bullets13

At what age should a child be able to make the decision for themselves to be on birth control? Honest question. I've noticed a pretty dumb cycle of parents not wanting their kids on birth control and then having to raise their own grandkids. Growing up in the church, and even graduating from a college with the word Baptist in the name, and one thing I saw first hand was that religion didn't really do much in the way of stopping us young, dumb kids from getting busy.

I bring up that point over and over again, and the response is always basically "nuh uh." The truth becomes obvious anytime there's a thread on here about welfare and social handouts. The ironic thing is that I actually agree with them on welfare reform and reducing handouts. Folks just don't like it when you point out the disconnect between fighting tooth and nail to make sure these babies are born, but then fighting tooth and nail to reduce the services and money provided to them as they're forcefully born into poverty and crime-ridden environments.

I agree that adoption is tough. but the types of adoption you're talking about doesn't really do a whole lot to help with the problem. go through the state and take some kids that are living in poverty, that have been abused, that have been forgotten. The majority of folks trying to adopt are trying to get a newborn, same-race child with no issues and no strings attached. That becomes more a business deal than actually helping with our country's overwhelming unwanted children crisis. I wholeheartedly agree that it should be a lot easier though, and it should be a lot more affordable.

I think that's great, and I'm not attempting to be disingenuous. But what your church does is just a drop in the bucket, and what all churches collectively do isn't much more. infinitely more unwanted babies thrown into an already broken system where not nearly enough is being done by churches and charities is going to make things significantly worse.

They're a big step in the right direction. I don't want grade school age kids indoctrinated, and I don't want sexual preferences and gender identity taught, but I don't at all have an issue with kids who're going to have sex while in high school either way (pretty much all of us did) having easy access to birth control and a little education into how things work and the risks involved to help reduce pregnancies.

the left doesn't care about them either, and I'm not at all saying that. Both sides use these unborn babies as a pawn, but neither truly cares about them. The left doesn't care about them before they're born, and the right doesn't care about them after they're born. And yes, the vast majority of unborn babies that y'all fight so hard to save will end right back in that cycle of poverty, and will repeat the cycle with unwanted pregnancies of their own.

my understanding of Christianity tells me that this is a perfect comparison. I'm pro death penalty, for what it's worth, and think it should be used far more often than it is.

There's not a constitutional right to life for unviable embryos, so that's a moot point. tens of millions more people on the government teat. You guys already complain about all of the folks on welfare/food stamps, medicaid, WIC, etc. An overwhelming % of those 63M would be putting a giant drain on all of those programs, and who do you think will be the ones complaining about it? Like I always say, the motto for the right is "love em in the womb, screw em once they're born."

adopted out of the system, or adopted a step kid? big difference there. if you adopted a step kid, good on you, but that didn't do anything to actually help an unwanted kid in need. if you adopted a kid out of the system, that's wonderful. you'd be one of the few pro-lifers actually doing anything for the lives they're fighting so hard to save. oh, i have a huge problem with killing babies. I just don't take exception to a woman choosing to terminate an unviable embryo in her own womb. And I'll support both of my daughters' right to do the same if a situation ever arises where they feel it's necessary. Because I feel that a woman should be allowed to terminate a fetus the size of a thumb I don't the value the lives of my family and students? I'd say your logic is a little flawed there. I do have a pretty unique perspective on the unwanted kids thing, though, having worked with the impoverished and unwanted students for 15 years. you know, all those kids that pro-lifers are constantly complaining about supporting on medicaid? They are not: my wife is a pro-choice Christian, and my kids will make their own decisions and form their own opinions as they grow older. One thing is for sure, I'm not going to make that decision or form that opinion for them, just as I won't make that choice for them if they become unexpectedly pregnant, and just as I don't want religion-based legislation stopping them from having a choice.

not sure why that pasted so obnoxiously large and uneven.

