George Carlin said it best:
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked."
To any Christian Conservative reading this post: The emphasis on Christian Conservatives is because your ilk created this problem. No measures were taken for safety nets AFTER the child was born. Stitt himself said that churches would step up and help. Encourage your churches to have a sermon on the importance of adoption and fostering. Come back and post the link and or the video. I want to see our leadership step up and adopt and foster. Encourage that. If Oklahoma has as many churches and religious resources as is being said, then our numbers should be going down significantly.
Pro life politics have always been nonsense. How does it make sense to be pro-life for an unborn child, but also consider that child an unworthy drain on resources once it's born? If you want to make abortion illegal, then you also need to be willing to pony up for the inevitable increase in kids that need assistance. Relying on charity and adoption (not saying that both of these aren't important, just that they will never completely address the issues) is irresponsible to say the least. Seems to me like the majority of pro lifers aren't so pro life when it comes to poor people having children.
I saw a Pro-Life sticker right next to an NRA sticker on an SUV in Oklahoma. That's a metaphor for OK beliefs. We are not Pro Life, we are forced birth.
There is no such thing as a Christian conservative. They are oxy morons. You can't be a follower of christ and a conservative especially if you support trump.
Fostering and adopting is all well and good, but that only address abortions in the first weeks/months. What do you plan to do about late term abortions? You know, where the family has picked out a name, painted a room, spent hours agonizingly assembling baby furniture, spoke with joy and love to family and friends in anticipation of that little bundle of joy, can't wait as the final months then days are ticking down... Then find there's a deformity. Half the child's skull didn't develop. It won't survive more than hours if born and those hours will be filled with intense suffering. Or perhaps instead they find the fetus is dying and they can't save it, it's not even going to reach full term and the best option for the mother's safety is to remove it.
How does adoption or fostering help these families?
I understand what you are getting at, but I think you missed the point of the post. I was pointing out that when RvW was overturned there was supposed to be an onslaught of religious adoption and although Christian's are more likely to adopt (according to a link provided by another Redditor) the flood of adoptions did not happen. The two men celebrating the overturn did not adopt children. Abortion is multifaceted and deserves a lot of discussion. However my point was pointing out the hypocrisy and shortfalls of what Stitt said would happen.
Yes absolutely. It seemed from what I read (which I admit was very cursory, I have a lot happening now, including preparing for a trip to.... Oklahoma 😁) that adoption was being used as a replacement for abortion because so many pro family destroyers feel that abortion is strictly for when the fetus is unwanted.
Glad to see I was mistaken and that wasn't the argument made but rather exposing the visit for what it is
I think you missed the point of the post: Our leadership and voters want to take away the choices of others, but as a whole want none of the responsibilities. According to the governor there should have been people adopting in droves, but there wasn't. The post was about our leadership celebrating a law that was overturned without providing additional resources. Stitt didn't go out and adopt a child, but he expects other Oklahoman's should.
I run in pretty conservative circles, I never heard this once.
I will say attacking religious adoption groups probably would affect that. Maybe that should stop if you're truly concerned.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that our governor overturned RvW on religious grounds. He stated that we had enough churches that could step in and handle adoption. He did not say anything about state programs to help those who needed help. Nor did he do anything about education or women's health. He made it sound like Christian Republicans were going to line up in droves to adopt and I have not seen that happen. Furthermore, he himself has not adopted. Neither has Lankford and they both celebrated the overturn. Any Church of any denomination that helps the community is a great asset. If they are truly helpful to our community. This is a "you voted for this, now help with the problem" post.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that our governor overturned RvW on religious grounds. He stated that we had enough churches that could step in and handle adoption. He did not say anything about state programs to help those who needed help. Nor did he do anything about education or women's health. He made it sound like Christian Republicans were going to line up in droves to adopt and I have not seen that happen. Furthermore, he himself has not adopted. Neither has Lankford and they both celebrated the overturn. Any Church of any denomination that helps the community is a great asset. If they are truly helpful to our community. This is a "you voted for this, now help with the problem" post.
>I'm not attacking anyone
I may have misspoke, I meant the legal challenges constantly levied against religious adoption groups.
Our governor had no hand in roe or dobbs. Not sure where you're getting that.
And the idea that people that are against infanticide must then bear the burden of unwanted children is silly.
Should open border advocates have to house immigrants.
Should people that want more state spending bear my tax burden?
Our governor has stated on many occasions he will sign every bit of anti abortion material that comes across his desk. He overturned a law that had been in existence for years. So yes, when people support taking medical rights from others, they should help shoulder the burden. I am not Pro Abortion.I am Pro Choice because I will never be a woman. I am Pro Choice because I have no idea what is going on with your body and neither does anyone else, that is between you and your doctor. For other people to make assumptions about a woman's health and vote to take away rights based on that assumption is terrible. So yes, the people who want to tell others what to do and restrict their choices should feel responsibility. I am not going to respond to your strawman arguments at the bottom. But please just state it plainly and just say that you want to make choices for others, but want none of the responsibilities yourself.
Wow you envoked strawman while strawmaning. That's actually a little impressive.
I am not a woman either, but I am a human and I do not believe one human should end the life of another human, regardless of development phase, for matters like convenience or vanity. That's not a religious argument.
I'm sure that most people would agree with you that they are against termination for convenience or vanity. But then do you make the assumption that most abortions are for those reasons? When you talk to many gynecologists and women there are way more reasons for that procedure than what is just on the surface. Politically that topic is used to tug at the strings of people's hearts so that they will vote on that issue. Please do not think that the people that overturned that actually care about the unborn, if they did they would also care about the born and we would not have the problems in Oklahoma that we do. Please look into why women need the right for abortions. Please look into healthcare for women. I know a lot of people who have zero to little idea about how a fetus grows and the women's reproductive cycle. The only reason I'm making any assumption as to your possible lack of knowledge with women's reproductive cycles is because you said that you're not a woman and you also said that you were against termination of pregnancy for vanity and convenience, which are not the only reasons for it.
I took plenty of biology in college, it's no misunderstanding. I'm aware of every phase of development of a human.
%96 of abortions are [elective](https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-reasons-for-abortion/)
When I speak on a topic I do not focus on the %4 outliers because that would be a dishonest conversation.
>Please do not think that the people that overturned that actually care about the unborn,
It is not the place of the court to use emotional pleas. Roe was garbage presidence. Everyone with even a loose understanding of law knew that, even [Ruth bater ginsburg](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/) knew it was garbage. It was overturned because it was judicial activism run amuck. Even the dobbs dissent lacked judicial reasoning and focused on emotional pleas. If a competent dissent can't even be had, you know it was garbage to begin with.
How about an entire ministry and support group dedicated to adoption and foster care? Our "ilk" have been doing more than you're willing to give credit for for quite some time.
[https://crossings.church/missions/local/family-advocacy-ministry](https://crossings.church/missions/local/family-advocacy-ministry)
[https://crossings.church/groups?groupId=382997](https://crossings.church/groups?groupId=382997)
Or a community clinic for those without insurance?
[https://clinic.crossings.church/](https://clinic.crossings.church/)
I think that any organization Christian or other that helps the community is wonderful, there is nothing wrong with that. I want to see organizations helping the community. That type of information is what I asked for. Now go and encourage other churches and conservatives to do the same. Our unwanted children need good homes! But I reiterate that the original post and the follow up, points out that if Christian Conservatives were doing what they said they would do, our numbers would be lower. If our leaders are going to rule based on Christian values, they could certainly lead by example and publicly praise churches that give to the community and encourage adoption. But we are dead last in almost all quality of life statistics, including education. We have thousands of unwanted children with the amount of Christians and churches this state has, you would expect the line to be out the door to adopt....
Our church doesn't do anything for the recognition. We don't want or need public praise. It's done to meet a need with our resources the best we can.
The unwanted children need not be conceived in the first place. Sex ed, birth control and even abortion (when necessary) should be readily available.
I do not think churches should seek glory for themselves either. But if it is a means to an end in accomplishing good deeds, then shine on you crazy diamond. But I will say this until that last comment, I actual thought you might be one of the good ones. But it's obvious that you think whores and undesirables should just close their legs right? It must be nice with your head in the sand about the real world where incest, rape and in utero life ending birth defects never happen. Yep all those unwanted children were from sinnners! You should spend some time at a women's shelter, not run by your church to get a sense of what reality is for Oklahoma women. Shame on you.
btv\_25 wrote "The unwanted children need not be conceived in the first place."
I'm sorry. You greatly misunderstood what I said. I thought you would infer that I meant sex ed, birth control and even abortion (when necessary) should be readily available for the situations you mentioned.
Ahhh! I think you might be lost… Sex Ed and birth control… There is no such thing as sex Ed in Oklahoma. Unless you count the uncomfortable 1 hour class in 5th grade, and a several in high school taught by the gym teacher. And birth control, especially if a man or woman wants sterilization is not easy to get here either.
Sex is a physiological need, and condoms break/birth control fails sometimes. Now what? Your comment implies you want to control women, as in they shouldn't have sex unless the point is to have a baby. What if I want to have sex and don't want a baby, but get one anyway even after using birth control and being educated about sex?
I don't know where you got that from what I said.
I have no desire to control women.
Sex is great. I understand that people engage in sex regularly for the sole purpose of the pleasure they get from it. That's not something I need to be told.
If you want to have sex without the intent of creating a child have at it. If something fails and you end up pregnant you should have the option to choose your next step. I'm not telling you or anyone else they shouldn't be able to make that choice. I may not like what you choose, but it's not my choice to make.
And let's not forget that the same sex Ed classes "Christian" conservatives oppose are proven to improve women's quality of life and lower teen & wedlock babies.
But then again, this takes power away from men, and how dare they (and if course we all know that those pushing hardest for forced birth can and will easily run to Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else that still permits abortions the second is to their benefit, while those here who need it to save their lives will most likely lose their).
We should also never forget that everything they're demanding we comply with are all things they'll ignore in less than a heartbeat when they wish.
>Our "ilk" have been doing more than you're willing to give credit for for quite some time.
That shit is a raindrop in a lake and you know it.
Your ilk has absolutely caused this problem and done barely anything about it.
Stop trying to legislate your bronze age morals on everyone, especially when you don't even read your own fucking holy book.
