Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're joking right? Democrats %99ften pay (and vote for) higher taxes to help out our fellow citizens and offer more social services. It's Republicans that want fewer taxes and to cut social services and help for those who might need it. Now that's pretty greedy. But I digress.
I get where you're coming from. Politics and personal views are intertwined and it's hard, if not impossible, to separate them. But rather than looking at "what's best for me", we should think about "what's best for the majority", which may or may not include "me". Those that can help others, should help others. To me, that's the opposite of greed.
Perhaps a better way to think about the tax dollars issue, from your perspective, is to think about your tax dollars going to womens' health, which may or may not include abortions. You're helping people be healthier, or perhaps even saving lives! Consider it reversed too, if you needed health care and were denied... We're all here for each other, or we should be.
I suppose the real argument is what defines a correct level of Social Services?
I and many others, argue that Left coast states harm a significant portion of the population by funding terrible decision making. We also believe that this is done, not to help people but rather exert control of them.
As far as baby killing being a "health issue" - poppycock (for 99.5% of cases)
If you actually read the post, you would quickly decipher the discussion is not about the legality of abortion but rather the TAXPAYER Funded Baby Killing for which Oregon is a leader
Let's be accurate here. In Oregon, abortion services is one of the required components of all health care plans sold in the state. Because abortion is often a health care issue for women (ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, partial miscarriages, Lethal congenital malformations, etc. etc.). And in Oregon the public believes that it should be up to women and their doctors to make decisions about their own health care, not a bunch of right-wing male Republican state legislators as is the case in other states.
Oregon also has a system of public health insurance (the Oregon Health Plan) which is largely Federally funded that also must comply with those same requirements
This is all the result of the democraticprocess in Oregon. You don't like it? Idaho is right next door where they have chosen to go in a different direction.
Also you aren't fooling anyone. Anti-abortion fanatics have NEVER been satisfied with stopping with the elimination of public dollars spent on abortion. Not in any state anywhere. And they wouldn't be satisfied with that result in Oregon either. The would not be satisfied until Oregon law mirrors Idaho. We all know that.
Let's be accurate here. In Oregon, abortion services is one of the required components of all health care plans sold in the state. Because abortion is often a health care issue for women (ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, partial miscarriages, Lethal congenital malformations, etc. etc.). And in Oregon the public believes that it should be up to women and their doctors to make decisions about their own health care, not a bunch of right-wing male Republican state legislators as is the case in other states.
Oregon also has a system of public health insurance (the Oregon Health Plan) which is largely Federally funded that also must comply with those same requirements
This is all the result of the democraticprocess in Oregon. You don't like it? Idaho is right next door where they have chosen to go in a different direction.
You are implying that the main reason tax payer funded baby killing exists exists in Oregon is because of a high incidence of medically necessary life saving situations. The data does not support that assertion.
Most baby killing procedures are performed on healthy babies in healthy women for reasons of convenience, financial, emotional hardship, life difficulty etc.
Few of the procedures are due to a potentially life ending scenario for the mother. Frankly, most people, (even anti abortion people,) have little issue with that reality.
Not sure what you are getting at with the Federally funded statement regarding Oregon welfare. Hyde amendment specifically prohibits Federal funds from being used for baby killing except in specific circumstances. (Although I can imagine scenarios in a corrupt place like Oregon where Federal funds do find their way to funding the procedure)
I agree with you that the majority of people actually voting in Oregon believe that baby killing is acceptable choice. However, I do not believe that the majority of people in Oregon know how much tax dollars are spent killing babies. ($15 million according to this reference.)
Also you aren't fooling anyone. Anti-abortion fanatics have NEVER been satisfied with stopping with the elimination of public dollars spent on abortion. Not in any state anywhere. And they wouldn't be satisfied with that result in Oregon either. The would not be satisfied until Oregon law mirrors Idaho. We all know that.
OK, sure - so what. Wars are won one battle at a time.
I have no allusion of seeing Oregon ever become a moral place with even a modicum of intelligent public policy. I can see pathway to incremental betterment.
It's weird how everyone I know who has adopted a child or has served as a foster parent is super liberal, while all the conservative pro-life people I know have only raised their natural born children (and two I know actually quietly had their teenage daughters get abortions.)
It's weird how everyone I know who has adopted a child or has served as a foster parent is super liberal, while all the conservative pro-life people I know have only raised their natural born children (and two I know actually quietly had their teenage daughters get abortions.)
It's weird how everyone I know who has adopted a child or has served as a foster parent is super liberal, while all the conservative pro-life people I know have only raised their natural born children (and two I know actually quietly had their teenage daughters get abortions.)
