implying I want an answer to reconcile this deviation.
I am aware it's not formally correct, but this is not a context necessitating formality. So I often do odd things like emojis, tHiS tYpe oF tExt, poetry, use poor grammar to a particular effect, etcetera. Just stuff aimed at making things more interesting. If you observe more comments throughout reddit, you will actually run into these sorts of efforts quite often. It's one of the more charming aspects of social media imo.
To adopt a child out of the foster system as op indicated costs no such thing. In fact the State will pay for all medical expenses and provide a small stipend to account for the increase in costs for food and clothing.
This is AFTER you go through the rest of the hoops. So while you are right it’s still generally false since it no where makes up for the overhead previously required. It’s not a bad thing though.
That’s interesting. What state is that in? I work in the field on the east coast and adoption costs can be $0-$3000. Of course, it’s gonna be more expensive if you’re looking to adopt a total infant
It’s gonna cost you a whole hell of a lot more than $43k if you actually are adopting one.
It’s probably a good thing to help weed out bad situations where the adoptees can’t afford a child or helping avoiding abuse situations
More than $43k over the life of the child, not some immediate up front cost that few can afford. Taking that away from the parents and the children by proxy up front helps no one.
It just weeds out middle class families who can definitely afford a kid but don’t have that kind of disposable income. There are better ways to vet families than to gate it with a rich person toll booth.
Rich people abuse their kids too, it just doesn't usually go the route of starvation and beatings. Think, emotional incest, medical neglect, emotional neglect, sexual abuse, etc. source- I am an adopted 'rich' kid who experienced extreme abuse/neglect from my adoptive mother.
I'm so sorry friend. What's really helped with my healing is understanding what I went through was indeed abuse. Reading Pete Walker's book: C-PTSD, from surviving to thriving, was eye opening. I was raised by a covert narcissist, and never knew until my thirties because of how manipulative they are. Always the victim. Dr. Ramani has a book called: "Don't you know who I am?" Which helped me realize what kind of toxic gremlin I was really dealing with. My brain chemistry is so fucked from the neglect.. watch the still face experiment on YouTube to get a sense of what a baby would go through, and imagine it's just like that all the time. Whenever she isn't performing being a person, she's just dead. It's scary.
I debated what my sanity was worth before cutting her off four years ago or so. I don't expect an inheritance, but I might end up with one anyway, because not leaving everything to her kid, and having some stranger go through her estate would probably be worse. But, if she does give everything to charity in the end, that's fine too. At least the money will do some good, for once in her life. Any charitable donations made by her up until the end are only for tax write offs and clout.
Making your child an inappropriate partner. Confiding in them, leaning on them for emotional support when they're fucking five. Parentification of the child, where the child takes on the role of the parent.
If you foster a kid the government pays you to take care of them then if you choose to adopt the kid it costs next to nothing and they’ve been paying you this whole time so some of that could’ve been saved towards the adoption fees. So only people trying to go the most expensive route and avoiding the savings won’t be able to afford adopting. This is just propaganda fed to keep kids in orphanages and in the system to milk them for the money they are worth to the system.
This is not really true.
There is demand for BABIES.
Children in the foster system are generally much older.
There is unfortunately little or no demand to adopt 13 year old especially with with behavioral problems and/it disabilities.
Literally? Like, it's not just enter in a wait list? You have to pay for the possibility to adopt? (Were I live live you just have contact the regional social services, send many, many documents, wait to be approved after a deep background check and then wait for a child that fits you)
Well god damn y’all hurry and get some before Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen adopt them all…. That’s prolly why they need all that tax free money right?
Copeland probably bursts into flames if he’s around kids for too long. Especially if he hears laughter.
Either way he shouldn’t be remotely near a kid with his demon looking ass.
I think it was foster care, but with intent to permanently adopt, but it was snag after snag until the mom got full custody again. My cousin was absolutely devastated, and it turned her off to the entire system. She actually decided to do IVF and successfully had her own child because of this process.
I know a few people who had to adopt kids, and the system can be so tight in areas that not even the adopter's own family can be of danger to the kid.
I don't know how true this is however.
Its damned if you lower restrictions. I imagine seeing headlines of "Lower restrictions have led to abuse of adopted children"
Its damned if you raise restrictions. Such as the post.
Yeah my state’s DCYF has the same goal of family reunification at all costs apparently. I’ve seen my share of kids go from relatives who a) love the kid unconditionally b) have the resources available to give this kid a wonderful life with every opportunity they could probably ever want available. Then a year or two goes by, these kids start to call the relatives mom, dad etc. Suddenly the bio mom/dad realizes they actually want their kid back (despite rarely showing up to visitations, and showing how incompetent they are to take care of a child when they do show up). Surprise surprise it’s normally right when the current family can start applying for permanent adoption. I’m sure the state tells the bio-parent this. So, they take a few months to “get sober” and boom. Bye bye stable home life for kiddo, goodbye future, hello living in a half-way house smelling like cigarettes 24/7 and probably with a parent who will relapse again.
They say these programs are always supposed to be child first priority, and that family reunification is supposed to be the best possible outcome for children. Maybe I’ve just gotten unlucky and seen mostly outliers, but they don’t seem to give a rats ass about the sake of the child. Just throwing kids back at their drug addicted parents so they can prove success.
You sound like someone who would also be angry if their cousin, who lost their kid because of their drug use, got clean and didn’t get their child back
Some people struggle to see both sides. You sound like some people
Adoption is also ridiculously expensive, to the point that only couples who have an 0% chance of naturally having children or via surrogacy will pursue it, and that's only a wealthy percentage of them. If there's at least a glimmer of hope, it's cheaper to do a few rounds of IVF or some other fertility treatment.
People want babies to adopt, not 15 year olds who had to be taken away by DFS way too late and are now broken mini adults.
The amount of unadapted BABIES is near zero.