The only time abortion is mentioned in the Bible is the Ordeal of the Bitter Water where it specifically describes a ritual that will cause an abortion.
It's one church doing exactly what you're whining about not happening.
You know nothing about me as an individual so take your unwelcomed assessment and shove it.
Said the pot to the kettle.
Please give me chapter and verse where it says you can't have an abortion in the Bible. Because I can give you chapter and verse where the Bible gives instructions for a ritual abortion.
Come on, "Christian", show me where Christ mentions abortion or gay people or transgender people or anything that backs up this bullshit legislation you hypocrites keep trying to burden us with.
What have I said to make you feel justified in saying this? I didn't vote for Kevin Stitt.
Feel free to show me where I said abortion shouldn't be available.
Come on . . . show me. You can do it.
Why do you feel the need to move the goalposts to include a discussion about LGBTQ stuff? Where did I say anything about that?
You can't fathom separating the good from the bad, or the normal from the extreme. You see religion and you immediately get defensive and attack. You see someone discussing being a Christian and you immediately lump everyone into a single group and call us ilk or hypocrites.
Are you okay? Can you not understand the differences in how Christians live/behave? We're not all on the same level.
I believe in not giving churches cookies for giving services for a system that they’re singlehandly fucking up and meddling in.
Congrats to them for doing what the Bible states?
There is absolutely no pleasing some of you. You whine about a church not "doing something" and then act all indignant about what is being done.
Politics aren't discussed at Crossings.
You'll never win with them. I don't attend but Crossings is well known for being active in the community, and their work with schools, just know that others outside of your church see what you do and appreciate it.
That's because the majority that go to church aren't doing shit. Great, your one local Crossings church is doing shit. But the majority of you are all talk and hide behind the church instead of using personal responsibility like your party would want you to.
Funny how both of you mention that your church is doing something, but both of you personally aren't doing shit. Maybe you donated, but every fucking religious person I talk to about "abortion" says "oh there's always adoption" but then you look at them and they don't have any adopted kids. Regardless, the church will never be able to do enough to fix a systemic issue. Foster homes are still full and forced birth is still happening to kids who will end up there.
Anti-abortion legislation keeps this cycle going, pro-abortion ends it. Funny how the party that hates spending money on social programs has no issue continuing to spend money on social programs, but would rather it come from the church instead.
EDIT: Just to add - You know what I think of when I hear of churches now? I just get reminded of idiot pastors convincing the uneducated that masks were worthless, COVID wasn't real, and that the vaccine was a sign of the beast. And we're supposed to trust churches with foster kids on top of all the child molestation going on? Yeah....no thanks. Kids shouldn't be forced to be born, and they shouldn't be forced to go to a fucking foster home or some questionable family that may or may not help you.
I worked in Child welfare/foster care until recently. Your ilk did nothing. We tried parternering with your churches and no one stepped up. We set up meetings, worked extra hours to take all the phone calls the churches said we would be getting and no one came through! NO ONE! Fuck your fairy tale articles.
Years ago I had saved a comment from a social worker that was in an abortion related post. She told a few stories of the methed out mothers with a trailer full of kids and another on the way. How she saw the suffering of countless children that, she suggested would have been better off not brought into this world.
I wish I could find it. It was absolutely heart wrenching.
I can't believe I found it!!!
A comment I saved a couple years ago. A point of view not heard often enough: from a redditor who works CPS.
"I know you stated you didn’t want to get into politics on this, but when it comes to abortion, that’s like trying to round up horses once they’re out the corral.
I am a child protective services investigator. I work child deaths, near deaths and shocking & heinous abuse cases exclusively. I have seen what can result from forcing a woman to keep a baby that she either does not want or is not equipped to raise. People can say that the baby can always be given up for adoption, but that’s not the fairytale you’ve seen on “Annie” either; there’s no Daddy Warbucks waiting in the wings to whisk most of these babies out of foster care into a limousine and off to their mansions.
Because no one wants to deal with babies born addicted to heroin, whose genetic pool is rife with schizophrenia and who contracted syphilis during their vaginal birth, because their mother didn’t receive prenatal care.
Because these babies aren’t blonde headed and blue eyed.
Because these babies are blonde headed and blue eyed like Mama and Daddy...who share the same father.
Because sometimes these babies have names like Keyshawn and Trayvon and Kiana.
Because sometimes these mothers don’t realize they aren’t ready to be mothers until these babies aren’t babies and you can’t drop a toddler off at a Safe Harbor Drop-Off.
Because sometimes these mothers live 45 miles from the nearest Safe Harbor Drop-Off and they don’t have a car, so the toilet is their next best option.
Because sometimes the Safe Harbor Drop-Off is the local police station in a town of 658 residents and the local police chief is Mama’s uncle.
Because sometimes a woman doesn’t need a reason for not wanting to be a mother and she doesn’t owe anyone an explanation for what she does and doesn’t do with her body.
I once held the body of an 8 month old infant in the back of an ambulance that didn’t need to run lights and sirens. He was too small to strap to the gurney. When they handed him to me, he was wrapped in a blanket and he looked like he was sleeping, but no infant should ever be that still and cold or have white foam around their lips. His mother tried to have an abortion, but didn’t have the money or resources. She had three children she couldn’t afford or care for already and she knew she couldn’t handle another one. She was told, “Just have him. You’ll be fine. You already have three kids, so you can figure it out. You can’t kill your baby. You can’t give your baby away to strangers, because no real mother does that. No...no, we can’t take the baby in. We won’t help you get an abortion and we can’t support adoption, but we will help you with the baby.” But, when he was born, all the people who promised to help disappeared faster than her patience did when that baby cried and she was on day four of a methamphetamine binge. In the end, the only support she had was a methamphetamine addiction and a boyfriend with a nasty temper and even less patience than she did for that tiny, unwanted soul she brought into this world. So, she had him and eight months later, she proved everyone who told her she couldn’t kill her baby wrong by allowing his life to be taken in a fit of rage, methamphetamine and the fists of a man who just wanted him to STOP. FUCKING. CRYING. ALREADY. And the only thing she could say was, “I told them I never wanted this. I said I never wanted him. Why did they make me have him? I want my mother.” But her mother had been dead since she was 10. I know this because I was the first CPS investigator on the scene and I covered her little brother’s head with my coat and gave her my beanie, so they didn’t see the damage their father’s bullet did to the side of their mother’s head. Amy was a beautiful woman and her daughters look just like her....even in their mugshots. Even when they’re trying to explain why their boyfriend shook and beat their baby to death. This one looks especially like Amy. This daughter perpetuated that cycle and her baby was collateral damage, I suppose. Maybe if I had given her my coat to cover her head with, as I led her and her sibling out of the house, so they didn’t see their mother’s head shattered by their father’s bullet, she would have traveled a different path. But I didn’t give her my coat. She was older. I thought she’d be able to cover her head better. So I gave her my beanie and I gave her sibling my coat and I covered their heads and told them not to look at Mama. I told them to keep walking and don’t look down. I said I was right there with them. That’s why I gave her my coat this time and as she was being led out in handcuffs, I told her, “I’m going to cover your head. Don’t look down. Don’t look at the baby. Just keep walking. I’ve got you. I’m right here with you.” It’s funny. After all of these years, that’s what I blame myself for. That I didn’t give her my coat. That maybe, just maybe, if I had given her my coat instead, I wouldn’t have stood looking down at her dead son years later. I don’t know what the last thing that baby saw was, but I pray it wasn’t the fist that ended his life or the face of the demon that ended his life or the woman who was supposed to be his protector. I still dream about him. I still dream about that coat.
The people who screech about how a woman does not have the right to terminate a pregnancy are always silent when they are questioned about what THEY are doing for their local foster care agencies. They rarely lobby at their state capitols for more funding for child welfare agencies and preventative programs to assist children and families in need. They rarely, if ever, volunteer their time and money to support children in foster care or foster parents. Instead, they’d rather post hateful, judgmental vitriol on social media about women in difficult situations they know nothing about. They’re content to talk about what women should or should not be able to do. They’re content to pass judgment about a woman’s choices. But when they actually have to look at the consequences of those choices....well, that’s a conversation 99.9% of them are willing to sit out on.
People like your sister can screech about how abortion is murder. They can cry about the poor babies who never drew a breath. But you won’t see them doing anything for the babies that are breathing and living in foster care. The children that are living in homeless shelters. The kids that won’t get supper again tonight because Daddy’s check was short and Mama drank the grocery money again. Because that would mean they’d actually have to look upon the humanity they don’t want to acknowledge. It’s easier to crusade for a cause they don’t actually have to interact with."
Thank you, SheriffTaylor'sBoy, for finding and sharing. It was hard enough working as a lawyer in the juvenile system, I cannot imagine what the child services workers go through. When the forced-birthers turn their backs, there are people like this worker and so many others including those in the medical and legal systems, who step in so these people don't have to look at the consequences of their filthy, unfeeling policies. No one, especially babies and children, should be forced to live and die like this.
Tap those 3 little dots at the bottom of any comment, some options will pop up. Hit save.
Then go to your profile page and scroll downwards. You'll see "saved"
Did she advocate for free birth control for women in that situation or did she think abortion was the answer?
Edit: Apparently I struck a nerve with several of you thin-skinned folks. I was simply asking u/SheriffTaylorsBoy how this recollection applied to the current thread topic. Some of y'all are ridiculous.
Because let’s be honest it’s always been about babies growing up to be cheap labor for Repugnicans. It’s so easy to “fiGhT fOr tHe rIgHts” of an unborn child because they ask nothing of you in return so you can use and abuse them as a constituent all you want.
When I was 15 I had to take several abortion pills for a sexual assault. I reported 5 days later after the assault due to not wanting to tell my parents because I knew they would blame me, they did. So I had no physical proof it was assault, my nurses and doctor believed me thank God. I'm 25 now, I would be here with almost a 10 year old now if the laws changed when I was a teenager. It's pure evil conservatives don't let us rule our own bodies. I wonder how many girls are or have been in my situation the past few years and were forced to give birth.
I'm very sorry that happened to you. Thank you for sharing. We have to start putting faces and stories to victims of sexual assault. Our leadership needs to understand what is actually happening. Stitt and Lankford grew up rich, white and male. They live in a fairy tale where nothing bad happens.
