Texas liberals shamefully protest Perry's measures to safeguard women's health

Whatever happened to adoption being a viable option for people?

 

this all goes back to Alinsky's original rules on agitation

1) The use of disruptive tactics to inhibit the free will of others. Examples would be shouting down a speaker, appropriating a microphone, chaining yourself to property, blocking a public thoroughfare, occupying public offices so they cannot be used. These are technically "nonviolent", but they prevent others from acting freely. In fact, the only way to stop you is to use force against you, at which point you can claim oppression and victimhood.

Alinsky would be ashamed at the inartful tactlessness of bringing in jars of feces to throw, but the basic concept is similar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

2) The use of ridicule and Mean Girl tactics to clear any opposition from the field of debate. Delegitimize the source of the arguments so the arguments themselves need not be refuted.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Troopers use bolt cutters to unchain a protester from Senate gallery railing. (Photo by Rodolfo Gonzalez) <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#txlege">#txlege</a> <a href="http://t.co/TbABjGvRGt" title="http://twitter.com/statesman/status/355881980539314176/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/TbABjGvRGt</a></p>&mdash; Austin Statesman (@statesman) <a href="https://twitter.com/statesman/status/355881980539314176" data-datetime="2013-07-13T02:50:50+00:00">July 13, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#Txlege">#Txlege</a> protesters being hauled out of the gallery: <a href="http://t.co/tYRbWjBzfB" title="http://twitter.com/KonniBurton/status/355881013773205506/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/tYRbWjBzfB</a></p>&mdash; Konni Burton (@KonniBurton) <a href="https://twitter.com/KonniBurton/status/355881013773205506" data-datetime="2013-07-13T02:47:00+00:00">July 13, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

It is a viable option to an extent. The problem is the number of children, particularly minority children, that bounce around from foster home to foster home. People like to talk about adoption as though all the kids get adopted to loving families and everybody lives happily ever after. This is not the case. The reality is sad and ugly.

You couched you question in terms of options. Nobody said it wasn't an option. I even agree that it is a preferable option. However, there is a vast difference between discussing options and talking about making it the only option by removing other options under the force of law due to your religious beliefs.

 

If we spent the time, money, and resources on adoption and foster situations that we are currently spending on abortion and all things related, I have a feeling it would become a much safer, more viable option.

 

No amount of spending will make couples want to adopt a child they are not inclined to adopt. The kids will still go unadapted and bouncing from foster home to foster home.

 

Political marginalization leads to radicalization. It's a universal truth.

That's why stable governments are built on compromise with valid minority points. You bully people out of a chance to participate in government and more radical acts are their only resort; things like revolution against the king.

 

To be fair, no one was really marginalized here. It's not like the pro-choice side didn't get their voice heard. At the end of the day, the legislature that the people elected is just far more conservative and passed a bill with an overwhelming majority. I don't think the democratic process was in any way subverted here just because one side didn't like the result (unlike, say, North Carolina where they attached abortion stuff to a motorcycle bill and didn't tell anyone or have hearings or whatever).

The real issues with this bill are that (a) it does nothing for women's safety and is almost certainly harmful to women's health as a whole, (b) it doesn't do much to stop abortion, and (c) most, if not all, of it will be thrown by the courts anyway. It's just a political statement to make people feel good about themselves thinking they are doing something of value. In reality, it's a big waste of everyone's time.

 

How much do you really know about adoption and how much are just talking about how you think it is. The foster situation could also be made better if more focus was given to it as well.

 

A white child under the age of 5. After that, it gets more difficult to place them. There are 115,000 children in this country right now waiting for an adoptive family. If the situation were ad you purport it to be, that number would be closer to 0 than it is to 115,000.

 

Look at the numbers. They are easy to find. There are 115,000 adoptable kids in this country without a family and in foster care. If all the abortions were turned into kids put up for adoption, how many more would that be? The system, as presently constructed, could not provide for them. It would take a lot more in government resources to feed, clothe and care for them all. I am sure that some on this board would then b**** and moan about how much money the government is spending for that.

 

This is not true. There are thousands of children waiting to be adopted.

 

Informative and uneducated as always, I see. In what way does forcing women's health centers to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on things that all the medical professionals agree does nothing for women's health help improve the quality of women's health? That money comes out of the budget that otherwise would be doing something useful.

 

But imagine if all of the millions of dollars that are spent on abortion each and every year and all other costs associated with abortion were spent on making the foster system better and making adoption easier.

The number I saw was only around 600k women actually adopt of the 2.6 million who take concrete steps toward adoption.

If an environment shift in views on adoption would change in America I have no doubt it would be a viable option.

 

Nothing we can do will increase the number of people who are willing and able to make the financial and emotional commitment of adopting a child. You keep focusing on the supply side. Don't. There is ample supply of children wanting to be adopted. The demand side is where the problem lies.

The notion that there is going to be some societal awakening that will make people show up in droves to adopt these kids is folly. It isn't like taking home a dog or cat. It is a lifelong commitment to care for a human being.

So tell me...how many of these kids can we sign you up to adopt?

 

can you afford to pay the $50 you owe clutch yet?

a million dollars is pretty easy for you to throw around, but you cant seem to muster up $50 in over 3 years...thats just sad.

you made a bet and lost fair and square. be a man and pay up. stop being a little boy.

 

im very suspicious over the reports of jars of urine and used tampons...police, especially here in austin, have a bad habit of lying about, infiltrating groups and even provocateuring stuff like like this.

as for slandering jesus, that sign was more of a slander on the american taliban we have here running our state.

 

Gerrymandering reduces the electability for candidate that aren't religious conservative Republicans. Parliamentary procedures by the majority limit real debate. You can call it politics or you can call it tyranny, but in the absence of a political outlet, the frustration will lead to apolitical acts and eventually violence.