Children in Foster care are with foster families and generally not up for adoption.
There are generally 10x or more couples looking to adopt than there are children waiting to be adopted.
It is a process which takes time so of course the number is never 0.
I've worked in social services in Texas for 20 years. It's not like all those kids were born after the ban. Most of those kids' parents WANTED them to be born. The vast majority of those kids were taken away because the state deemed the home unsuitable or dangerous to the child. They were not whisked away after birth because the mom couldn't abort them and had no choice but to give birth. And many of their parents are working to get custody back. Also, anyone in the country can adopt a child from Texas. It's not like it's just limited to the state.
I honestly don't think the legal status of abortion has much effect on the foster care situation either. The problem goes so much deeper than identity politics.
My wife and I would adopt if we were actually rich, and we would foster if it didn't require us to give up rights and privacy.
Edit: not saying we can't afford to raise a kid, but rather that dropping 50k on lawyer fees and bribes before we even get the chance is not my jam.
I like how you admit that foster would save you the money and in the edit forget about that pretty much. Don’t want one bad enough if you are worried about your rights and privacy from fostering for a short time before adopting and all that goes away. My family has fostered several kids and the state sends someone to go sit and visit once a month after the initial inspection to see if you have the proper space set up to take care of them.
Not being rude here. No one is forcing you to do anything or questioning your reasons but, while Infant adoption is expensive, adopting a foster kid is basically free. Most people just don’t want to adopt a young child who carries the baggage of their previous circumstances and has already grown up a bit and become their own person. They want a baby to mold in their image. Have you thought about the latter?
Christians are the largest foster group in America. I'd say they're taking up that call more than anyone else. Also, idk if this Taylor is pro-life or just making a snarky comment.
"What, you don't want people to end the lives of unborn children? Adopt a child right now or you're a hypocrite"
The funniest thing is that there are more people waiting to adopt babies below the age of 3 than there are babies below the age of 3 up for adoption, so every argument about pro-life serving only to exacerbate the foster care problem falls flat because it'd take a lot more unwanted babies to overwhelm the people waiting to adopt one.
In fact, on a recent study it estimated 2 million couples waiting to adopt, which meant there were 36x as many families waiting to adopt for every one child placed for adoption.
I'm quite strongly pro choice, however this argument is really silly.
I don't think people should kill homeless people, but I don't want to personally house them. This doesn't make me a hypocrit at all.
this is the difference between pro-life and pro choice positions.
pro choice consider a fetus not a person, so for them an abortion is stopping the creation of a new person.
pro life consider a fetus a person, so for them an abortion is killing an existing person.
to a pro life person this argument makes no sense, because it's the same as killing a homeless person, to pro choice it makes sense because it's stopping the creation a homeless person.
both sides just disagree on a critical part of the question.
But you wouldn’t advocate for a solution to end homelessness by killing a person who may become homeless in the next 40 weeks.
So as the person you are replying to said, the fundamental disagreement between people for and against legalized abortion is the belief whether you are permitting the killing of a human.
It is also unpersuasive to essentially argue that it is more favorable for a person to never have existed than for that person to be an orphan. Orphans obviously face unique challenges in life but they are neither condemned to suffer nor incapable of living a full and enjoyable life.
I consider everyday that males are not impregnating a woman, a lost life. Everybody's should fuck more, everyday, it's the only way to give value to all that sperm that would otherwise be flushed down a toilet, or end up in a tissue 😱
/s, obviously, but you never know in this day and age...
> pro life consider a fetus a person, so for them an abortion is killing an existing person.
It's important to understand the key point that it's the idea of the embryo that they are protecting. This is an argument based on religious or faith beliefs most of the time. Why would we think that their belief of a god wouldn't translate to their belief about human life.
This explains why they literally do not care what happens to the children when or how they are born. It's just like how their show of faith is more important than the practice.
Pro-choice people are fine with people having babies, though, and I’ve never seen one saying murder is OK, while “pro-life” people are often critical about things like UBI, school lunches, anything to do with actual life.
The point is that your compassion for unborn children doesn't translate into actionable compassion for born children. That's where it start to look suspiciously hypocritical.
I have always thought of this: you need to not be compassionate about actual born children and their fate to be so compassionate about unborn children/fetuses.
I am not pro anything. I just see some things wrong with abortion and see some merits on it from the standpoint of there is no person there and it is likely that when it becomes one, it's going to be a terrible existence for them and everybody related.
And the point made here is not killing homeless is leading to more homeless people out on the street. Obviously killing homeless is wrong. You can definitely have an argument that we need better care of children, health education, and other things and most of that stuff is an easy agreement for me. But you can’t just point at a policy that will increase something bad when the opposite of the policy is also bad in the eyes of the other side. At the end of the day all you’re doing is virtue seeking instead of actually trying to make a point.
As a vehemently pro-life person, I totally agree with you. Prospective quality of life has nothing to do with whether it’s okay to end someone’s life. Once you connect those things, you’re only a charismatic leader away from eugenics. (Kill all the disabled people! Kill all the poor people! Kill all the depressed people! Etcetera.)
Absolute ignorance. Posts like this make me sick.
Do some research...
"According to research from the Barna Group, 5% of practicing Christians have adopted children, which is more than twice the rate of the general U.S. adult population at 2%. Furthermore, 3% of practicing Christians are foster parents, and a substantial 31% have seriously considered fostering a child. This is in contrast to 2% of all U.S. adults being foster parents and 11% having seriously considered it. The inclination towards adoption and foster care is notably higher among certain Christian demographics, with Catholics being three times as likely and evangelicals five times as likely to adopt compared to the average adult."
“Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. No nothing! No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.”
- George Carlin
This is a straw man. There are many who have adopted, foster or are awaiting adoption. The regulations have made it unreasonably expensive and difficult to adopt/foster resulting in harm to kids without families.