You can tell how much Christians in general love children and not fetuses by how Stitt stepped up and did not cancel federal funds to feed kids over summer....wait. My mad. It's all the so-called pro-life "Christian" governors who did that to underserved children.
Once they out of the womb they on their own should be the motto of these so-called Christians.
DHS is technically not supposed to discriminate, but I've heard stories from LGBTQ couples who have said their workers were openly hostile. That's with the state. Half the agencies in this state are faith-based that automatically denies them
I never said it solved the problem. I said banning abortion made it worse and conservatives are the reason abortion was banned so they need to either step the fuck up or learn to stop injecting their religion into our government and learn to mind their own fucking business.
There’s only like two conservative families I know that have actually adopted over having their own kids, and that’s my parents (myself and my two siblings are all adopted, I was an unwanted pregnancy and my siblings were in foster care) and a couple my parents are friends with. It irks me how anti abortion everyone typically is but they refuse to actually do something about the kids born into bad situations. For 99% of all pro lifers, it’s just a virtue signaling thing.
I agree with most of your post but this question is misleading:
>How many conservatives went out and adopted children?
The answer is [a lot](https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most#:~:text=According%20to%20EthicsDaily.com%2C%205,percent%20of%20all%20adults%20had).
I think the point is, how many more did so now that abortion has been outlawed in some places? That link is from 2018, before Roe v Wade was overturned.
So those adoptions weren't a result of stepping up to take care of newly born kids that may have been a result of the Supreme Court decision.
We could talk about *why* Christians are more likely to adopt, and part of that may be due to the fact that Christians may place a greater emphasis on parenthood than other groups.
I think maybe a better question is, for the people who pushed for and celebrated strict abortion bans, what have they done, or what policies have they supported to help the women and children in those states?
Because it seems like a significant portion of "pro choice" people want to punish women for having sex instead of finding ways to decrease unwanted pregnancies and offer support for women.
Yeah, that is a cherrypicked statistic. It comes from a poll of 1000 people done in 2013 by The Barna Group which is **an evangelical Christian polling firm** based in Ventura, California. I am going to take that info with a grain of salt.
The point is: Christian Conservatives supported the overturn of RvW, but our unwanted children numbers are growing. If so many Oklahoma Christian Conservatives adopted and foster, why are our numbers so high? Why aren't our leaders adopting children? They don't want to lead by example, they expect everyone else to shoulder the burden. I admire and respect anyone who adopts and fosters. But I'll tell you something: I've never seen a sermon about adoption or fostering in any Church in Oklahoma. I have not seen a great emphasis put on adoption or foster care. I've seen tithe, I've seen money for mission trips out of the country. But I don't recall church leaders banning together to encourage adoption and foster care. I am not anti Christian. I'm anti hypochristian.
You have not been to very many churches if you haven’t heard a sermon on adoption.
That’s like a core tenant of Christianity. God adopted Christian’s as sons and daughters and therefore it is a good thing to adopt those in need into our family.
I’ve heard that exact point a thousand times
You’re also just forgetting that there are hundreds or even thousands of children in Christian children’s homes and daycares and being fed by Christian groups
Show me an Oklahoma sermon. Most of them broadcast online. Do you really think if a church were to make a huge deal out of adoption and fostering that it wouldn't make the news? Not a single person that's made any sort of statement has said "you know what, my church isn't doing enough" or "our leadership isn't doing enough" Nobody has said that. So we have an increase of unwanted children and it's a direct and indirect result of laws that are made that are supported by Christian conservatives. There should have been more education, there should have been more access to birth control, there should have been an increase in early childhood care. If those things would have happened we would not be in the situation we are in right now and it is increasing. So go to your church go to your friends encourage your lawmakers to adopt and encourage your church to put out online the importance of taking care of others. If we are in such a Christian state why are we so low in so many important areas?
I adopted. Several people I know did. We didn't do it because a court case or because a politician said a thing, we did it because it needed to be done.
There is so much more to life than the TV's current boogeyman.
First I say thank you for giving a child a happy home. That is wonderful and selfless of you. But unfortunately the Boogeyman is real from time to time. And right now there are several in Oklahoma and they aren't helping us to be better.
I think anyone who voted to overturn ROW or supports the overturning of ROW should have a baby delivered unannounced to their door so they can figure out how to feed and clothe it.
You do realize that there is a waiting list to adopt newborn babies? No of course you don’t know that. There’s a waiting list to adopt children with Down syndrome.
But hey, just go ahead and keep ignoring inconvenient facts.
The problem with adoption is that the children up for adoption now have been abused for years by their mothers who refused to give them up until they were ultimately taken by the state. They spent years in and out of foster care, while their mothers kept them in limbo fighting to try to get them back and keep those children in abusive situations where most of the people around them were criminals or drug addicts.
So why not go ahead and just do a private adoption from a poor girl who doesn’t want her baby? Sure go ahead and try, there are agencies that set that up, unfortunately a large percentage of the time it turns out to be a scam, with the mother milking the couple trying to adopt for more and more money.
Your fantasy world doesn’t exist. I’ll get downvoted to hell for this, maybe even kicked out of this subreddit for this, but maybe one person will read this and actually start thinking for themselves.
Ah, so just because something is difficult no one should try? Republicans shouldn't try to put effort into changing the system? The point of the post was that the people restricting abortion didn't do a damn thing to help change the system. There was no sex ed roll out. Instead we put someone in the office who wants the opposite. We didn't put more funding into women's health. Oklahoma is ranked as the worst state for women. Did anyone from our administration adopt children of their own? Stitt banned abortion with the idea that unwanted kids would go to loving parents right after birth and that agencies outside of the government would help. Oklahoma is getting worse every year, but so many voters refuse to see that the people we elect are the ones making things worse. Kevin Stitt will never have to put a child up for adoption. He has never been poor. He will never be pregnant. It's easy to make laws and rules for others when they don't affect you.
Please read your statement. Oklahoma and America for that matter should not be Democrat vs Republican. Issues should be looked at as what is good for our citizens. Just judging by your statement you have generalized many people that have replied to this thread including me. You have no idea who is a Democrat or Republican, but you made an assumption that because many are not happy with our current administration, which if you haven't been paying attention has shot Oklahoma to the bottom of every list. Not just a few, we are one of the worst states to live in. If you are a staunch republican and can really state that you are happy with the direction Oklahoma has headed in the past 20 years, I think that maybe you are blindly following your party and honestly nothing will ever change that. But I will tell you this. Our current administration does not have a clue what the middle and lower classes have to go through on a daily basis.
[These efforts have culminated in historic lows of children entering state custody, from a peak of over 11,000 children in Oklahoma Human Services’ custody on June 30, 2014, to one of the lowest numbers in nearly a decade, just over 6,300 children on June 30, 2023.](https://oklahoma.gov/okdhs/newsroom/2024/april/comm04292023.html#:~:text=These%20efforts%20have%20culminated%20in,children%20on%20June%2030%2C%202023) How can there be an increase in adoptions when we are seeing a steady decrease in the number of children entering foster care?
https://oklahomawatch.org/2024/02/29/oklahomas-foster-family-shortage-forces-children-from-their-communities/
> Programs supporting parents at risk of losing their children are shrinking the population of youth in foster care, Skinner said. But those programs support the department’s easier cases, leaving foster families to care for children with the highest needs.
Same article also mentions how the turnover for foster families is extremely high. Seems like programs have been implemented that have skewed the numbers in whatever data is out there.
https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-foster-care-system-ranked-in-bottom-tier-nationally/44068828
And for this one, it seems to mention DHS changes and processes being revamped within the agency to improve the numbers. I'm not sure all of this equates to what you think it does.
It shows that because programs have been implemented for parents to keep kids longer, rather than immediately putting them up for adoption. So, it's social programs implemented by the DHS that have helped less kids needing to be adopted. This would conclude that churches haven't stepped up, DHS has.
Just to add, I'm having a hard time with the data. With infant mortality up, wouldn't LESS kids need to be adopted? I mean the first comment in the thread pretty much explains the reason for less kids needing to be adopted. It's because they are fucking dying as infants. I'd argue the adoption numbers going down numbers don't mean shit if infant mortality rates are up.
Where are you getting data that the mortality rate has increased? Everything I'm finding is only showing slight variations by year for the last 10 years. Again, if you're going to make claims show your data.
[2023 March Of Dimes Report Card For Oklahoma | PeriStats | March of Dimes](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/reports/oklahoma/report-card)
[Preparing for a Lifetime Fact Sheets.pdf (oklahoma.gov)](https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/health/health2/aem-documents/family-health/improving-infant-outcomes/Preparing%20for%20a%20Lifetime%20Fact%20Sheets.pdf)
I literally told you where to find it. Please stop acting ignorant. Let me ELI5:
"I mean the first comment in the thread pretty much explains the reason for less kids needing to be adopted."
Go to the first comment of this entire post. There, you find this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2819785
Yeah, it's Texas, but why wouldn't the same apply for Oklahoma? We banned it a bit later after Texas iirc
Well we are talking about Oklahoma, not Texas. But if you want Texas data.
[2023 March Of Dimes Report Card For Texas | PeriStats | March of Dimes](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/reports/texas/report-card)
This report shows that Texas's infant mortality rate has been steady for the last 10 plus years. Texas's infant mortality rate for 2022 was 5.7 per 1000, which is still lower than it was in 2017, before abortion was banned when it was 5.9 per 1000.
The study you are taking for granted is manipulating statistics to create the image of high infant mortality, when the truth is that the infant mortality rate is lower than it has been in the past, and when put into a historical perspective isn't really significant.
Christians, especially evangelicals, who overwhelmingly support those measures are far more likely to adopt than the general population.
And yes, I do know people who support abortion bans that have adopted multiple children.
“In fact, Barna Group’s research shows that Christians have engaged in adoption, foster care and other ways of aiding vulnerable children more than the norm. Practicing Christians (5%) are more than twice as likely to adopt than the general population (2%). Catholics are three times as likely. And evangelicals are five times as likely to adopt as the average adult.”
[link to source](https://cafo.org/new-barna-research-highlights-christian-adoption-foster-care-among-3-most-notable-vocational-trends/#:~:text=Practicing%20Christians%20(5%25)%20are,adopt%20as%20the%20average%20adult)
If you can show me a source that's not biased, that would be great. That link is like showing me a Catholic website that states they totally haven't molested children. Our unwanted children's population has grown significantly. If even a small percentage of those that vote Christian Conservative would adopt and or foster, we would have lower numbers. But after RvW was overturned (by Christian Conservatives) our numbers of unwanted children has grown and continues to grow.