You must know a pretty limited number pf people. Childless couples who want a child run all across the social gamut.
Unless, of course, the social workers who tend to be liberals won't place a child in a conservative home. Because there are waiting lists for children and there might be some social engineering going on.
Also, as much as the woke want to deny it, not all conservatives are anti-abortion and not all liberals think it is a dandy idea.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,764 posts, read 58,200,174 times
Reputation: 46265
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider
That is weird.
Yup, the only libs I know who adopted, had a social agenda to promote or fulfill, such as driving off cliffs with family onboard, and such...
Hundreds of other adoptees (ors) have had a much more genuine intent and outcome. Thus we need to consider our borders, and what goes on within them. Especially, that which is funded, legally permitted, encouraged, tolerated, and socially allowed. (On behalf of the innocent others)
You must know a pretty limited number pf people. Childless couples who want a child run all across the social gamut.
Unless, of course, the social workers who tend to be liberals won't place a child in a conservative home. Because there are waiting lists for children and there might be some social engineering going on.
Also, as much as the woke want to deny it, not all conservatives are anti-abortion and not all liberals think it is a dandy idea.
I found this:
In National Council For Adoption’s recent research[1], over 4,000 adoptive parents were surveyed regarding various aspects of adoption, including the primary motivation to adopt. For those who pursued private domestic adoption, about 37% cited infertility as their primary reason for adopting a child or multiple children. About 17% of persons who had completed intercountry adoptions and about 16% of parents who had adopted from foster care also chose infertility as their primary motivation to adopt. Elissa’s experience of adopting after infertility represents a common experience for many of those who participated in this research.
In other words, infertility is not the driver of adoption, compassion and love for children is. Compassion is something conspicuously missing from conservative politics, so it stands to reason that the people most likely to want to help poor forgotten children who were born to parents not ready for them (and are more likely to seek abortions) are liberals.
My best friend is actually quite conservative and believes all the conspiracy theories and is pro-life. But when he and his wife faced infertility, they spent countless thousands on fertility treatments in pursuit of having a child of their own, despite countless statements about "baby killing" in the past. When I asked why they weren't looking to adopt, they stated that it was "too expensive."
How did this thread get into the politics of adoption?
In point of fact it is probably the case that conservatives adopt more than liberals for two reasons. First, conservatives are more likely to be married and seeking to create families than liberals, and second, there is a much bigger ideology of larger families and stay-home moms in conservative circles. I have a very large extended family clan, many of whom are religious conservatives and there are lots of adopted kids scattered across those circles.
Why is that? I would suggest that in the conservative Christian world, fulfillment, especially for women, is found largely in family. Whereas for liberals there is far more freedom to find personal fulfillment in careers and other pursuits. That doesn't mean conservatives are more caring. It simply means their world view is focused more narrowly and exclusively on family.
I'm also a public school teacher and so have dealt with a fair number of foster parents over the years when I have had occasion to converse with parents/guardians about specific kids, or have had Special Ed or 504 meetings with the same. In my own limited sampling, it seems that a sizeable number are conservative Christian types. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it is the stay-home mom ideology that gets them into things like foster parenting as well as other nonsense like multi-level marketing which is also pervasive in those circles.
How did this thread get into the politics of adoption?
In point of fact it is probably the case that conservatives adopt more than liberals for two reasons. First, conservatives are more likely to be married and seeking to create families than liberals, and second, there is a much bigger ideology of larger families and stay-home moms in conservative circles. I have a very large extended family clan, many of whom are religious conservatives and there are lots of adopted kids scattered across those circles.
Why is that? I would suggest that in the conservative Christian world, fulfillment, especially for women, is found largely in family. Whereas for liberals there is far more freedom to find personal fulfillment in careers and other pursuits. That doesn't mean conservatives are more caring. It simply means their world view is focused more narrowly and exclusively on family.
I'm also a public school teacher and so have dealt with a fair number of foster parents over the years when I have had occasion to converse with parents/guardians about specific kids, or have had Special Ed or 504 meetings with the same. In my own limited sampling, it seems that a sizeable number are conservative Christian types. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it is the stay-home mom ideology that gets them into things like foster parenting as well as other nonsense like multi-level marketing which is also pervasive in those circles.
Well, the post previously devolved into someone talking about "baby killing", and here we are. Admittedly, everything I wrote was anecdotal, and everything else in this thread is speculation. I tried just now to find some evidence of the political orientation of adoptive parents, but found nothing conclusive in my 2 minute google search. IMO though, abortion should be disincentivized through support for parents, stronger government support for adoption (especially minority and disabled children who tend to languish in foster care, and who tend to be aborted in higher numbers), and of course making birth control more widely available to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