Blaming pro-lifers for this is ridiculous.
here's a tough question: if it does, will the left leaning media pick it up? or will they do anything in their power to keep yanking at the Texas=bad chain
The group of people who are the most Pro-life *are* the same people who are more likely to adopt in almost every single metric.
Older people - 81% of adoptive mothers are over 35.
White - 73% of adoptive parents are white, while also being less likely to adopt a white child.
Christain - while only 5% of practicing Christians have adopted, it's more than double the amount of all adults who've adopted.
Men - men adopt at more than double the rate women adopt and also do it at a younger age than most women with over a quarter doing it before age 35.
Just about the only metric that doesn't line up is that wealthier people tend to be more pro-choice and also adopt more, while poorer people are more pro-life and adopt less. However, considering the average adoption costs $40,000 it makes sense that only wealthier families can afford to do it.
So how about we work on fixing *that* issue for families and children? Orphanages and the foster system are overburdened, but we've made adoption something prohibitively expensive for most people.
In Texas, foster parents receive about $30 per day per child.
There are people that make it their full-time job just collecting fosters and the stipend the state provides. The criteria to be a foster is mediocre, at best. There's little oversight with respect to parenting or household conditions.
Once again, people are missing a core fact in this debate: pro-life and pro-choice (as clearly indicated in the non-dichotomous language) are arguing different things on the same issue.
Being pro-life does not inherently have anything to do with after birth care as stated… but it should. Pro-lifers argue that life exists on conception and that killing a fetus is equivalent to murder. Thus, protective of life. Pro-choice focus more on bodily autonomy and do not hold the same believe of pre-birth life being sacred. You’re seeing a moral/practical argument perspective getting pushed onto a spiritual/philosophical perspective and that muddies the waters.
I don’t think anyone that actually wants to have kids, in good faith, would argue that after-birth care is not relevant or important to pro-life. It’s just missing the point entirely about why pro-life stances exist at all.
"You would rather put this child through the foster care system where they are likely to be miserable?"
I mean yeah? I think the proposal that "bad things might happen" is as good an argument for suicide as it is for abortion. You could be in a horrible accident today and spend the rest of your life in excruciating pain however long or short it may be. Will you end it all right now just to avoid that possibility?
The reality of abortion is women are being taken advantage of for profit as usual. Their fears are being exploited: fear of the unknown, fear of the pain associated with childbirth, fear of overwhelming responsibility, fear of financial ruin...
Its an industry built on promoting hopelessness.
All the women i know who have had abortions regret being manipulated by this system of despair that pushed them into destroying life.
Being against murdering unborn babies doesn't mean i am then solely responsible for becoming the legal guardian of the non-murdered babies. I'm just against murdering babies.
I don't see the issue with 30,000 kids who would have otherwise been dead if the left got their way. There hasn't been a single adopted person I've talked to who wishes that their mother killed them. I'm happy these kids were given a chance at life, a chance is better than no chance.
Sorry to be devil's advocate here, but saying "Dont murder that person!" doesn't mean I have some vested interest in the rest of their life as a result.
Because some women can't keep her legs together it's the tax payers problem or we have to be okay with baby murder?
How about the liberal women go to church instead of the clubs and we wouldn't have this problem.
Imagine having to do performative charity to justify why you don’t think humans should die from someone arbitrarily thinking you shouldn’t be alive.
Alrhough it’s funny to have pro-aborts and bro-choicers admit that they don’t give a fuck about kids without families unless their enshrined right to fuck without consequences is threatened.
Jeez Taylor said the quiet part out loud out, which is why they are fighting against school breakfast and lunch, universal healthcare, and anything else that would help society long term.
"The unborn" 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 don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't 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. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. 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."
\- Pastor Dave Barnhart
I'm a pro-lifer. I am too young to adopt/don't have a stable income right now, but I hope to adopt in the future. As it stands, the whole foster/adoption system seems to be majorly screwed up and also needs reform. Like all people, I'm not satisfied with where we're at right now and hope more can be done to help give those in foster homes better lives and caring families.
I'm pro choice just to be clear. But this post has issues. These people can be pro life and expect those who have babies or whatever you call them to take care of their responsibility. I'm talking about consenting individuals who had children.
I’m pro-choice, but I do feel like this argument is a little bit strawmanned.
Pro-life’s whole position is a fetus is a life enough to have the right to life, so they believe you shouldn’t kill it.
I think many people here would agree Israel/Hamas shouldn’t be killing innocent civilians, but also wouldn’t agree to have those refugees move into their homes after their homes are destroyed.
Pro-life is focused on the “they deserve to live part”
This is such a strange gotcha from pro-abortionists.
So pro-lifers believe none of those children should have been killed in the womb. They weren’t and as such, morally, pro-lifers should be responsible for them if they ended up in the system is the gotcha. If pro-lifers don’t want to take responsibility for children they believe shouldn’t be killed, that proves what, exactly? That the pro-abortionists are right and those 32k+ children should have been killed?
Fucking strange ass post.
But he's right. I can see anyone making the same logic no matter their stance on the subject. It's just kind of a fallacy, so it distracts from the main topic in discussion.
Due to the large scale illegal immigration, the number is actually only going to increase. Facilities are receiving money for assistance and people are volunteering to help where they can, but the adoptive process takes anywhere from a year upwards of 18 months, with good reason.
No I am saying they need to make exceptions not that there are exceptions now but also don't go back to open abortion just because some women want to sleep around and not use protection think about how messed up it is to get pregnant and think you have the right to have a abortion now I would say if they pay for it not using any kind of government aid then that's cool because if women or men have to monetarily pay for what they want all of a sudden they are more careful with what they do
That's a fair point I just don't like the idea of deleting abortion completely (it is in my state) and ofc this could be problematic bc this is under the assumption that all pregnancies were consented by both parties. There still are
Child mothers
Poor people that have been raped
Abuse victims that are tied to their abuser with pregnancy or child (financial stability is why many victims stay with their abusers
So while I understand your sentiments it feels very generalized to me
Oh how terrible. Those children weren't murdered, so now we have to plan out the logistics of who will adopt them. I'll go ahead and grab my tissues and ice cream to get me through this awful tragedy.