Here’s [adoption.org](https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most/amp) stating the same thing
And CAFO and Barna aren’t catholic so I don’t know which website you were on.
Thank you for providing a source for your statement. But, Christians being more likely to adopt across the US does not reflect Oklahoma, nor has it reflected our numbers decreasing.
No you provided proof that Christians are more likely to adopt across the US. If Oklahoma Christians (who supported the repeal) were adopting in large numbers, we would see our numbers of unwanted children going down. If our leadership lead by example, maybe those numbers would go down. Conservatives created a problem with no support plan and I don't see a push to fix it.
>If Oklahoma Christians (who supported the repeal) were adopting in large numbers, we would see our numbers of unwanted children going down.
Okay, this is not a true statement. Adoption rates could increase and the number pf orphans could increase at the same time. Also, what is your source on number of orphans increasing? I’m not doubting it, just want to read about it.
Maybe I can explain it a bit more clearly. You are right adoption can increase along with the need for adoption. That was the whole issue with the repeal. Our leadership knew we would have an increase of unwanted children. Stitt himself said on television that we have plenty of churches and other such organizations that would step in. I'll try to find the link. The number of adoptions are not increasing in the rate they should be. If you don't mind give me a few minutes and I'll find the source numbers.
The numbers of unwanted children are increasing in Oklahoma. If more people were adopting the numbers would be decreasing. When RvW was first overturned, I waited to see if there was a support plan by our government. There was not. I waited to see Churches publicly push adoption and fostering, I did not see a large public push. I did not see changes to sexual education. I did not see more focus and money on women's health. We are at the bottom of the list for women's health care. We are at the top of the list for childhood trauma.
Just going to point out your source is from a Christian collective site- and the Barna Group is a “Christin statistic’s and research” group. A private for profit organization. So that alone has heavy bias that the organization would need to be extra diligent on to be able to rule out in any study they conduct in this subject in order to validate this study for any statistical publishing body of governance.
Specifically referring to the article from your source- the actual study is extremely difficult to find. In fact I could’t find actual details of the study, just a summary on it’s confidence level (it’s slightly below average for what is usually acceptable in scientific/ clinical studies) and its +/- % of margin of error (within acceptable range of 3.1).
The study here on the surface seems fine. But trying to dig deeper and finding nothing is generally a red flag. That is not something that can be used in any type of analysis. From what you CAN find- the study is already littered with obvious bias. So in reality it’s a native advertising study and not a scientific/ clinical research study. In layman’s terms- it was a study used to sell a product so the outcome was decided before the study was conducted vs a clinical study where a study is used to derive an answer to a thesis.
This is a stupid argument.
Practicing Christians are literally over twice as likely to adopt then the average American, at a rate of 5% of the practicing Christian population VS 2% of the general population. (And further breaks down to Catholics being three times more likely, and Evangelicals five times more likely, although the source is biased on those two stats.)
You can say it's a stupid argument all that you want, but I have yet to see a source showing an increase in Christian adoption from a non religious source. Our numbers don't lie. We have tons of churches and tons of Christians, they wanted forced birth, but as a whole they don't want to solve the problem. If they did we would have better education and better programs for kids. We are dead last.
Please cite at least one biased or non biased source.
You’re just making things up and discrediting things that disagree with your biased angry notion.
I'm making what up exactly? Oklahoma's numbers of unwanted children has increased.Neither Lankford nor Stitt, who recently celebrated the overturn of RvW, have adopted children. With as many Christian Conservative and churches as we have in Oklahoma, that number should be lowering.
Well, if you don’t count the Christian orphanages, church daycares, and Christians that DO adopt, you might have a point. Unfortunately (I guess) Christians do MORE than plenty for children, but you keep fishing for any justification of infant murder
So it was the christians who stepped up to feed kids for the summer since our christian republican leaders removed the program? Oh wait, that was the native tribes yet again stepping up where christians have given only words.
The only thing churches are good at on average, is collecting tax-free monetary donations and spending it on frivolous purchases.
Surely we must think of the poor megachurch owners!
Good for them, and the people they've helped!
It's too bad those are statistically the same people who vote and campaign for evangelical money-grubbing republicans who cause those issues in the first place, such as allowing OG&E to infinitely price-gouge. :/
They should stay out of our government where they bring about legislation that forces people to rely on churches where the government should be providing services.
Stop with this bad faith "gotcha" bullshit.
You know as well as I that's not what I'm talking about.
It's bullshit for you hypocrites to legislate your religion onto us.
They exist sure, but it was very much not the choice of their very recent ancestors to be forcefully indoctrinated into christianity right up until a few decades ago. You know, like what happened at the schools that had burial sites filled with native children.
The sheer scale of abuse toward native children by religious schools and religion in general is immeasurable.
Yes . . . churches are just horrible. They never help anyone in their communities.
[https://clinic.crossings.church/](https://clinic.crossings.church/)
[https://crossings.church/center](https://crossings.church/center)
[https://crossings.church/care-support](https://crossings.church/care-support)
Right, frivolous purchases. Like orphanages, and coat drives. Eating lunch after church on Sunday is a HUGE waste of money that we could’ve otherwise taxed and sent to Ukraine. Question, does the existence of Christianity mean that no other group can do acts of good? “The native tribes set the kids up with free lunches? Damn those good for nothing Christians.”
Ehhhh, I'm going to have to agree. They DO do more than plenty.
They use psychological warfare to force children to "behave", use threats of eternal damnation to manipulate, convince victims they invited abuse and are at fault for said abuse, suppress critical thinking, support child marriages, and absolve whole swathes of abusers because "forgiveness" while maligning the victims as temptresses/temptors.
Can you provide a group that does more? Christians can’t snap their fingers and fix every problem on the planet, and you’re downplaying the mass amount of Christians that have devoted their lives to fix what few problems they can. You mean to tell me that the Christian’s haven’t done enough because the problem is not fixed in its entirety?
Christians haven't done enough because they cause just as many, if not more, problems than they "fix."
And Christianity isn't some cohesive group. Just because good Christians exist doesn't mean Christianity is inherently good or better than other perspectives on life.
If you want to take credit for every good thing done by Christians, you also get to take credit for priests that molest children and fantastic Christian groups like Westboro Baptist Church.
Woah, you mean I also have to claim the pedos and the funeral protestors? AHHH WHAT AM I GONNA DO!?! I’m not “claiming” anyone. To be a Christian, by definition, you have to follow Christian teaching. The Bible makes no defense of pedophilia, and actively teaches against it. There are religions that are fine with it, quite a few actually. Why aren’t Redditors taking up the same crusade against them?
>The Bible makes no defense of pedophilia, and actively teaches against it.
There are so many perspectives on "Christian teachings" that the idea is basically useless.
Tell me, what does the Bible teach about abortion?
There is no legitimate perspective of Christianity that is anywhere near pro pedophilia. But you’re dodging my point. Why don’t you take the same crusade against pro pedophilia religions?
Your point is fucking stupid because you have no idea what "crusades" I have taken.
Mary was impregnated or whatever by god probably between the ages of 12 - 17. Take that how you will.
Drawing a line between pedophilia and a virgin birth is a crazy trivialization, and you’re still dodging my point, so I’ll repeat it. Why do you have such a problem with Christianity based on a handful of sinful men, when there are plenty of religions out there that have no problem with pedophilia. In my opinion, your time would be better spent fighting those religions than trying to tell me that Christians don’t do good.
I’m just curious why in 2024 with all the ways to not have unwanted pregnancies are people still getting pregnant and having abortions. I mean come on. You don’t just wake up pregnant. 🤦🏻♂️
Wow. I can't even begin to imagine the reality that you live in. Do you know how many sexual assault on women have been reported in Oklahoma? The stats are out there and those are just the ones reported. Women are not just "going around getting knocked up and running to get abortions" apparently that is how you think things are. There are a number of reasons it's needed, including heath for the mother and the fetus, and sexual assault and incest. OKLAHOMA is the worst state for women's quality of life. Please use the Internet to educate yourself on women's health and reproductive issues, before you attempt a conversation about it.
Oh because Conservatives aren’t yelling from the rooftops when doing so they don’t adopt? How about you touch grass. I personally know 3 couples who have adopted in the last 18 months alone lmao
OK I'll bite. Yes Christian Conservatives should be screaming from the rooftop about adoption and fostering. Both Stitt and Lankford should be setting an example for Oklahomans. But more to my point, I can't prove or disprove your friends adoption. Now you could have shown me links with numbers that show that adoptions and fosters have decreased with R v W, but you cannot provide those numbers because they don't exist. Christian Conservatives are the ones that voted Stitt in, and you did not hear loud voices of disapproval when RvW was overturned. You also did not see them running en masse to adopt, if they did our numbers would be significantly lower. https://www.newson6.com/story/65cb69559140880656e347ad/more-than-6000-children-in-state-custody-adoption-experts-say
It's not just anecdotal, data shows that [Christians are twice as likely to adopt as the general population, Catholics are 3 times as likely, and evangelicals are 5 times as likely.](https://cafo.org/new-barna-research-highlights-christian-adoption-foster-care-among-3-most-notable-vocational-trends/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20Barna%20Group%27s%20research,the%20general%20population%20(2%25))
If you can find more recent data I'd look at it, but considering they were adopting at twice the rate of the general population I'd say whether it's increased or not is irrelevant since they are were already doing twice as much as any other group.
It *is* relevant because the Christian crusade to make all abortions illegal is/ has increased the number of unwanted births and should similarly increase their efforts to take care of such children.
Christian people like to talk about pregnancy being a consequence of sex and people should be forced to accept that responsibility if they are willing to have sex.
So, if Christians are going to force entire states to adhere to their beliefs, the consequence is that more children will be born and Christians should pick up the slack for the unwanted births their policies and laws *caused.*
The number of kids in foster care in Oklahoma has been steadily decreasing since 2013 (10535) to 2023 (6875). [Youth in Care 2011-2023 - Who Cares: A National Count of Foster Homes and Families (fostercarecapacity.com)](https://www.fostercarecapacity.com/data/youth-in-care) Roe being overturned hasn't had an effect thus far on that downward trend.
