Roe v Wade struck down

This is the front porch of our forum. Pull up a chair, and talk about whatever's on your mind.
User avatar
MackerelCat
Posts: 7226
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Roe v Wade struck down

Post by MackerelCat »

There are going to be a lot of dead women and dead babies. Abortion didn't magically not happen when it wasn't legal. It happened and it was often deadly. Unwanted babies were abandoned or killed. And back then we at least had orphanages. Not a thing now.

Those who made Roe v. Wade go away don't seem too concerned about what happens to these babies after they are born. They seem to have this rosy, totally unrealistic idea that every baby is going to be born healthy and will magically be wanted and provided for. Food stamps and WIC do not pay for diapers or shoes or babysitters.

If they are so insistent on every child conceived making it to birth, then they need to step up support to mothers and families in a huge way. Is that happening? No. And that's why the last couple of generations of childbearing age are not that interested in having children.
Mackie
mbrudnic
Posts: 4481
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:57 am

Re: Roe v Wade struck down

Post by mbrudnic »

MackerelCat wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:00 pm There are going to be a lot of dead women and dead babies. Abortion didn't magically not happen when it wasn't legal. It happened and it was often deadly. Unwanted babies were abandoned or killed. And back then we at least had orphanages. Not a thing now.

Those who made Roe v. Wade go away don't seem too concerned about what happens to these babies after they are born. They seem to have this rosy, totally unrealistic idea that every baby is going to be born healthy and will magically be wanted and provided for. Food stamps and WIC do not pay for diapers or shoes or babysitters.

If they are so insistent on every child conceived making it to birth, then they need to step up support to mothers and families in a huge way. Is that happening? No. And that's why the last couple of generations of childbearing age are not that interested in having children.
Ok, I know my Church does a lot of support for local Mom and Babies places. Please don't use such a broad brush. pro-lifers do care. We cannot force Mom's to seek out such help.
User avatar
MackerelCat
Posts: 7226
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Roe v Wade struck down

Post by MackerelCat »

My apologies, Maggie. Churches are doing a lot a lot to help mothers and struggling young families, but our government is not offering the same.
Mackie
Quilter51
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:04 pm

Re: Roe v Wade struck down

Post by Quilter51 »

I do believe that pro life people care. But it's not about moms and babies. Moms and babies are sweet and emotional.

Supporting families in crises or whi have unwanted babies or babies they can't afford through the life of a child is a very different thing. Are they willing to help sustain a family a family who can't afford a child or emotionally handle a child throughout the child's life?

From what I can see in general the pro life movement , and im talking politically here mainly, not individual churches....is the same movement that wants to cut financial and medical support and child care benefits and educational help to families st every turn.

Not all abortion seekers are kids. Many are married women whi can neither afford nor handle another child at the time. Which doesn't mean ever. And I can attest to the fact that the foster care system is full.of unadopted kids including infants who are not perfect and white. Distraught moms and babies are easy.
mbrudnic
Posts: 4481
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:57 am

Re: Roe v Wade struck down

Post by mbrudnic »

Quilter51 wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:49 pm I do believe that pro life people care. But it's not about moms and babies. Moms and babies are sweet and emotional.

Supporting families in crises or whi have unwanted babies or babies they can't afford through the life of a child is a very different thing. Are they willing to help sustain a family a family who can't afford a child or emotionally handle a child throughout the child's life?

From what I can see in general the pro life movement , and im talking politically here mainly, not individual churches....is the same movement that wants to cut financial and medical support and child care benefits and educational help to families st every turn.

Not all abortion seekers are kids. Many are married women whi can neither afford nor handle another child at the time. Which doesn't mean ever. And I can attest to the fact that the foster care system is full.of unadopted kids including infants who are not perfect and white. Distraught moms and babies are easy.
I don't disagree. Part of that icy slope.
Prairie Waif2
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:33 am
Location: Brandon, Manitoba CANADA

Re: Roe v Wade struck down

Post by Prairie Waif2 »

mbrudnic wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:26 pm Ok, I know my Church does a lot of support for local Mom and Babies places. Please don't use such a broad brush. pro-lifers do care. We cannot force Mom's to seek out such help.
Maggie,

I didn't read Mackie's post that way at all. What I understood was that there needs to be help PAST the pregnancy, baby, toddler phase on into high school. Church sponsored pregnancy centers never go into the child care or feeding past the toddler stage and I've actually never heard of one that provided child care.

These children don't miraculously feed themselves with dollars they don't have. The mother can't work because she can't find childcare, the GQP demonize those who recieve social assistance and yet this is what the outcome of this vote will be, more children and mothers needing to live on social assistance.

They are coming after birth control, sexual relations between same sex and also same-sex marriages. Justice Thomas has already stated that.

We no longer have bodily autonomy. What next? Forcing us to be live donors of kidneys and other organs? After all, it is "pro-life." Right?!
Hope has a good imagination.
Post Reply