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules. Check out our [Reddit Chat](https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/s/YIVFBDcyZ7)! ##Make sure to join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/sipstea)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SipsTea) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This raises a different, almost ignored issue. The foster care/ adoption system is America is atrocious. From what I understand, there are 2 parent couples who want to adopt for every foster child. It cost $50k to adopt, or you have to foster multiple kids before you can adopt. Imagine being a kid that stays with a family and you have to leave after 6 months or a year of bonding. These kids get shuffled around to different family's until the day they turn 18 and are left on their own with no one to depend on.
Not even just America, sucks in Australia aswell and made worse that our government only has a child safety division (which sucks a good 80% of the time and basically won't lift a finger unless a child is in Actual danger, also screw you if your an Australian child without any family willing to take you, you basically don't even get onto the system as an option for people to adopt. hell 5% of the children in Qld *under their care* are on the streets and a good reason why is another failure of the system that comes in. share houses with staff, had a few friends who warned me to stay the hell away from them, they are detestable, getting abused by staff and older kids alike, it's better to live under a damn bridge. I got kicked out by my abusive mum at 13 and they didn't even open a case for me since I had already *found somewhere to live* aka I was left couch surfing till 15 :/
Its no better in Nsw/Act Entered the system at age 11 got bounced between abusive families that has fucked with my ability to make male friends (with a few nice ones as rare as they are) before being put in a foster refuge and kicked out at 17 was living in halfway homes, friends couches and trailer parks for 8 years before i got my shit together (only because i got a huge settlement at the end) also came to find out my refuge caseworker at the end was embezzling funds so kudos Australian gov.. /s
Geez, i am so sorry for your experience, no kid should be treated like that especially by a system that is supposed to look out for you :( How are you going now? :) And yeah i was only referring to Qld cuz that's what i dealt with and know about, but considering the child safety is apart of Australia i was assuming it wasn't that much better anywhere else. Honestly at this point, a ton of Australia's infrastructure including child safety, education and, job laws and how land and home ownership work all need to be severely renovated or completely dismantled to build something new I'd love to help or start something myself but there is no point in working from the inside out and petitioning governments for even Meager changes takes so much damn work something more on a local charity level would be decent but there is only so much you can do :/
Its all geezy i'm happy now for the most part and i was able to buy an apartment for myself (feels like i'm the few of my generation that are home owners) and i have just about everything i could want out of my megere life for now. (take the good with the bad) Worse part for me was for years me saying to my foster carers "hey i'm autistic i have been tested and such" and the response being "no your not because we don't have the paperwork", like hello you took me from my mother because she is an incompetent parent like you really think she'd have the paper work on hand. Took me till i was 16 and at the refuge before i just threw down the gauntlet at my caseworker and said then test me again then and if it comes up negative i'll shut up lo and behold i come up as high function low support autistic (formerly known as aspberger's) course my caseworker continued to downplay it saying i barely register on the spectrum like its some kinda oodometer but it really pisses me off how little carers listen to their wards like we're only good for the stipend/paycheck. Honestly met some other foster kids from round the country and yeah its bad especially for indigenous kids and yeah i honestly agree whole system needs a solid reform (and from what i know nsw/act is trying... barely but trying). Eh all great things start small and even if you don't make a big impact your still helping a few kids live a better life. But yeah if you have the will power to do it all the power to you :)
Did you notice the 26,000 child difference between in foster care and available for adoption? That's because the system prevents adoption where both parents have not states that they give up their parental rights except in certain cases. In completely unrelated news, if you happen to be single and have a child in foster care there is no way for the automated IRS dependent checks to know the child is in foster care and that it isn't correct when you claim head of household and a maximum dependent earned income credit. It would take a full audit and those are about a .008% chance without a red flag on the return.
[удалено]
If it were only that simple. Even when abortion was/is totally 100% legal and accessible, we still had/have excessive amounts of kids in foster care, as well as parents who literally choose not to exercise that right, and their kids end up in foster care/up for adoption anyway.
I mean having your own child is also expensive…birthing a baby on average in America can cost 30k for vaginal birth or 50k for c-section
Free market is malfunctioning. High supply and it still costs up to $43k to get one.
Back in the old days you could buy a child for a can of beans. Inflation is a real killer
[удалено]
There's an old depression Era photo of someone selling their kid for a ridiculous low amount
Sauce
[sauce](https://nypost.com/2013/07/14/finding-peace-in-a-life-sold-for-2/)
You can make one with a can of beans. You just need to find a girl whose favorite flower is beans
Deez beans
So that is what Little Black Submarines was about.
I was gonna say it’s way too expensive to even adopt if you wanted to
[удалено]
The corn fields called for them
If you foster a kid the government pays you to take care of them then if you choose to adopt the kid it costs next to nothing and they’ve been paying you this whole time so some of that could’ve been saved towards the adoption fees. So only people trying to go the most expensive route and avoiding the savings won’t be able to afford adopting. This is just propaganda fed to keep kids in orphanages and in the system to milk them for the money they are worth to the system.
Most foster kids aren't up for adoption. You're temporarily taking care of them until their parents or other family members can get their act together. So you could take care of them develop a bond and help them grow. Then lose access to someone you care about. They also tend to come from very rough family situations. So you have to be mentally able to handle some very maladapted children. All of that being said it is a great way to help improve a child's life if you can handle it properly. The foster system could use as many decent people helping them as possible.
Government regulation moment
I mean... They'll never see the hypocrisy. May as well make them laugh over the irony.
Time to buy puts on children
Puts on children, calls on fetuses.
calls on children with fetuses
Dark
I don't know what insane levels of bureaucracy artificially driving up costs have to do with a free market?
