UK may force Catholic adoption agency out over marriage requirement
The charity regulator in Scotland has upheld a ruling that would force a Roman Catholic adoption agency to end its policy that requires prospective adoptive parents to be married for at least two years….
This attack on the adoption agency was orchestrated by National Secular Society, who claims that the policy of searching for stable homes for children is “discrimination” against the unmarried and homosexual partners looking to adopt….
… St. Margaret’s [has] until April 22 to comply with the new regulation or they will be removed from the official Scottish charity registrar. This would prevent them from fulfilling adoptions in the future.
There has been a large outcry over the attack on St. Margaret’s adoption agency.
Traditional marriage supporters have highlighted the incident as an example of how religious bodies will be harmed by the passing of gay marriage legislation and other anti-Christian policies in the U.K.
~ Myles Collier, Christian Post, March 7

I would not like to see what will become of the world when religious bodies are given no choice but to retreat into the safety of their church doors.
I don’t agree with forcing a private company to do things against their moral code like this. If they receive government money it’s a different matter in my mind.
But Jack, when it comes to government funding, shouldn’t it be an open marketplace, rather than enforced secularism? Or perhaps government should just stop funding so many things? The problem with government funding is they generally can force people to accept it and then in essence force the strings attached upon them. Perhaps a fair policy would be to say government funding is open to any, rather than anyone that receives government funding must abide by secular humanist philosophies.
So in the name of not hurting the feelings of cohabiting partners (of any sexual orientation) we should just throw mature reasoning out the window and send children to live in homes FAR more likely to be unstable, unhealthy, and immoral? Yeah… whose interests are we serving here?
Children need and deserve a father and a mother, married to each other, living in the same house. PERIOD. If that hurts some people’s feelings, too damn bad. Time for the grown-ups to grow up.
Statistically, children do better in stable homes. Both religion and science would agree on this. But politics is apparently more important than what’s best for children.
“This attack on the adoption agency was orchestrated by National Secular Society, who claims that the policy of searching for stable homes for children is “discrimination” against the unmarried and homosexual partners looking to adopt….”
The National Secular Society is prioritizing the rights of unmarried and homosexual partners to adopt over the rights of the children to be brought up in a stable household. Lowering the priority of children to have stability reminds me of Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:6:
“If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
A married home is not necessarily more stable than a non-married home. Nor is a heterosexual couple necessarily more stable than a homosexual household.
“immoral” is a matter of opinion, in this instance.
“But Jack, when it comes to government funding, shouldn’t it be an open marketplace, rather than enforced secularism? Or perhaps government should just stop funding so many things? The problem with government funding is they generally can force people to accept it and then in essence force the strings attached upon them. Perhaps a fair policy would be to say government funding is open to any, rather than anyone that receives government funding must abide by secular humanist philosophies.”
Well, if people don’t like the strings attached they can not take the money, I suppose. The way I see it, every demographic pays taxes, so I don’t think that you can discriminate against certain demographics using tax dollars. If they are receiving money for a public service or good, they can’t exclude part of the public. Would you support an adoption agency that excluded Christian couples that received funds from the government? What about an adoption agency that refused to adopt out to interracial couples or refused to allow white people to adopt a black baby, or something like that? Should they be allowed to receive funding?
“The National Secular Society is prioritizing the rights of unmarried and homosexual partners to adopt over the rights of the children to be brought up in a stable household. Lowering the priority of children to have stability reminds me of Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:6:”
Matter of an opinion. I don’t really have a preference between a stable gay or straight household, or an unmarried person adopting rather than a couple. As long as they can pass the background checks and psychological evaluations.
“I don’t really have a preference between a stable gay or straight household, or an unmarried person adopting rather than a couple.”
So a stable single person should be given exactly the same consideration as a couple composed of two stable individuals? Interesting … If it’s really about the child’s best interest, based on the notion of “stability,” which is the more stable situation?
“Well, if people don’t like the strings attached they can not take the money, I suppose.”
This is certainly true and would be a fair(er) statement if the government didn’t meddle so much with the market with its funding. As mentioned, the government has a way of rigging it so that if you don’t take the money, you can’t exist as an establishment at all. What they won’t do explicitly, they accomplish by altering the marketplace to make it impossible for anyone who doesn’t take the money to compete.
I’m personally of the mind that the government should not meddle in so many areas, BUT if they are going to do it, they can’t create a defacto exclusion for religious entities in terms of getting funding.
“Matter of an opinion. I don’t really have a preference between a stable gay or straight household, or an unmarried person adopting rather than a couple.”