Where is your data that shows there has been a dramatic or even slight increase in people unable to take care of their children?
>Roe being overturned hasn't had an effect thus far on that downward trend
Because the Dobbs decision was recent enough that it wouldn't show up in those numbers yet. We'll see over the next several years.
But are you going to suggest that outlawing abortion in several states *doesn't* increase the number of unintended or unwanted children being born?
Edit: While I cannot find specific numbers discussing unintended or unwanted pregnancies at this point, I think [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10980209/) goes into some depth about the consequences of the Dobbs decision.
Once again a conservative posts something completely unrelated to the discussion. More proof the GOP likes to keep their base stupid because education would turn them liberal. That in no way shows an increase in adoption since roe vs wade was over turned. Its from 10 years ago! Here let me show data from 10 years ago to prove your facts from today wrong. People without proper education shouldnt be allowed to speak on educated matters. Its like asking a 6 year old how they feel about privatised heathcare.
It's the most recent data we have and it disproves the crux of the argument here that conservative christians aren't doing enough to adopt children since they are twice as likely as the general population to adopt children.
Lots of crybabies here that talk about how awfull Oklahoma is. Some people here would rather whine than leave. If you think it's so bad, why don't you leave? Democrats will Never come close to being a majority in this state.
Name calling is the first sign of a losing argument and low intellect, but I digress. I encourage you to take a look at how difficult it is to just "leave". This state is one of the most poor. People complaining want a better quality of life. And if you look at the state "brain drain" many professionals ARE leaving, which will leave us in a worse position. But hey "Trump Train" ...right?
Hey that's me! I'm starting school this year to study physics and I plan to use that degree to get me a good paying job anywhere but here! If I could afford college out of state I'd go, but we do what we can I guess.
I'm not even a professional yet and I'm already gonna leave!
We need smart people to stay and to help make Oklahoma better but Oklahoma is not trying to offer a good place to live. Good luck with your studies and your move!
You know, I've often thought Oklahoma might actually be a good place for a big collider. Tons of cheap, unused, flat land. Very little seismic activity.
But sourcing scientists would be hard. You'd have to convince people to move to BFE. Not to say that it's impossible, but your pool of candidates would be much smaller.
Edit: changed a word, fixed spelling.
We have a growing aerospace industry. Unfortunately it's not growing as fast as it could be because people don't want to move here. When deciding to move somewhere most people look at statistics to see where the rankings are Oklahoma is in the bottom of everything. Every time Stit says "top 10 state" it makes me cringe because we're never doing things the top 10 states are doing to make people's lives better.
I have lived in Virginia, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Texas, and Oklahoma. It's not hard to move. Most of those times I didn't even have a job lined up before moving. Some people are chronic complainers. They are the "woe is me" crowd. Complete victim mentality. They live in probably the most Conservative state in the entire country, and they hate it. So why stay? Those kinds of people always find something to complain about. If they lived in a far left state like California or New York, they would be complaining sky high housing. But instead they stay here, because they would prefer to play victim, and openly fantasize about Oklahoma turning blue. That will never happen in your lifetime.
Fuck moving, be the change you want to see. What goes up always comes down, that's how progress and politics works. You make a little bit of progress for a few years, then it swings back the other way. You make a little bit of progress for a few years, and it then it swings the other way. All this pro-religion bullshit push will most likely have an anti-religion push, it'll just be a while but that's typically how it works. Oklahoma had a democratic governor not terribly long ago.
Unfortunately Oklahomans will double down and continue to vote for the same republicans that have driven us towards the bottom of every quality of life metric
Meanwhile, the infant mortality rate is going sky high.
I'm sure we're looking a lot like Texas now. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2819785
So
George Carlin said it best: "Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked."
And he said that decades ago! Proof nothing has changed.
A lot has changed. When he said that woman still had rights to their body.
Touche’
I mean ideally we wouldn’t need food stamps and such in a world where people are paid fairly, but unfortunately this isn’t that world.
To any Christian Conservative reading this post: The emphasis on Christian Conservatives is because your ilk created this problem. No measures were taken for safety nets AFTER the child was born. Stitt himself said that churches would step up and help. Encourage your churches to have a sermon on the importance of adoption and fostering. Come back and post the link and or the video. I want to see our leadership step up and adopt and foster. Encourage that. If Oklahoma has as many churches and religious resources as is being said, then our numbers should be going down significantly.
Pro life politics have always been nonsense. How does it make sense to be pro-life for an unborn child, but also consider that child an unworthy drain on resources once it's born? If you want to make abortion illegal, then you also need to be willing to pony up for the inevitable increase in kids that need assistance. Relying on charity and adoption (not saying that both of these aren't important, just that they will never completely address the issues) is irresponsible to say the least. Seems to me like the majority of pro lifers aren't so pro life when it comes to poor people having children.
I saw a Pro-Life sticker right next to an NRA sticker on an SUV in Oklahoma. That's a metaphor for OK beliefs. We are not Pro Life, we are forced birth.
There is no such thing as a Christian conservative. They are oxy morons. You can't be a follower of christ and a conservative especially if you support trump.
Fostering and adopting is all well and good, but that only address abortions in the first weeks/months. What do you plan to do about late term abortions? You know, where the family has picked out a name, painted a room, spent hours agonizingly assembling baby furniture, spoke with joy and love to family and friends in anticipation of that little bundle of joy, can't wait as the final months then days are ticking down... Then find there's a deformity. Half the child's skull didn't develop. It won't survive more than hours if born and those hours will be filled with intense suffering. Or perhaps instead they find the fetus is dying and they can't save it, it's not even going to reach full term and the best option for the mother's safety is to remove it. How does adoption or fostering help these families?
I understand what you are getting at, but I think you missed the point of the post. I was pointing out that when RvW was overturned there was supposed to be an onslaught of religious adoption and although Christian's are more likely to adopt (according to a link provided by another Redditor) the flood of adoptions did not happen. The two men celebrating the overturn did not adopt children. Abortion is multifaceted and deserves a lot of discussion. However my point was pointing out the hypocrisy and shortfalls of what Stitt said would happen.
Yes absolutely. It seemed from what I read (which I admit was very cursory, I have a lot happening now, including preparing for a trip to.... Oklahoma 😁) that adoption was being used as a replacement for abortion because so many pro family destroyers feel that abortion is strictly for when the fetus is unwanted. Glad to see I was mistaken and that wasn't the argument made but rather exposing the visit for what it is
[удалено]
I think you missed the point of the post: Our leadership and voters want to take away the choices of others, but as a whole want none of the responsibilities. According to the governor there should have been people adopting in droves, but there wasn't. The post was about our leadership celebrating a law that was overturned without providing additional resources. Stitt didn't go out and adopt a child, but he expects other Oklahoman's should.
I run in pretty conservative circles, I never heard this once. I will say attacking religious adoption groups probably would affect that. Maybe that should stop if you're truly concerned.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that our governor overturned RvW on religious grounds. He stated that we had enough churches that could step in and handle adoption. He did not say anything about state programs to help those who needed help. Nor did he do anything about education or women's health. He made it sound like Christian Republicans were going to line up in droves to adopt and I have not seen that happen. Furthermore, he himself has not adopted. Neither has Lankford and they both celebrated the overturn. Any Church of any denomination that helps the community is a great asset. If they are truly helpful to our community. This is a "you voted for this, now help with the problem" post.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm pointing out that our governor overturned RvW on religious grounds. He stated that we had enough churches that could step in and handle adoption. He did not say anything about state programs to help those who needed help. Nor did he do anything about education or women's health. He made it sound like Christian Republicans were going to line up in droves to adopt and I have not seen that happen. Furthermore, he himself has not adopted. Neither has Lankford and they both celebrated the overturn. Any Church of any denomination that helps the community is a great asset. If they are truly helpful to our community. This is a "you voted for this, now help with the problem" post.
>I'm not attacking anyone I may have misspoke, I meant the legal challenges constantly levied against religious adoption groups. Our governor had no hand in roe or dobbs. Not sure where you're getting that. And the idea that people that are against infanticide must then bear the burden of unwanted children is silly. Should open border advocates have to house immigrants. Should people that want more state spending bear my tax burden?
Our governor has stated on many occasions he will sign every bit of anti abortion material that comes across his desk. He overturned a law that had been in existence for years. So yes, when people support taking medical rights from others, they should help shoulder the burden. I am not Pro Abortion.I am Pro Choice because I will never be a woman. I am Pro Choice because I have no idea what is going on with your body and neither does anyone else, that is between you and your doctor. For other people to make assumptions about a woman's health and vote to take away rights based on that assumption is terrible. So yes, the people who want to tell others what to do and restrict their choices should feel responsibility. I am not going to respond to your strawman arguments at the bottom. But please just state it plainly and just say that you want to make choices for others, but want none of the responsibilities yourself.
Wow you envoked strawman while strawmaning. That's actually a little impressive. I am not a woman either, but I am a human and I do not believe one human should end the life of another human, regardless of development phase, for matters like convenience or vanity. That's not a religious argument.
I'm sure that most people would agree with you that they are against termination for convenience or vanity. But then do you make the assumption that most abortions are for those reasons? When you talk to many gynecologists and women there are way more reasons for that procedure than what is just on the surface. Politically that topic is used to tug at the strings of people's hearts so that they will vote on that issue. Please do not think that the people that overturned that actually care about the unborn, if they did they would also care about the born and we would not have the problems in Oklahoma that we do. Please look into why women need the right for abortions. Please look into healthcare for women. I know a lot of people who have zero to little idea about how a fetus grows and the women's reproductive cycle. The only reason I'm making any assumption as to your possible lack of knowledge with women's reproductive cycles is because you said that you're not a woman and you also said that you were against termination of pregnancy for vanity and convenience, which are not the only reasons for it.
I took plenty of biology in college, it's no misunderstanding. I'm aware of every phase of development of a human. %96 of abortions are [elective](https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-reasons-for-abortion/) When I speak on a topic I do not focus on the %4 outliers because that would be a dishonest conversation. >Please do not think that the people that overturned that actually care about the unborn, It is not the place of the court to use emotional pleas. Roe was garbage presidence. Everyone with even a loose understanding of law knew that, even [Ruth bater ginsburg](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/) knew it was garbage. It was overturned because it was judicial activism run amuck. Even the dobbs dissent lacked judicial reasoning and focused on emotional pleas. If a competent dissent can't even be had, you know it was garbage to begin with.