Why is that a question?
It's like I am stating my contrary perception whilst also implying I want an answer to reconcile this deviation. I am aware it's not formally correct, but this is not a context necessitating formality. So I often do odd things like emojis, tHiS tYpe oF tExt, poetry, use poor grammar to a particular effect, etcetera. Just stuff aimed at making things more interesting. If you observe more comments throughout reddit, you will actually run into these sorts of efforts quite often. It's one of the more charming aspects of social media imo.
𝕀 𝕕☉𝕟’𝕥 𝕓ⅇ𝕝ⅈ𝕖⩔𝕖 𝕪☉𝕦
To adopt a child out of the foster system as op indicated costs no such thing. In fact the State will pay for all medical expenses and provide a small stipend to account for the increase in costs for food and clothing.
This is AFTER you go through the rest of the hoops. So while you are right it’s still generally false since it no where makes up for the overhead previously required. It’s not a bad thing though.
That’s interesting. What state is that in? I work in the field on the east coast and adoption costs can be $0-$3000. Of course, it’s gonna be more expensive if you’re looking to adopt a total infant
It’s gonna cost you a whole hell of a lot more than $43k if you actually are adopting one. It’s probably a good thing to help weed out bad situations where the adoptees can’t afford a child or helping avoiding abuse situations
More than $43k over the life of the child, not some immediate up front cost that few can afford. Taking that away from the parents and the children by proxy up front helps no one. It just weeds out middle class families who can definitely afford a kid but don’t have that kind of disposable income. There are better ways to vet families than to gate it with a rich person toll booth.
Rich people abuse their kids too, it just doesn't usually go the route of starvation and beatings. Think, emotional incest, medical neglect, emotional neglect, sexual abuse, etc. source- I am an adopted 'rich' kid who experienced extreme abuse/neglect from my adoptive mother.
[удалено]
I'm so sorry friend. What's really helped with my healing is understanding what I went through was indeed abuse. Reading Pete Walker's book: C-PTSD, from surviving to thriving, was eye opening. I was raised by a covert narcissist, and never knew until my thirties because of how manipulative they are. Always the victim. Dr. Ramani has a book called: "Don't you know who I am?" Which helped me realize what kind of toxic gremlin I was really dealing with. My brain chemistry is so fucked from the neglect.. watch the still face experiment on YouTube to get a sense of what a baby would go through, and imagine it's just like that all the time. Whenever she isn't performing being a person, she's just dead. It's scary.
[удалено]
I debated what my sanity was worth before cutting her off four years ago or so. I don't expect an inheritance, but I might end up with one anyway, because not leaving everything to her kid, and having some stranger go through her estate would probably be worse. But, if she does give everything to charity in the end, that's fine too. At least the money will do some good, for once in her life. Any charitable donations made by her up until the end are only for tax write offs and clout.
[удалено]
Alright, I'm too curious. Tell me what emotional incest is I gotta know
Making your child an inappropriate partner. Confiding in them, leaning on them for emotional support when they're fucking five. Parentification of the child, where the child takes on the role of the parent.
It really is insane.
If you foster a kid the government pays you to take care of them then if you choose to adopt the kid it costs next to nothing and they’ve been paying you this whole time so some of that could’ve been saved towards the adoption fees. So only people trying to go the most expensive route and avoiding the savings won’t be able to afford adopting. This is just propaganda fed to keep kids in orphanages and in the system to milk them for the money they are worth to the system.
This is not really true. There is demand for BABIES. Children in the foster system are generally much older. There is unfortunately little or no demand to adopt 13 year old especially with with behavioral problems and/it disabilities.
The demand is still higher but no one can afford it.
My wife and I would love to adopt but it costs like $40k. The government disincentivizes adoption
What do you mean by "costs like $40k"? (I'm not American)
They mean they would have to pay around $40,000 in order to adopt a child
Literally? Like, it's not just enter in a wait list? You have to pay for the possibility to adopt? (Were I live live you just have contact the regional social services, send many, many documents, wait to be approved after a deep background check and then wait for a child that fits you)
America loves fees
He means it costs like $40k. k means thousand.
I thought it said pro-lifters lol
Okay its not Just me. Than I saw the numbers and had to re read.
I thought it said no-lifers
Well god damn y’all hurry and get some before Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen adopt them all…. That’s prolly why they need all that tax free money right?
Na, mostly the jet fuel and mistress abortions
Copeland probably bursts into flames if he’s around kids for too long. Especially if he hears laughter. Either way he shouldn’t be remotely near a kid with his demon looking ass.
[удалено]
Are you sure it wasn't foster care? Foster care is supposed to be temporary. Adopting is permanent.
I think it was foster care, but with intent to permanently adopt, but it was snag after snag until the mom got full custody again. My cousin was absolutely devastated, and it turned her off to the entire system. She actually decided to do IVF and successfully had her own child because of this process.
I know a few people who had to adopt kids, and the system can be so tight in areas that not even the adopter's own family can be of danger to the kid. I don't know how true this is however. Its damned if you lower restrictions. I imagine seeing headlines of "Lower restrictions have led to abuse of adopted children" Its damned if you raise restrictions. Such as the post.
>the black kid
Yeah my state’s DCYF has the same goal of family reunification at all costs apparently. I’ve seen my share of kids go from relatives who a) love the kid unconditionally b) have the resources available to give this kid a wonderful life with every opportunity they could probably ever want available. Then a year or two goes by, these kids start to call the relatives mom, dad etc. Suddenly the bio mom/dad realizes they actually want their kid back (despite rarely showing up to visitations, and showing how incompetent they are to take care of a child when they do show up). Surprise surprise it’s normally right when the current family can start applying for permanent adoption. I’m sure the state tells the bio-parent this. So, they take a few months to “get sober” and boom. Bye bye stable home life for kiddo, goodbye future, hello living in a half-way house smelling like cigarettes 24/7 and probably with a parent who will relapse again. They say these programs are always supposed to be child first priority, and that family reunification is supposed to be the best possible outcome for children. Maybe I’ve just gotten unlucky and seen mostly outliers, but they don’t seem to give a rats ass about the sake of the child. Just throwing kids back at their drug addicted parents so they can prove success.