So if it’s just a matter of opinion what business does the government have to enforce one opinion over the other. Let the agencies who are of the opinion that family makeup is irrelevant operate to the best of their ability and the ones who believe that married couples should be preferred operate to the best of theirs. I actually don’t think it’s purely a matter of opinion, but if that’s your case, then why exclude one. Unless you are actually making the case that it’s not a matter of opinion but of objective fact that should be enforced.
This is so ridiculous. You know, discrimination can often be a good thing, like in this case. They are trying to place a child in a stable home, which is more likely if the parents have been married two years.
People discriminate when they decide to go to Burger King over McDonalds, when a business hires a smarter person over a dumb person.
Often, like in this case, discrimination is COMMON SENSE!!!
Discrimination is only bad when it is based on irrelavent things, like race.
Yes, a stable, married heterosexual couple is what children need and deserve. Two “mommies” or two “daddies” are not equal to and do not replace a mother and father. Never will because it’s impossible. (Yes, I know that’s the height of political incorrectness to actually say out loud.)
“This is certainly true and would be a fair(er) statement if the government didn’t meddle so much with the market with its funding. As mentioned, the government has a way of rigging it so that if you don’t take the money, you can’t exist as an establishment at all. What they won’t do explicitly, they accomplish by altering the marketplace to make it impossible for anyone who doesn’t take the money to compete. ”
Which I don’t think they should do. To be clear, I think the entire charity system in the US at least (I don’t know about the UK, I am not sure about their laws and how things are going over there) needs to be overhauled. It shouldn’t be difficult to start a private charity with no government funds, and people shouldn’t be penalized for it. As long as everyone agrees that if one group can discriminate against people because of their beliefs, it’s okay for another group to have a different set of morals that they use to discriminate (when it comes to private organizations).
“So if it’s just a matter of opinion what business does the government have to enforce one opinion over the other. Let the agencies who are of the opinion that family makeup is irrelevant operate to the best of their ability and the ones who believe that married couples should be preferred operate to the best of theirs. I actually don’t think it’s purely a matter of opinion, but if that’s your case, then why exclude one. Unless you are actually making the case that it’s not a matter of opinion but of objective fact that should be enforced.”
It’s not about who’s opinion is right, it’s about not excluding when it comes to our tax dollars (that all of us pay). If there was certain evidence that children do quite poorly in a gay household, I think that could be taken into account, but barring actual evidence that I don’t think that it’s justifiable for the government to allow tax money to be used to discriminate.
Inb4 people link me that one study that said kids do worse with gay parents. I’ve seen it, it has problems just like the studies that say that they do better or the same with gay parents (one study said their was 0% chance of abuse in lesbian households, lol, their sample size was ridiculously small). There isn’t any concrete evidence, certainly not enough for the government to be able to be exclusionary towards certain groups.
I am actually iffy on letting single people adopt versus a qualified couple (gay or straight), since there is some evidence that children do worse in single parent homes. Those studies generally focus on mothers in lower-income levels though, not middle class single parents, so I don’t think there’s enough evidence that single parents can’t ad0pt at all. I don’t think I’d complain too loudly if they were only allowed to adopt when there is no stable couple available for a kid.
“Discrimination is only bad when it is based on irrelavent things, like race.”
Well, I know several people that think raising a child in a religious home is damaging (to be clear, I don’t agree this is necessarily true at all, and I haven’t found much evidence to support this at all). Would you be okay if they started an adoption agency and refused to adopt out to religious couples, including Christians?
I’d like to see a gay organization address Planned Parenthood’s dismal-and-getting-worse adoption referral statistics. Yep, I would like to see that.
As far as I’m aware charities don’t get government funding in the UK. However, the laws and regulations still apply to them. A number of catholic adoption agencies were forced to close already because they refused to adopt children to homosexual couples and the court ruled that under Equality law they have no right to “discriminate” against them. Religious freedom? Not in this lifetime. UK is famous for putting “equality” and political correctness as a No1 value for the society, not the needs of children or religious rights of Christians… I can BET if the adoption agency wasn’t Catholic, but Muslim – they would be allowed to continue their work, noone would dare to say a peep in fear of being accused of islamophobia or discrimination against their religious right not to adopt chinlden into gay households…. But that’s UK, everyone has their rights protected, except Christians and I guess children who need a loving home….
It also discriminates against the wishes of the birth mother. My sister gave up a baby for adoption and went to a Catholic adoption agency specifically because she wanted a married, Catholic family.