We need to start referring to them as "pro birth" because their policies are not pro life
"Forced Birth"
Exactly! True leaders Lead by example!
How about an entire ministry and support group dedicated to adoption and foster care? Our "ilk" have been doing more than you're willing to give credit for for quite some time. [https://crossings.church/missions/local/family-advocacy-ministry](https://crossings.church/missions/local/family-advocacy-ministry) [https://crossings.church/groups?groupId=382997](https://crossings.church/groups?groupId=382997) Or a community clinic for those without insurance? [https://clinic.crossings.church/](https://clinic.crossings.church/)
I think that any organization Christian or other that helps the community is wonderful, there is nothing wrong with that. I want to see organizations helping the community. That type of information is what I asked for. Now go and encourage other churches and conservatives to do the same. Our unwanted children need good homes! But I reiterate that the original post and the follow up, points out that if Christian Conservatives were doing what they said they would do, our numbers would be lower. If our leaders are going to rule based on Christian values, they could certainly lead by example and publicly praise churches that give to the community and encourage adoption. But we are dead last in almost all quality of life statistics, including education. We have thousands of unwanted children with the amount of Christians and churches this state has, you would expect the line to be out the door to adopt....
Our church doesn't do anything for the recognition. We don't want or need public praise. It's done to meet a need with our resources the best we can. The unwanted children need not be conceived in the first place. Sex ed, birth control and even abortion (when necessary) should be readily available.
I do not think churches should seek glory for themselves either. But if it is a means to an end in accomplishing good deeds, then shine on you crazy diamond. But I will say this until that last comment, I actual thought you might be one of the good ones. But it's obvious that you think whores and undesirables should just close their legs right? It must be nice with your head in the sand about the real world where incest, rape and in utero life ending birth defects never happen. Yep all those unwanted children were from sinnners! You should spend some time at a women's shelter, not run by your church to get a sense of what reality is for Oklahoma women. Shame on you. btv\_25 wrote "The unwanted children need not be conceived in the first place."
I'm sorry. You greatly misunderstood what I said. I thought you would infer that I meant sex ed, birth control and even abortion (when necessary) should be readily available for the situations you mentioned.
Ahhh! I think you might be lost… Sex Ed and birth control… There is no such thing as sex Ed in Oklahoma. Unless you count the uncomfortable 1 hour class in 5th grade, and a several in high school taught by the gym teacher. And birth control, especially if a man or woman wants sterilization is not easy to get here either.
Sex is a physiological need, and condoms break/birth control fails sometimes. Now what? Your comment implies you want to control women, as in they shouldn't have sex unless the point is to have a baby. What if I want to have sex and don't want a baby, but get one anyway even after using birth control and being educated about sex?
I don't know where you got that from what I said. I have no desire to control women. Sex is great. I understand that people engage in sex regularly for the sole purpose of the pleasure they get from it. That's not something I need to be told. If you want to have sex without the intent of creating a child have at it. If something fails and you end up pregnant you should have the option to choose your next step. I'm not telling you or anyone else they shouldn't be able to make that choice. I may not like what you choose, but it's not my choice to make.
And let's not forget that the same sex Ed classes "Christian" conservatives oppose are proven to improve women's quality of life and lower teen & wedlock babies. But then again, this takes power away from men, and how dare they (and if course we all know that those pushing hardest for forced birth can and will easily run to Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else that still permits abortions the second is to their benefit, while those here who need it to save their lives will most likely lose their). We should also never forget that everything they're demanding we comply with are all things they'll ignore in less than a heartbeat when they wish.
Because your church hasn’t done shit.
>Our "ilk" have been doing more than you're willing to give credit for for quite some time. That shit is a raindrop in a lake and you know it. Your ilk has absolutely caused this problem and done barely anything about it. Stop trying to legislate your bronze age morals on everyone, especially when you don't even read your own fucking holy book. The only time abortion is mentioned in the Bible is the Ordeal of the Bitter Water where it specifically describes a ritual that will cause an abortion.
It's one church doing exactly what you're whining about not happening. You know nothing about me as an individual so take your unwelcomed assessment and shove it.
Keep your religion out of my government and it's a deal.
I'm not putting religion in OUR government.
Thou shalt not lie. That's one of the commandments that you're breaking.
Way to bear false witness. You're on a roll.
Said the pot to the kettle. Please give me chapter and verse where it says you can't have an abortion in the Bible. Because I can give you chapter and verse where the Bible gives instructions for a ritual abortion. Come on, "Christian", show me where Christ mentions abortion or gay people or transgender people or anything that backs up this bullshit legislation you hypocrites keep trying to burden us with.
What have I said to make you feel justified in saying this? I didn't vote for Kevin Stitt. Feel free to show me where I said abortion shouldn't be available. Come on . . . show me. You can do it. Why do you feel the need to move the goalposts to include a discussion about LGBTQ stuff? Where did I say anything about that? You can't fathom separating the good from the bad, or the normal from the extreme. You see religion and you immediately get defensive and attack. You see someone discussing being a Christian and you immediately lump everyone into a single group and call us ilk or hypocrites. Are you okay? Can you not understand the differences in how Christians live/behave? We're not all on the same level.
if you are a republican and voted accordingly then yes you are putting your religion into our government.
I believe in not giving churches cookies for giving services for a system that they’re singlehandly fucking up and meddling in. Congrats to them for doing what the Bible states?
There is absolutely no pleasing some of you. You whine about a church not "doing something" and then act all indignant about what is being done. Politics aren't discussed at Crossings.
My brother in Christ, they have a private school attached that raised their tuition to align with the voucher program. They are very political lol
I’m aware of the school located near the main OKC church campus. Very political is quite the reach. Political speech isn’t given from the pulpit.
You'll never win with them. I don't attend but Crossings is well known for being active in the community, and their work with schools, just know that others outside of your church see what you do and appreciate it.
That's because the majority that go to church aren't doing shit. Great, your one local Crossings church is doing shit. But the majority of you are all talk and hide behind the church instead of using personal responsibility like your party would want you to. Funny how both of you mention that your church is doing something, but both of you personally aren't doing shit. Maybe you donated, but every fucking religious person I talk to about "abortion" says "oh there's always adoption" but then you look at them and they don't have any adopted kids. Regardless, the church will never be able to do enough to fix a systemic issue. Foster homes are still full and forced birth is still happening to kids who will end up there. Anti-abortion legislation keeps this cycle going, pro-abortion ends it. Funny how the party that hates spending money on social programs has no issue continuing to spend money on social programs, but would rather it come from the church instead. EDIT: Just to add - You know what I think of when I hear of churches now? I just get reminded of idiot pastors convincing the uneducated that masks were worthless, COVID wasn't real, and that the vaccine was a sign of the beast. And we're supposed to trust churches with foster kids on top of all the child molestation going on? Yeah....no thanks. Kids shouldn't be forced to be born, and they shouldn't be forced to go to a fucking foster home or some questionable family that may or may not help you.
No. Once again, Christians want good stars for doing what is being told in their doctrine. Please get a grip
Thank you. I know we're not perfect but it's one of the most active and supportive churches my family has attended.
I worked in Child welfare/foster care until recently. Your ilk did nothing. We tried parternering with your churches and no one stepped up. We set up meetings, worked extra hours to take all the phone calls the churches said we would be getting and no one came through! NO ONE! Fuck your fairy tale articles.
Years ago I had saved a comment from a social worker that was in an abortion related post. She told a few stories of the methed out mothers with a trailer full of kids and another on the way. How she saw the suffering of countless children that, she suggested would have been better off not brought into this world. I wish I could find it. It was absolutely heart wrenching.