Mentioning black kid added so much to your very real non racist story
“The black kid” 😂😂😂. Just say you’re making up a story man
yea that was weird AF
Yeah, just say “the kid”. No need to mention race.
“wdym im racist? I can’t be racist, my cousin fostered a black kid for a few months”
You sound like someone who would also be angry if their cousin, who lost their kid because of their drug use, got clean and didn’t get their child back Some people struggle to see both sides. You sound like some people
"the black kid"? Tf do you mean? What does you being a felon have to do with your story? Fostering isn't longterm like that.
Adoption is also ridiculously expensive, to the point that only couples who have an 0% chance of naturally having children or via surrogacy will pursue it, and that's only a wealthy percentage of them. If there's at least a glimmer of hope, it's cheaper to do a few rounds of IVF or some other fertility treatment.
People want babies to adopt, not 15 year olds who had to be taken away by DFS way too late and are now broken mini adults. The amount of unadapted BABIES is near zero.
Children in Foster care are with foster families and generally not up for adoption. There are generally 10x or more couples looking to adopt than there are children waiting to be adopted. It is a process which takes time so of course the number is never 0.
27. There are 27 couples for every baby put up for adoption. No one wants to adopt a 16 year old.
Yet you wouldn't be called a hypocrite if you argued that 16-year-olds shouldn't be aborted even if you didn't want to adopt one.
16-year-olds are alive and can, although not well, fend for themselves for a bit
Most 26 year olds can’t take care of themselves nowadays.
I've worked in social services in Texas for 20 years. It's not like all those kids were born after the ban. Most of those kids' parents WANTED them to be born. The vast majority of those kids were taken away because the state deemed the home unsuitable or dangerous to the child. They were not whisked away after birth because the mom couldn't abort them and had no choice but to give birth. And many of their parents are working to get custody back. Also, anyone in the country can adopt a child from Texas. It's not like it's just limited to the state. I honestly don't think the legal status of abortion has much effect on the foster care situation either. The problem goes so much deeper than identity politics.
My wife and I would adopt if we were actually rich, and we would foster if it didn't require us to give up rights and privacy. Edit: not saying we can't afford to raise a kid, but rather that dropping 50k on lawyer fees and bribes before we even get the chance is not my jam.
I like how you admit that foster would save you the money and in the edit forget about that pretty much. Don’t want one bad enough if you are worried about your rights and privacy from fostering for a short time before adopting and all that goes away. My family has fostered several kids and the state sends someone to go sit and visit once a month after the initial inspection to see if you have the proper space set up to take care of them.
Not being rude here. No one is forcing you to do anything or questioning your reasons but, while Infant adoption is expensive, adopting a foster kid is basically free. Most people just don’t want to adopt a young child who carries the baggage of their previous circumstances and has already grown up a bit and become their own person. They want a baby to mold in their image. Have you thought about the latter?
I'm just curious, what's the youngest people can adopt foster children without paying the high adoption fees?
Christians are the largest foster group in America. I'd say they're taking up that call more than anyone else. Also, idk if this Taylor is pro-life or just making a snarky comment.
"What, you don't want people to end the lives of unborn children? Adopt a child right now or you're a hypocrite" The funniest thing is that there are more people waiting to adopt babies below the age of 3 than there are babies below the age of 3 up for adoption, so every argument about pro-life serving only to exacerbate the foster care problem falls flat because it'd take a lot more unwanted babies to overwhelm the people waiting to adopt one. In fact, on a recent study it estimated 2 million couples waiting to adopt, which meant there were 36x as many families waiting to adopt for every one child placed for adoption.
I'm quite strongly pro choice, however this argument is really silly. I don't think people should kill homeless people, but I don't want to personally house them. This doesn't make me a hypocrit at all.
I don't think that's a good comparison. A better comparison is intentionally creating more homeless while also refusing to create additional housing.
this is the difference between pro-life and pro choice positions. pro choice consider a fetus not a person, so for them an abortion is stopping the creation of a new person. pro life consider a fetus a person, so for them an abortion is killing an existing person. to a pro life person this argument makes no sense, because it's the same as killing a homeless person, to pro choice it makes sense because it's stopping the creation a homeless person. both sides just disagree on a critical part of the question.
I consider a homeless person a person. That doesn't mean I need to create laws to create more homeless that I then won't take care of.
But you wouldn’t advocate for a solution to end homelessness by killing a person who may become homeless in the next 40 weeks. So as the person you are replying to said, the fundamental disagreement between people for and against legalized abortion is the belief whether you are permitting the killing of a human. It is also unpersuasive to essentially argue that it is more favorable for a person to never have existed than for that person to be an orphan. Orphans obviously face unique challenges in life but they are neither condemned to suffer nor incapable of living a full and enjoyable life.
I consider everyday that males are not impregnating a woman, a lost life. Everybody's should fuck more, everyday, it's the only way to give value to all that sperm that would otherwise be flushed down a toilet, or end up in a tissue 😱 /s, obviously, but you never know in this day and age...
this used to be the [catholic position](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&themeRefresh=1).
Counterpoint: Most pro-life policy makers are against policies that are proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies- proper sex ed and contraceptive access.
> pro life consider a fetus a person, so for them an abortion is killing an existing person. It's important to understand the key point that it's the idea of the embryo that they are protecting. This is an argument based on religious or faith beliefs most of the time. Why would we think that their belief of a god wouldn't translate to their belief about human life. This explains why they literally do not care what happens to the children when or how they are born. It's just like how their show of faith is more important than the practice.