Giving up a baby is tremendously difficult and women want to try and place babies with who they think is best. Their rights, as well as the children, trump the PC bologna.
How is it discriminatory to make it possible for gay and unmarried people to adopt? If a mother doesn’t want those type of people to adopt her child, she can do a semi-open adoption where she can pick the parents, or a fully open adoption. Open adoption exists in the UK.
Just realized somethin’… this is a thread about adoption. Adoption is the subject. So, if anyone wanted to post comments about adoption, this would be the thread upon which to do so, right? Just checking.
Fertility clinics won’t make as much money if more mothers make adoption arrangements for their babies. Planned Parenthood’s dismal adoption referals (like 1 for every 120 or more abortions?) have for years contributed (indirectly) to the financial success of fertlity clinics. So, is there a hard connection between the two? Are any fertility clinics actually doing things (such as donate money to Planned Parenthood) to make this so? Sure, they profit from the high abortion rate in the US, but are they actively involved in keeping the present status quo??? Things that make me go “hmmm…”
I think this is wrong, but in no way surprising.
My advice to St Margaret’s:
When Jesus was prevented from doing His work in one place He moved on.
“Just realized somethin’… this is a thread about adoption. Adoption is the subject. So, if anyone wanted to post comments about adoption, this would be the thread upon which to do so, right? Just checking.”
Don’t encourage her.
“So in the name of not hurting the feelings of cohabiting partners (of any sexual orientation) we should just throw mature reasoning out the window” – it’s mature reasoning that justifies the removal of such discrimination.
“and send children to live in homes FAR more likely to be unstable, unhealthy, and immoral?” – and the evidence for them being ‘unstable’ and ‘unhealthy’ is? And as for ‘immoral’, what if they were adopted by atheists or muslims or mormons, would that be ‘immoral’ too?
“Yeah… whose interests are we serving here?” – the childrens’.
“Children need and deserve a father and a mother, married to each other, living in the same house.” – aha, the ones with abuse or violence? The ones with substance abuse problems perhaps? A ‘married mother and father’ is not indicative of a more stable, healthy or moral environment.
“PERIOD.” – 16th or 17th century?
“If that hurts some people’s feelings, too damn bad. Time for the grown-ups to grow up.” – the grown-ups have recognised and acknowledged that discrimination is unwarranted and unjustified.
“Often, like in this case, discrimination is COMMON SENSE!!!” – thats an oxymoron for a start. And you aren’t making your case based on ‘common sense’, you’re making it based on your subjective and unsupported assertions.
JDC you see right through me! LOL
Black Market Charity. It has come to this again.
It already happens in oppressive nations (China, former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany), where the government insists that they are the only ones who can provide the right kind of good things for the people.
Hiding priests from Puritans…… Hiding Jews from Hitler…. hosting an underground house-church… making sure that an orphaned child is nurtured in a good home….. these were all illegal acts at one time or another, punishable by imprisonment or death. Christians will do the right thing, whether it is legal or not. Some of us will die for it.
Preventing discrimination against certain demographics is exactly like the Nazis.
Look at it this way, Jack: No one is preventing the gay/lesbian/single from adopting children. It is easy to avoid the Catholic adoption agencies.
But birth-parents who are concerned that their child should be placed into a stable, natural family: Not allowed. The Christian demographic is specifically oppressed and discriminated against. The Child demographic isn’t faring so well, either.
“No one is preventing the gay/lesbian/single from adopting children. ”
Not in the UK, maybe. In the US it’s still illegal in several states. My sister had to move to a different state to adopt her daughter and she never moved back.
“But birth-parents who are concerned that their child should be placed into a stable, natural family: Not allowed. ”
That’s completely untrue, open and semi-open adoptions are legal in the UK. A woman who wants her baby adopted by some Christian couple can certainly pick one out.
” The Christian demographic is specifically oppressed and discriminated against. The Child demographic isn’t faring so well, either.”
It’s not discrimination to prevent people from discriminating against others.
“Would you be okay if they started an adoption agency and refused to adopt out to religious couples, including Christians?”
Legally, I’m not sure. Morally, I have no problem with that as long as agencies are honest about their criteria so that they aren’t duping birth mothers.
““Just realized somethin’… this is a thread about adoption. Adoption is the subject. So, if anyone wanted to post comments about adoption, this would be the thread upon which to do so, right? Just checking.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo
In the real world, where most adoptable children are killed before they are born, there is an extreme shortage of living adoptable children.