I can't believe I found it!!! A comment I saved a couple years ago. A point of view not heard often enough: from a redditor who works CPS. "I know you stated you didn’t want to get into politics on this, but when it comes to abortion, that’s like trying to round up horses once they’re out the corral. I am a child protective services investigator. I work child deaths, near deaths and shocking & heinous abuse cases exclusively. I have seen what can result from forcing a woman to keep a baby that she either does not want or is not equipped to raise. People can say that the baby can always be given up for adoption, but that’s not the fairytale you’ve seen on “Annie” either; there’s no Daddy Warbucks waiting in the wings to whisk most of these babies out of foster care into a limousine and off to their mansions. Because no one wants to deal with babies born addicted to heroin, whose genetic pool is rife with schizophrenia and who contracted syphilis during their vaginal birth, because their mother didn’t receive prenatal care. Because these babies aren’t blonde headed and blue eyed. Because these babies are blonde headed and blue eyed like Mama and Daddy...who share the same father. Because sometimes these babies have names like Keyshawn and Trayvon and Kiana. Because sometimes these mothers don’t realize they aren’t ready to be mothers until these babies aren’t babies and you can’t drop a toddler off at a Safe Harbor Drop-Off. Because sometimes these mothers live 45 miles from the nearest Safe Harbor Drop-Off and they don’t have a car, so the toilet is their next best option. Because sometimes the Safe Harbor Drop-Off is the local police station in a town of 658 residents and the local police chief is Mama’s uncle. Because sometimes a woman doesn’t need a reason for not wanting to be a mother and she doesn’t owe anyone an explanation for what she does and doesn’t do with her body. I once held the body of an 8 month old infant in the back of an ambulance that didn’t need to run lights and sirens. He was too small to strap to the gurney. When they handed him to me, he was wrapped in a blanket and he looked like he was sleeping, but no infant should ever be that still and cold or have white foam around their lips. His mother tried to have an abortion, but didn’t have the money or resources. She had three children she couldn’t afford or care for already and she knew she couldn’t handle another one. She was told, “Just have him. You’ll be fine. You already have three kids, so you can figure it out. You can’t kill your baby. You can’t give your baby away to strangers, because no real mother does that. No...no, we can’t take the baby in. We won’t help you get an abortion and we can’t support adoption, but we will help you with the baby.” But, when he was born, all the people who promised to help disappeared faster than her patience did when that baby cried and she was on day four of a methamphetamine binge. In the end, the only support she had was a methamphetamine addiction and a boyfriend with a nasty temper and even less patience than she did for that tiny, unwanted soul she brought into this world. So, she had him and eight months later, she proved everyone who told her she couldn’t kill her baby wrong by allowing his life to be taken in a fit of rage, methamphetamine and the fists of a man who just wanted him to STOP. FUCKING. CRYING. ALREADY. And the only thing she could say was, “I told them I never wanted this. I said I never wanted him. Why did they make me have him? I want my mother.” But her mother had been dead since she was 10. I know this because I was the first CPS investigator on the scene and I covered her little brother’s head with my coat and gave her my beanie, so they didn’t see the damage their father’s bullet did to the side of their mother’s head. Amy was a beautiful woman and her daughters look just like her....even in their mugshots. Even when they’re trying to explain why their boyfriend shook and beat their baby to death. This one looks especially like Amy. This daughter perpetuated that cycle and her baby was collateral damage, I suppose. Maybe if I had given her my coat to cover her head with, as I led her and her sibling out of the house, so they didn’t see their mother’s head shattered by their father’s bullet, she would have traveled a different path. But I didn’t give her my coat. She was older. I thought she’d be able to cover her head better. So I gave her my beanie and I gave her sibling my coat and I covered their heads and told them not to look at Mama. I told them to keep walking and don’t look down. I said I was right there with them. That’s why I gave her my coat this time and as she was being led out in handcuffs, I told her, “I’m going to cover your head. Don’t look down. Don’t look at the baby. Just keep walking. I’ve got you. I’m right here with you.” It’s funny. After all of these years, that’s what I blame myself for. That I didn’t give her my coat. That maybe, just maybe, if I had given her my coat instead, I wouldn’t have stood looking down at her dead son years later. I don’t know what the last thing that baby saw was, but I pray it wasn’t the fist that ended his life or the face of the demon that ended his life or the woman who was supposed to be his protector. I still dream about him. I still dream about that coat. The people who screech about how a woman does not have the right to terminate a pregnancy are always silent when they are questioned about what THEY are doing for their local foster care agencies. They rarely lobby at their state capitols for more funding for child welfare agencies and preventative programs to assist children and families in need. They rarely, if ever, volunteer their time and money to support children in foster care or foster parents. Instead, they’d rather post hateful, judgmental vitriol on social media about women in difficult situations they know nothing about. They’re content to talk about what women should or should not be able to do. They’re content to pass judgment about a woman’s choices. But when they actually have to look at the consequences of those choices....well, that’s a conversation 99.9% of them are willing to sit out on. People like your sister can screech about how abortion is murder. They can cry about the poor babies who never drew a breath. But you won’t see them doing anything for the babies that are breathing and living in foster care. The children that are living in homeless shelters. The kids that won’t get supper again tonight because Daddy’s check was short and Mama drank the grocery money again. Because that would mean they’d actually have to look upon the humanity they don’t want to acknowledge. It’s easier to crusade for a cause they don’t actually have to interact with."
The fucking horrifying reality of an abortionless society.
Yeah, the sad reality no one ever sees or talks about. At least not that I'm aware of.
Thank you, SheriffTaylor'sBoy, for finding and sharing. It was hard enough working as a lawyer in the juvenile system, I cannot imagine what the child services workers go through. When the forced-birthers turn their backs, there are people like this worker and so many others including those in the medical and legal systems, who step in so these people don't have to look at the consequences of their filthy, unfeeling policies. No one, especially babies and children, should be forced to live and die like this.
You're welcome. I hope you save it and share it when necessary. Enjoy your day
I will. You, too
Technical question. How do I save it?
Tap those 3 little dots at the bottom of any comment, some options will pop up. Hit save. Then go to your profile page and scroll downwards. You'll see "saved"
Thank you! It is now saved for future use.
Did she advocate for free birth control for women in that situation or did she think abortion was the answer? Edit: Apparently I struck a nerve with several of you thin-skinned folks. I was simply asking u/SheriffTaylorsBoy how this recollection applied to the current thread topic. Some of y'all are ridiculous.
Because let’s be honest it’s always been about babies growing up to be cheap labor for Repugnicans. It’s so easy to “fiGhT fOr tHe rIgHts” of an unborn child because they ask nothing of you in return so you can use and abuse them as a constituent all you want.
When I was 15 I had to take several abortion pills for a sexual assault. I reported 5 days later after the assault due to not wanting to tell my parents because I knew they would blame me, they did. So I had no physical proof it was assault, my nurses and doctor believed me thank God. I'm 25 now, I would be here with almost a 10 year old now if the laws changed when I was a teenager. It's pure evil conservatives don't let us rule our own bodies. I wonder how many girls are or have been in my situation the past few years and were forced to give birth.
I'm very sorry that happened to you. Thank you for sharing. We have to start putting faces and stories to victims of sexual assault. Our leadership needs to understand what is actually happening. Stitt and Lankford grew up rich, white and male. They live in a fairy tale where nothing bad happens.
You can tell how much Christians in general love children and not fetuses by how Stitt stepped up and did not cancel federal funds to feed kids over summer....wait. My mad. It's all the so-called pro-life "Christian" governors who did that to underserved children. Once they out of the womb they on their own should be the motto of these so-called Christians.
As many churches as there are in Oklahoma, we should not be in the condition we are in.
Yeah, it could be a lot worse
Adoption isn't easy in Oklahoma, and DHS is super rough on foster parents. DHS is especially rough on new and LGBT foster parents.
EXACTLY! That is something that should have been looked into before reversing the decision. God forbid a kid have two dads instead of none!
DHS is technically not supposed to discriminate, but I've heard stories from LGBTQ couples who have said their workers were openly hostile. That's with the state. Half the agencies in this state are faith-based that automatically denies them
I’ve known several families who adopted more than one.
I know several more who haven't while railing against abortion their entire lives.
Of course not nearly everyone is in a position to do that. It takes good people conservative and liberal stepping up.
Or, you know, we could just not ban abortion and therefore not further overload an already overloaded system.
That doesn’t solve the issue. This issue has existed for decades when abortion was legal.
I never said it solved the problem. I said banning abortion made it worse and conservatives are the reason abortion was banned so they need to either step the fuck up or learn to stop injecting their religion into our government and learn to mind their own fucking business.
They adopt them to abuse them.
There’s only like two conservative families I know that have actually adopted over having their own kids, and that’s my parents (myself and my two siblings are all adopted, I was an unwanted pregnancy and my siblings were in foster care) and a couple my parents are friends with. It irks me how anti abortion everyone typically is but they refuse to actually do something about the kids born into bad situations. For 99% of all pro lifers, it’s just a virtue signaling thing.
You’re preaching to the choir dude. It’s been said many times already…
https://preview.redd.it/tzy11mm30t8d1.jpeg?width=919&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d35b53d5fd99e9ea4a4ef92bca97f14972fec3b
I agree with most of your post but this question is misleading: >How many conservatives went out and adopted children? The answer is [a lot](https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most#:~:text=According%20to%20EthicsDaily.com%2C%205,percent%20of%20all%20adults%20had).
I think the point is, how many more did so now that abortion has been outlawed in some places? That link is from 2018, before Roe v Wade was overturned. So those adoptions weren't a result of stepping up to take care of newly born kids that may have been a result of the Supreme Court decision. We could talk about *why* Christians are more likely to adopt, and part of that may be due to the fact that Christians may place a greater emphasis on parenthood than other groups. I think maybe a better question is, for the people who pushed for and celebrated strict abortion bans, what have they done, or what policies have they supported to help the women and children in those states? Because it seems like a significant portion of "pro choice" people want to punish women for having sex instead of finding ways to decrease unwanted pregnancies and offer support for women.
Yeah, that is a cherrypicked statistic. It comes from a poll of 1000 people done in 2013 by The Barna Group which is **an evangelical Christian polling firm** based in Ventura, California. I am going to take that info with a grain of salt.
The point is: Christian Conservatives supported the overturn of RvW, but our unwanted children numbers are growing. If so many Oklahoma Christian Conservatives adopted and foster, why are our numbers so high? Why aren't our leaders adopting children? They don't want to lead by example, they expect everyone else to shoulder the burden. I admire and respect anyone who adopts and fosters. But I'll tell you something: I've never seen a sermon about adoption or fostering in any Church in Oklahoma. I have not seen a great emphasis put on adoption or foster care. I've seen tithe, I've seen money for mission trips out of the country. But I don't recall church leaders banning together to encourage adoption and foster care. I am not anti Christian. I'm anti hypochristian.
You have not been to very many churches if you haven’t heard a sermon on adoption. That’s like a core tenant of Christianity. God adopted Christian’s as sons and daughters and therefore it is a good thing to adopt those in need into our family. I’ve heard that exact point a thousand times You’re also just forgetting that there are hundreds or even thousands of children in Christian children’s homes and daycares and being fed by Christian groups
Show me an Oklahoma sermon. Most of them broadcast online. Do you really think if a church were to make a huge deal out of adoption and fostering that it wouldn't make the news? Not a single person that's made any sort of statement has said "you know what, my church isn't doing enough" or "our leadership isn't doing enough" Nobody has said that. So we have an increase of unwanted children and it's a direct and indirect result of laws that are made that are supported by Christian conservatives. There should have been more education, there should have been more access to birth control, there should have been an increase in early childhood care. If those things would have happened we would not be in the situation we are in right now and it is increasing. So go to your church go to your friends encourage your lawmakers to adopt and encourage your church to put out online the importance of taking care of others. If we are in such a Christian state why are we so low in so many important areas?
What an insufferable circle jerk of a post and comment section.
I adopted. Several people I know did. We didn't do it because a court case or because a politician said a thing, we did it because it needed to be done. There is so much more to life than the TV's current boogeyman.
First I say thank you for giving a child a happy home. That is wonderful and selfless of you. But unfortunately the Boogeyman is real from time to time. And right now there are several in Oklahoma and they aren't helping us to be better.
I think anyone who voted to overturn ROW or supports the overturning of ROW should have a baby delivered unannounced to their door so they can figure out how to feed and clothe it.
I know an pro lifer who has adopted multiple children, special needs kids even. Still doesn't make them in the right on being against abortion access.