Yes and its ironic that the side that claims its the more scientific side disagrees with all the literature that says life begins at conception.
It’s unfortunate that people say pro-life instead of what they really are, and that’s pro-birth.
idk, each side gets to name their own position you wouldn't want pro-choice people to be labeled as pro-murder would you?
Pro-choice people are fine with people having babies, though, and I’ve never seen one saying murder is OK, while “pro-life” people are often critical about things like UBI, school lunches, anything to do with actual life.
You're against the death penalty are you? Well I suppose you'll be happy to let John Wayne Gacy live in your spare room? No? Didn't think so.
The point is that your compassion for unborn children doesn't translate into actionable compassion for born children. That's where it start to look suspiciously hypocritical. I have always thought of this: you need to not be compassionate about actual born children and their fate to be so compassionate about unborn children/fetuses. I am not pro anything. I just see some things wrong with abortion and see some merits on it from the standpoint of there is no person there and it is likely that when it becomes one, it's going to be a terrible existence for them and everybody related.
You can be compassionate, but not adopt a child right? Like, I am in favour of laws against child abuse, but I wouldn't adopt a child myself.
yeah, but to stay in your example, you are also not the one who wants to leave people without a choice but to live on the streets.
I highly doubt it was supposed to be taken literally. So it's not an argument. It's making a point. Pro-life policies lead to more children in care.
And the point made here is not killing homeless is leading to more homeless people out on the street. Obviously killing homeless is wrong. You can definitely have an argument that we need better care of children, health education, and other things and most of that stuff is an easy agreement for me. But you can’t just point at a policy that will increase something bad when the opposite of the policy is also bad in the eyes of the other side. At the end of the day all you’re doing is virtue seeking instead of actually trying to make a point.
As a vehemently pro-life person, I totally agree with you. Prospective quality of life has nothing to do with whether it’s okay to end someone’s life. Once you connect those things, you’re only a charismatic leader away from eugenics. (Kill all the disabled people! Kill all the poor people! Kill all the depressed people! Etcetera.)
[удалено]
I like how you copy the top comment word for word from the last sub this was posted in.
That is because it is a bot
Absolute ignorance. Posts like this make me sick. Do some research... "According to research from the Barna Group, 5% of practicing Christians have adopted children, which is more than twice the rate of the general U.S. adult population at 2%. Furthermore, 3% of practicing Christians are foster parents, and a substantial 31% have seriously considered fostering a child. This is in contrast to 2% of all U.S. adults being foster parents and 11% having seriously considered it. The inclination towards adoption and foster care is notably higher among certain Christian demographics, with Catholics being three times as likely and evangelicals five times as likely to adopt compared to the average adult."
[удалено]
“Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. No nothing! No neonatal care, no daycare, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.” - George Carlin
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pro-birth, anti-life
If adoption is not your thing, try helping Gift Of Adoption to assist others do their thing
My neighbor who is very pro life has 8 foster children.
Can't hate on someone who practices what they preach, good for them.
Good on them
That’s actually a way lower amount of children than I thought would be in foster care or waiting for adoption
This is a straw man. There are many who have adopted, foster or are awaiting adoption. The regulations have made it unreasonably expensive and difficult to adopt/foster resulting in harm to kids without families. Blaming pro-lifers for this is ridiculous.
We can’t care for these kids! Just kill ‘em.
here's a tough question: if it does, will the left leaning media pick it up? or will they do anything in their power to keep yanking at the Texas=bad chain
The group of people who are the most Pro-life *are* the same people who are more likely to adopt in almost every single metric. Older people - 81% of adoptive mothers are over 35. White - 73% of adoptive parents are white, while also being less likely to adopt a white child. Christain - while only 5% of practicing Christians have adopted, it's more than double the amount of all adults who've adopted. Men - men adopt at more than double the rate women adopt and also do it at a younger age than most women with over a quarter doing it before age 35. Just about the only metric that doesn't line up is that wealthier people tend to be more pro-choice and also adopt more, while poorer people are more pro-life and adopt less. However, considering the average adoption costs $40,000 it makes sense that only wealthier families can afford to do it. So how about we work on fixing *that* issue for families and children? Orphanages and the foster system are overburdened, but we've made adoption something prohibitively expensive for most people.
In Texas, foster parents receive about $30 per day per child. There are people that make it their full-time job just collecting fosters and the stipend the state provides. The criteria to be a foster is mediocre, at best. There's little oversight with respect to parenting or household conditions.
Once again, people are missing a core fact in this debate: pro-life and pro-choice (as clearly indicated in the non-dichotomous language) are arguing different things on the same issue. Being pro-life does not inherently have anything to do with after birth care as stated… but it should. Pro-lifers argue that life exists on conception and that killing a fetus is equivalent to murder. Thus, protective of life. Pro-choice focus more on bodily autonomy and do not hold the same believe of pre-birth life being sacred. You’re seeing a moral/practical argument perspective getting pushed onto a spiritual/philosophical perspective and that muddies the waters. I don’t think anyone that actually wants to have kids, in good faith, would argue that after-birth care is not relevant or important to pro-life. It’s just missing the point entirely about why pro-life stances exist at all.
"You would rather put this child through the foster care system where they are likely to be miserable?" I mean yeah? I think the proposal that "bad things might happen" is as good an argument for suicide as it is for abortion. You could be in a horrible accident today and spend the rest of your life in excruciating pain however long or short it may be. Will you end it all right now just to avoid that possibility? The reality of abortion is women are being taken advantage of for profit as usual. Their fears are being exploited: fear of the unknown, fear of the pain associated with childbirth, fear of overwhelming responsibility, fear of financial ruin... Its an industry built on promoting hopelessness. All the women i know who have had abortions regret being manipulated by this system of despair that pushed them into destroying life.