It is good and reasonable to see these children are put into the best possible environment: Natural, stable families with a mother and a father for the child.
In that hopeful day when all children are protected and allowed to live, and all the natural families are full…. then we can give children to the single parents and gay couples. This is not the natural environment for a child, but by then we can install necessary safeguards to ensure that the prospective guardians will be safe for the child.
We cannot just do some moral hand-waving and suggest that any “demographic” of moral behavior is “just as good” for a child as the natural family is. Children deserve to be in a natural family, and we ought not deny this to them when natural family is available.
“The Christian demographic is specifically oppressed and discriminated against.” – what nonsense! What is happening is that numerous unjustified endemic discriminations across societies wrought by christian privilege is abating as societies become more representative of all members.
I don’t know, Reality. I’ve been seeing and hearing things that are definitely specific oppression and discrimination against Christians. Maybe you aren’t seeing it, but I’m definitely seeing it.
*shrugs* I guess we see what we want to see…but believe me…I never wanted to see discrimination or oppression against my beliefs (which are Catholic Christian), but I have. But then, that begs the question…if I never WANTED to see it and didn’t go LOOKING for it, then how come I DO see it? And if I do see it, then how can it just be nonsense? Nonsense would mean it doesn’t exist, yet, if it doesn’t exist then there’s no way I should see it, especially since I didn’t go looking for it.
So tell me again how it’s nonsense?
“I’ve been seeing and hearing things that are definitely specific oppression and discrimination against Christians” – can you explain and give specific examples of this?
“So tell me again how it’s nonsense” – the painfully slow and difficult abating of faith based discriminations in society is not oppression or discrimination.
So if a loving gay couple, or a loving single parent wants kids, they just shouldn’t be able to adopt? With so many children in need of homes, this seems silly. Sure, it’s harder to be a single parent, but I know many people who are FANTASTIC parents despite their lack of a partner. This is discrimination! If someone can provide a good, safe home for a child in need, why would you say no to them solely on marriage status?
In the real world, where most adoptable children are killed before they are born, there is an extreme shortage of living adoptable children.
It is good and reasonable to see these children are put into the best possible environment: Natural, stable families with a mother and a father for the child.
Yes, and birth mothers have a lot of say in who they want adopting their children. At least in my experience, most women that go through private agencies want a stable, married heterosexual couple in their late twenties or early thirties to adopt their children. Are they discriminating in wanting this for their children?
can you explain and give specific examples of this? said Reality
Certainly I can. What, do you want me to?
Yes please MIT. I think that what you consider to be oppression and discrimination against christians is actually an entirely appropriate diminution of christian privilege controlling society and the lives of non-christians.
So many children in need of homes????
Then why did it take a wealthy actress (who didn’t bribe anyone or fly to a foreign country and buy a kid) four long years to adopt her baby of color? I’m refering to Sandra Bullock. Yep, she wanted a child of color, from the US, specifically from Louisiana, and it was 4 years before Louis came to live with her.
Where ARE all these children you speak of? Why do thousands and thousands of families in the US and the UK wait and wait and wait??? Why are they waiting? Hm, abortion advocates? Because you can’t stop killing them long enough for the families who WANT them to bring them home.
Why are the LBGTA-Z organization so SILENT on Planned Parenthood’s lack of adoption referals? They kill hundreds of babies for each one referral. If people are fighting over a limited number of children, why can’t that prove to abortion advocates that too many children are aborted? Just how disconnected ARE you abortion advocates???
It’s just like the two faced “not enough resources in the world for all the people” vs “obesity epidemic in the West..” Wake up! Connect the dots, people!!!
“Because you can’t stop killing them long enough for the families who WANT them to bring them home.” – no, because most women with unwanted pregnancies don’t want to be gestational vessels.
“…Planned Parenthood’s lack of adoption referals?” – I think you’ll find that most people turning up at PP have already decided which way they’ll go. If they want to adopt out they’ll go to an adoption agency of some sort.
First of all, Ninek, as someone with two cousins both adopted from China, I find your description of foreign adoption as “flying to foreign country and buying a kid” incredibly offensive. I realize this may be a bit o/t of your main point, but it bothered me so much that I had to address it. My Aunt and Uncle waited four years for their first, somewhere around six or seven for the second. They did endless amounts of paperwork, got vetted etc. It is not as simple as “buying a kid.” Yes, there are mandatory donations to the orphanages for obvious reasons. International and domestic adoption has reforms to go through, but what doesn’t? Overall, adoption is a positive thing no matter where you adopt.