StacStacey Abrams got special treatment in office and even got wealthy on the taxpayer dime (msn.com)ey Abrams got special treatment in office and even got wealthy on the taxpayer dime

Much respect to your wife. If my wife was raped and became pregnant I'm not sure what she would do, but I'm not okay with legislation that says she can't decide for herself. That applies tenfold when my daughters are a little older.

It happens all the time. She should be able to kill it if she knows he's not going to support it? Should she be able to kill it when it's the size of a bean and knows that she won't be able to support it? What about if her dad raped her? What about if she finds out that the baby is going to die during the pregnancy or shortly after? What if having the baby puts her at risk of dying? Etc. Etc. Etc. Why is it okay for women to kill living eggs, and men to kill sperm by wiping it into a paper towel? Who decides where it starts?

My humble opinion is that our state is getting closer and closer to a swing state, and the right isn't going to get away with doing extreme conservative right things for very long, even if the SC is (for the moment) stacked with conservative justices. It's also true that all the guys on here backslapping over this would be losing their mind if the roles were reversed and a bunch of liberal justices were setting liberal precedents that weren't representative of the country's beliefs as a whole.

sure thing. when fine folks such as yourself start stepping up and taking care of these unwanted kids after they're born I'll reconsider. the right's lack of support of poor children and children in the system shows who THEY are. I've adopted two of those kids into my house. What have YOU done to help, apart from advocating that they be born?

No, i'm quite sure the left orchestrated this. The motivation is they're trying to rally the voting base, and this is going to do it. I'm suggesting the supreme court should not render decisions that will appease a small portion of one party, election year or not. But if you are going to commit political suicide, at least do it AFTER the elections so your party can get some stuff done before everyone gets voted out. Yes. The majority of everyone is pro-choice at this point, minus the religious right. Obviously that's a blanket statement, but it's true.

it was sarcasm.

With all the growth in sour lake I expect them to end up being a small 5A school in the near future and do even worse. but hopefully not.

how many years experience as a head coach does the new WOS coach have? That said, while I don't expect a new head coach to normally start their head coaching career at a historically great program, there's a big difference between starting at a program that's mediocre (or even bad) with room to grow versus starting at one that's mediocre (or even bad) who's about to be in a whole lot tougher district/division, which was the case in my buddy's situation.

And now that AAW is retired we're really in a tough spot. Things are definitely going to be a lot less organized for the foreseeable future, unless we can find someone else in the unique situation of being willing to spend a tremendous amount of time and effort on this site for pretty negligible compensation.

I'm fairly certain he's taking a good-natured shot at the same person I am in my previous comment.

Just going by the resident expert's rubric of success. The rubric is only pass/fail, and you must win a state championship in 7 years or you have failed.

I'm familiar with history. What line should we have stopped at? When black guys were allowed to marry white women? When we couldn't beat up people for being gay anymore? Our history is littered with conservatives badly treating whole groups of people for personal gain, or due to religious beliefs, so don't give me a bunch of "standing up for what is right" nonsense. Both sides of the aisle have some very undesirable traits and unflattering history. It's always funny when the right claims to have the backbone to "stand up straight" and "do what's right" while actively trying to take politics back to a time when the right treated people very badly. Both sides are a bunch of hypocrites.

for the most part, I'm very good with it. The left does a ton of insane stuff these days, and I don't like the direction they're going, but that doesn't change how I feel about many topics. There's a lot of stuff that used to be considered liberal that is now considered reasonable by anyone who isn't an ultra-conservative Christian. The woke ultra-left has taken things too far, but i have zero issue with homosexuals getting married, people being treated fairly despite their race/ethnicity, men not being able to tune up their wives without repercussion when they "get out of line", adults being able to decide who they want to be, and women being able to make decisions in regards to their body, which are all things that weren't happening 50 years ago. Look at how bad things had to get on the left before people were willing to swing their votes back to the right. Immediately pushing legislation that'll take us back to the 70s on social issues is not a winning plan.

okay.