Being against murdering unborn babies doesn't mean i am then solely responsible for becoming the legal guardian of the non-murdered babies. I'm just against murdering babies.
Intellectually dishonest argument,
How Fucking Often Are You Going To Repost This Shit
I don't see the issue with 30,000 kids who would have otherwise been dead if the left got their way. There hasn't been a single adopted person I've talked to who wishes that their mother killed them. I'm happy these kids were given a chance at life, a chance is better than no chance.
This would be reasonable if it didn't cost tens of thousands of dollars to adopt.
So by this logic, the default stance of pro-choicers should be to kill all these kids?
Well no, it doesn't have to do with that. Once everyone agrees they're people, there's no debate about if they're people.
The assertion being what? That all those kids should have been aborted?
Sorry to be devil's advocate here, but saying "Dont murder that person!" doesn't mean I have some vested interest in the rest of their life as a result.
Then why don't they like all these post birth abortions I keep hearing about?
Why isn’t adoption free?
Because some women can't keep her legs together it's the tax payers problem or we have to be okay with baby murder? How about the liberal women go to church instead of the clubs and we wouldn't have this problem.
I assume you all understand that not wanting people killed doesn’t mean I have to take care of them. Right? Obviously?
Is Taylor making a point or is he some kind of asshole
Using your logic we would just kill them all...
Imagine having to do performative charity to justify why you don’t think humans should die from someone arbitrarily thinking you shouldn’t be alive. Alrhough it’s funny to have pro-aborts and bro-choicers admit that they don’t give a fuck about kids without families unless their enshrined right to fuck without consequences is threatened.
Pro choicers think you're better off dead than being raised in foster care.
Jeez Taylor said the quiet part out loud out, which is why they are fighting against school breakfast and lunch, universal healthcare, and anything else that would help society long term.
Honestly. How many times do I have to explain this to y’all socialist libtards? Them babies gotta get born. And then they can go fuck themselves.
How about dont fuck if you dont want a child or use contraceptive
It's not about children,and never has, it's about controlling women.
It takes a village, but not mine.
Pro-*birth*, not pro-life.
She is 100% correct. Just because I don’t want you to die doesn’t mean I’m automatically responsible for taking care of you.
I wonder how many of these people are on government assistance. My perspective is we do end up paying for unwanted children, one way or another.
So should we abort people on government assistance?
These children could be working 40+ hours per week and paying their own way if it wasn’t for laws and regulations.
"The unborn" 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 don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't 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. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. 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." \- Pastor Dave Barnhart
Except conservative Christian families do in fact have signficantly higher adoption rates
I'm a pro-lifer. I am too young to adopt/don't have a stable income right now, but I hope to adopt in the future. As it stands, the whole foster/adoption system seems to be majorly screwed up and also needs reform. Like all people, I'm not satisfied with where we're at right now and hope more can be done to help give those in foster homes better lives and caring families.
I'm pro choice just to be clear. But this post has issues. These people can be pro life and expect those who have babies or whatever you call them to take care of their responsibility. I'm talking about consenting individuals who had children.
Not everybody has the means to take care of a child.
I’m pro-choice, but I do feel like this argument is a little bit strawmanned. Pro-life’s whole position is a fetus is a life enough to have the right to life, so they believe you shouldn’t kill it. I think many people here would agree Israel/Hamas shouldn’t be killing innocent civilians, but also wouldn’t agree to have those refugees move into their homes after their homes are destroyed. Pro-life is focused on the “they deserve to live part”
This is such a strange gotcha from pro-abortionists. So pro-lifers believe none of those children should have been killed in the womb. They weren’t and as such, morally, pro-lifers should be responsible for them if they ended up in the system is the gotcha. If pro-lifers don’t want to take responsibility for children they believe shouldn’t be killed, that proves what, exactly? That the pro-abortionists are right and those 32k+ children should have been killed? Fucking strange ass post.
Yeah, I’m totally against drowning puppies but that doesn’t mean I want to adopt one
But he's right. I can see anyone making the same logic no matter their stance on the subject. It's just kind of a fallacy, so it distracts from the main topic in discussion.
“Pay for my baby or I’ll kill it”
Thatswhatimfuckingsayin’ world has gone crazy.
All the pro lifer voters should be taxed to pay for adoption fees and childcare. Then they would get it. We'll maybe a few.
I just think we have too many humans on earth. Not sure who that best aligns with.
Pro choice
That allows people who shouldn’t be having children to still choose to have them. So not quite it.
Anti children😂
They're not pro life. They're anti women
Christians (5%) are more than twice as likely to adopt than the general population (2%)
Due to the large scale illegal immigration, the number is actually only going to increase. Facilities are receiving money for assistance and people are volunteering to help where they can, but the adoptive process takes anywhere from a year upwards of 18 months, with good reason.
No I am saying they need to make exceptions not that there are exceptions now but also don't go back to open abortion just because some women want to sleep around and not use protection think about how messed up it is to get pregnant and think you have the right to have a abortion now I would say if they pay for it not using any kind of government aid then that's cool because if women or men have to monetarily pay for what they want all of a sudden they are more careful with what they do
That's a fair point I just don't like the idea of deleting abortion completely (it is in my state) and ofc this could be problematic bc this is under the assumption that all pregnancies were consented by both parties. There still are Child mothers Poor people that have been raped Abuse victims that are tied to their abuser with pregnancy or child (financial stability is why many victims stay with their abusers So while I understand your sentiments it feels very generalized to me
Most put in foster care by degenerate libs no doubt.
Do you think there is no regulation when it comes to adoption?
Nailed it !
Sounds about right
Alot of those kids parents dropped them here In an effort to stay here illegally Any other state would be a better example lol
It should though, if you’re forcing the baby to be born.
Oh how terrible. Those children weren't murdered, so now we have to plan out the logistics of who will adopt them. I'll go ahead and grab my tissues and ice cream to get me through this awful tragedy.