Second, how many children are there in foster care? Many. How many of those children are considered “unadoptable” due to age or behavioural issues? And you’re right, if less children were aborted, there would be more children! Math is not my best subject, but even I can figure that out! People wait for a variety of reasons as well…the whole process, with all of its involved paperwork takes a LONG TIME.
And I love how the assumption is made, but some of the earlier posters, that homosexual couple and/or single parent homes can’t be stable.
And in my mind, if you give up a child, you’d better be thankful that that child is going into a better situation than the one you could provide and not be too picky, as long as everyone passes the background/psychological checks/home check etc. Raising a child is HARD. You’re the one who opted out of it, you should relinquish your rights to that child, or determining what happens in his/her future. Birth parents do not necessarily equal parents.
” Where ARE all these children you speak of? Why do thousands and thousands of families in the US and the UK wait and wait and wait??? Why are they waiting? Hm, abortion advocates? Because you can’t stop killing them long enough for the families who WANT them to bring them home.”
I actually wonder if adoption would increase incredibly much if abortion suddenly disappeared. Generally only a low percentage of people want to go that route. I think it’s more likely that more people would choose to parent than adopt.
And the thousands of kids are in foster care, and a lot of them don’t have severed parental rights yet. People seeking adoption could consider taking in these children temporarily.
” And in my mind, if you give up a child, you’d better be thankful that that child is going into a better situation than the one you could provide and not be too picky, as long as everyone passes the background/psychological checks/home check etc. Raising a child is HARD. You’re the one who opted out of it, you should relinquish your rights to that child, or determining what happens in his/her future. Birth parents do not necessarily equal parents. ”
That’s completely misunderstanding the relationship that most natural parents have with and feel towards the children they relinquish. There is a reason that closed adoption has so many problems and open adoption became more popular.
“With so many children in need of homes, this seems silly.”
“My Aunt and Uncle waited four years for their first, somewhere around six or seven for the second. They did endless amounts of paperwork, got vetted etc.”
I was actually referring to Madonna and Angelina, but thank you for giving us this splendid example of the disconnect to which I referred.
Very interesting and eye-opening article from Robert Oscar Lopez who was raised by a lesbian mother in the gay community “The Oncoming Humans Rights Crisis…Caused by the LGBT Movement” he exposes “the growing human rights crises of gays siding with human trafficking, baby-farming, designer babies, gayborhoods, bio-engeneering, the “right” to jump the queue in line for Catholic Charities, and the emotional deprivation of innocent children by forcing them to replace a biological parent with a fictional same-sex partner”. He goes on to say ”The fight for marriage has never been about marriage. Marriage is the only way to have legal cover and shield themselves from criticism for their bioethical stunts… Stop gay marriage-not because of hate for gay people, but because the machine that is turning people into chattel must be stopped.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_oncoming_human_rights_crisiscaused_by_the_lgbt_movement.html
Hopefully the link will work for those who care. He says something I have said for years. The fight for marriage has never been about marriage it’s about the “gay agenda” to dismantle marriage, the one thing they hate and cannot truly have (it is not physiologically, emotionally, hormonally, or psychologically possible). Not PC but Mr. Lopez’s article is from someone who has suffered the fallout and he has been contacted by hundreds who have suffered from the fallout pleading with him to fight against same-sex marriage. The nations who have had “gay marriage” for years have very few who bother to marry. Mr. Lopez addresses from the vantage point of someone who has “been there done that”; marriage is mainly about the protection of innocent children not about someone’s agenda.
Ninek, you’re missing the point. My point was that saying that everyone who chooses international adoption is “flying to a foreign country and buying a kid” is not only offensive, but it is inaccurate.
Like I said, thank you for proving my point so well. It’s obvious that the comment above yours about human trafficking is quite apt and well put. Too bad so many people like you think children are chattel, little more than property to be destroyed ‘on demand and without apology.’
“saying that everyone who”
Just noticed I didn’t say “everyone who..” but, let’s move this over to the NEW post on Jill’s website about international adoption. I think I’ve proven MY point that if abortionists would stop killing children, nobody would be bickering over who adopts whom.
Finally, people who think that basically anyone with desire and a pulse should be able to adopt children: stop right this minute with any and all complaints about how your parents raised you. If you think a stable, two parent home is NOT the best, then I don’t want to hear about how your daddy never visited or made payments, and your mommy had a revolving door of relationships.
Psychiatrists and psychologists are making a lot of money off people who are still angry with their parents. If parents don’t matter, then why? (rhetorical question, not really expecting anyone to answer). See you on the other thread.
Reality says:
March 13, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Yes please MIT. I think that what you consider to be oppression and discrimination against christians is actually an entirely appropriate diminution of christian privilege controlling society and the lives of non-christians.
What I consider oppression?
How about a priest being accused of a crime he NEVER did, simply because some person out of the blue (whom the priest didn’t even remember and had no idea what this person was referring to) dragged him through the court system just to jump on the popular bandwagon of the time? Fortunately, the person admitted NOTHING had happened and the charges were dropped. But based on what I’ve seen, popular media and others would probably just automatically have assumed the guy was guilty even though he wasn’t.
In Canada a priest was arrested for preaching something in-line with Catholic Teaching in HIS OWN PARISH.
In some countries Christians are arrested simply for being Christian or practicing their Christian faith. I see this is a form of oppression, as well.
To be honest, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. I believe it has the potential of becoming a rather directionless/pointless argument. I’ve provided the above examples at your insistence; now I think it’s best we decide to leave the matter alone.
God bless and have a nice rest of the week.
“How about a priest being accused of a crime he NEVER did, simply because some person out of the blue (whom the priest didn’t even remember and had no idea what this person was referring to) dragged him through the court system just to jump on the popular bandwagon of the time? Fortunately, the person admitted NOTHING had happened and the charges were dropped. But based on what I’ve seen, popular media and others would probably just automatically have assumed the guy was guilty even though he wasn’t.”
That has nothing to do with Christianity (though I do think the CC is getting smashed for the abuse scandal when they are really no different from any other church or organization in regards to sexual abuse). That has to do with people suddenly forgetting that accused people have a presumption of innocence in our legal system. People get crazy when it comes to accusations of rape and the media loves to sensationalize it and paint the person as automatically guilty. See: Duke Lacrosse team case and the McMartin Preschool scandals, they have nothing to do with religion and the same type of thing happened. Also, I don’t remember people giving Sandusky the benefit of the doubt, it was automatically assumed he was guilty (to be fair, he was, but still it’s not like the media knew that right away).
I don’t think that Canada has the same freedom of religion protections as the US, neither do some other countries. Christians are not oppressed in the US, they are oppressed elsewhere. Not being oppressed in one country doesn’t mean oppression doesn’t happen in another.
I do think that the healthcare mandate is violating your freedom of religion, that’s the only thing in the US I can think of that’s actually somewhat oppressive.
Atheists can’t run for office in some states. :P
“To be honest, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.” – of course not, you can’t support your claim. The case of the falsely accused priest isn’t because of christianity, it happens in numerous environments and organisations. The canadian example you give is false. In some countries atheists are oppressed and even arrested, or worse. You haven’t described anything which is new or emergent. Or do you think the oppression of christians in muslim countries is something new?
I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore, “Ninek”, my dear friend! your arguments, if you can even call them that, are so all over the map that I don’t even know how to respond to them. “People like me?” You don’t even know me. Oh wait. Since I argued with you, I must be one of thooooose people. The scary “OTHER” kind of people. sorry. stay away from me. My atheism is probably catching.
Good thing I checked back on this thread, because A7x’s reading comprehension is a bit lacking. A, why don’t you slow down? because I didn’t say people “like you”. Maybe this is just a symptom of the usual post abortive narcissism that is so prevelent in our world. Guess what? It’s not all about you. Amazing. Thousands of people visit this website and only a small percentage make comments. I am ever aware of the readers. Some people, this time yes like you, see only themselves in everything. Get over it.
I also think you are annoyed at me when the disconnect is in your own mind. So many children need homes, but it takes up to 7 years to adopt, and yet, gosh, it must not have anything to do with abortion. As one of our regulars here likes to quip, “Bucket of duh.” Maybe after SOME folks get over being offended, they might find time to THINK about what they believe.
And yes, finally, the “other” people believe that it’s fine to dismember an innocent child who has done nothing wrong in life. Abortion is deadly and if I were a baby, yes, I’d find abortion advocates very scary indeed.
”Too bad so many people like you think children are chattel, little more than property to be destroyed ‘on demand and without apology.”
lol yes you did. I just copy and pasted the above, but nice try. I’m an English major and a published poet, so I don’t believe that my reading comprehension is lacking much, but thanks.
Did Jill not just post an article about how ‘red tape’ gets in the way of adoptions? pretty sure she did…
and post abortive narcissism? are you trying to imply that I’ve had an abortion? :p