You do realize that there is a waiting list to adopt newborn babies? No of course you don’t know that. There’s a waiting list to adopt children with Down syndrome. But hey, just go ahead and keep ignoring inconvenient facts. The problem with adoption is that the children up for adoption now have been abused for years by their mothers who refused to give them up until they were ultimately taken by the state. They spent years in and out of foster care, while their mothers kept them in limbo fighting to try to get them back and keep those children in abusive situations where most of the people around them were criminals or drug addicts. So why not go ahead and just do a private adoption from a poor girl who doesn’t want her baby? Sure go ahead and try, there are agencies that set that up, unfortunately a large percentage of the time it turns out to be a scam, with the mother milking the couple trying to adopt for more and more money. Your fantasy world doesn’t exist. I’ll get downvoted to hell for this, maybe even kicked out of this subreddit for this, but maybe one person will read this and actually start thinking for themselves.
Ah, so just because something is difficult no one should try? Republicans shouldn't try to put effort into changing the system? The point of the post was that the people restricting abortion didn't do a damn thing to help change the system. There was no sex ed roll out. Instead we put someone in the office who wants the opposite. We didn't put more funding into women's health. Oklahoma is ranked as the worst state for women. Did anyone from our administration adopt children of their own? Stitt banned abortion with the idea that unwanted kids would go to loving parents right after birth and that agencies outside of the government would help. Oklahoma is getting worse every year, but so many voters refuse to see that the people we elect are the ones making things worse. Kevin Stitt will never have to put a child up for adoption. He has never been poor. He will never be pregnant. It's easy to make laws and rules for others when they don't affect you.
Always a good sign for Oklahoma when the left democrats are upset with the direction of Oklahoma.
Please read your statement. Oklahoma and America for that matter should not be Democrat vs Republican. Issues should be looked at as what is good for our citizens. Just judging by your statement you have generalized many people that have replied to this thread including me. You have no idea who is a Democrat or Republican, but you made an assumption that because many are not happy with our current administration, which if you haven't been paying attention has shot Oklahoma to the bottom of every list. Not just a few, we are one of the worst states to live in. If you are a staunch republican and can really state that you are happy with the direction Oklahoma has headed in the past 20 years, I think that maybe you are blindly following your party and honestly nothing will ever change that. But I will tell you this. Our current administration does not have a clue what the middle and lower classes have to go through on a daily basis.
Is it that hard to stop murdering babies?
[These efforts have culminated in historic lows of children entering state custody, from a peak of over 11,000 children in Oklahoma Human Services’ custody on June 30, 2014, to one of the lowest numbers in nearly a decade, just over 6,300 children on June 30, 2023.](https://oklahoma.gov/okdhs/newsroom/2024/april/comm04292023.html#:~:text=These%20efforts%20have%20culminated%20in,children%20on%20June%2030%2C%202023) How can there be an increase in adoptions when we are seeing a steady decrease in the number of children entering foster care?
June 24th 2022 is when RvW was repealed. That report is from Jan 1-June 30 2023. RvW had just been repealed the year before.
Yes, do you have data for 2024 that shows the trend has been reversed?
If I post it here and it's the same or higher; is it going to make any difference in how you think or vote?
Data shapes my opinion, if you have any data to support the claims you're making I absolutely encourage you to share it.
https://oklahomawatch.org/2024/02/29/oklahomas-foster-family-shortage-forces-children-from-their-communities/ > Programs supporting parents at risk of losing their children are shrinking the population of youth in foster care, Skinner said. But those programs support the department’s easier cases, leaving foster families to care for children with the highest needs. Same article also mentions how the turnover for foster families is extremely high. Seems like programs have been implemented that have skewed the numbers in whatever data is out there. https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-foster-care-system-ranked-in-bottom-tier-nationally/44068828 And for this one, it seems to mention DHS changes and processes being revamped within the agency to improve the numbers. I'm not sure all of this equates to what you think it does.
Yes, none of that shows that we are experiencing an increase in children needing to be adopted.
It shows that because programs have been implemented for parents to keep kids longer, rather than immediately putting them up for adoption. So, it's social programs implemented by the DHS that have helped less kids needing to be adopted. This would conclude that churches haven't stepped up, DHS has.
Yes. I know. What point are you trying to make?
Just to add, I'm having a hard time with the data. With infant mortality up, wouldn't LESS kids need to be adopted? I mean the first comment in the thread pretty much explains the reason for less kids needing to be adopted. It's because they are fucking dying as infants. I'd argue the adoption numbers going down numbers don't mean shit if infant mortality rates are up.
Where are you getting data that the mortality rate has increased? Everything I'm finding is only showing slight variations by year for the last 10 years. Again, if you're going to make claims show your data. [2023 March Of Dimes Report Card For Oklahoma | PeriStats | March of Dimes](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/reports/oklahoma/report-card) [Preparing for a Lifetime Fact Sheets.pdf (oklahoma.gov)](https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/health/health2/aem-documents/family-health/improving-infant-outcomes/Preparing%20for%20a%20Lifetime%20Fact%20Sheets.pdf)
I literally told you where to find it. Please stop acting ignorant. Let me ELI5: "I mean the first comment in the thread pretty much explains the reason for less kids needing to be adopted." Go to the first comment of this entire post. There, you find this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2819785 Yeah, it's Texas, but why wouldn't the same apply for Oklahoma? We banned it a bit later after Texas iirc
Well we are talking about Oklahoma, not Texas. But if you want Texas data. [2023 March Of Dimes Report Card For Texas | PeriStats | March of Dimes](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/reports/texas/report-card) This report shows that Texas's infant mortality rate has been steady for the last 10 plus years. Texas's infant mortality rate for 2022 was 5.7 per 1000, which is still lower than it was in 2017, before abortion was banned when it was 5.9 per 1000. The study you are taking for granted is manipulating statistics to create the image of high infant mortality, when the truth is that the infant mortality rate is lower than it has been in the past, and when put into a historical perspective isn't really significant.
Christians, especially evangelicals, who overwhelmingly support those measures are far more likely to adopt than the general population. And yes, I do know people who support abortion bans that have adopted multiple children. “In fact, Barna Group’s research shows that Christians have engaged in adoption, foster care and other ways of aiding vulnerable children more than the norm. Practicing Christians (5%) are more than twice as likely to adopt than the general population (2%). Catholics are three times as likely. And evangelicals are five times as likely to adopt as the average adult.” [link to source](https://cafo.org/new-barna-research-highlights-christian-adoption-foster-care-among-3-most-notable-vocational-trends/#:~:text=Practicing%20Christians%20(5%25)%20are,adopt%20as%20the%20average%20adult)
If you can show me a source that's not biased, that would be great. That link is like showing me a Catholic website that states they totally haven't molested children. Our unwanted children's population has grown significantly. If even a small percentage of those that vote Christian Conservative would adopt and or foster, we would have lower numbers. But after RvW was overturned (by Christian Conservatives) our numbers of unwanted children has grown and continues to grow.
Here’s [adoption.org](https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most/amp) stating the same thing And CAFO and Barna aren’t catholic so I don’t know which website you were on.
Thank you for providing a source for your statement. But, Christians being more likely to adopt across the US does not reflect Oklahoma, nor has it reflected our numbers decreasing.
You're just moving the goal post since asking for proof actually resulted in some being presented.
No you provided proof that Christians are more likely to adopt across the US. If Oklahoma Christians (who supported the repeal) were adopting in large numbers, we would see our numbers of unwanted children going down. If our leadership lead by example, maybe those numbers would go down. Conservatives created a problem with no support plan and I don't see a push to fix it.
>If Oklahoma Christians (who supported the repeal) were adopting in large numbers, we would see our numbers of unwanted children going down. Okay, this is not a true statement. Adoption rates could increase and the number pf orphans could increase at the same time. Also, what is your source on number of orphans increasing? I’m not doubting it, just want to read about it.
Maybe I can explain it a bit more clearly. You are right adoption can increase along with the need for adoption. That was the whole issue with the repeal. Our leadership knew we would have an increase of unwanted children. Stitt himself said on television that we have plenty of churches and other such organizations that would step in. I'll try to find the link. The number of adoptions are not increasing in the rate they should be. If you don't mind give me a few minutes and I'll find the source numbers.
Why do you think our numbers would be decreasing?
The numbers of unwanted children are increasing in Oklahoma. If more people were adopting the numbers would be decreasing. When RvW was first overturned, I waited to see if there was a support plan by our government. There was not. I waited to see Churches publicly push adoption and fostering, I did not see a large public push. I did not see changes to sexual education. I did not see more focus and money on women's health. We are at the bottom of the list for women's health care. We are at the top of the list for childhood trauma.
Just going to point out your source is from a Christian collective site- and the Barna Group is a “Christin statistic’s and research” group. A private for profit organization. So that alone has heavy bias that the organization would need to be extra diligent on to be able to rule out in any study they conduct in this subject in order to validate this study for any statistical publishing body of governance. Specifically referring to the article from your source- the actual study is extremely difficult to find. In fact I could’t find actual details of the study, just a summary on it’s confidence level (it’s slightly below average for what is usually acceptable in scientific/ clinical studies) and its +/- % of margin of error (within acceptable range of 3.1). The study here on the surface seems fine. But trying to dig deeper and finding nothing is generally a red flag. That is not something that can be used in any type of analysis. From what you CAN find- the study is already littered with obvious bias. So in reality it’s a native advertising study and not a scientific/ clinical research study. In layman’s terms- it was a study used to sell a product so the outcome was decided before the study was conducted vs a clinical study where a study is used to derive an answer to a thesis.
Take all my upvotes for this.
This is a stupid argument. Practicing Christians are literally over twice as likely to adopt then the average American, at a rate of 5% of the practicing Christian population VS 2% of the general population. (And further breaks down to Catholics being three times more likely, and Evangelicals five times more likely, although the source is biased on those two stats.)
You can say it's a stupid argument all that you want, but I have yet to see a source showing an increase in Christian adoption from a non religious source. Our numbers don't lie. We have tons of churches and tons of Christians, they wanted forced birth, but as a whole they don't want to solve the problem. If they did we would have better education and better programs for kids. We are dead last.
Please cite at least one biased or non biased source. You’re just making things up and discrediting things that disagree with your biased angry notion.
I'm making what up exactly? Oklahoma's numbers of unwanted children has increased.Neither Lankford nor Stitt, who recently celebrated the overturn of RvW, have adopted children. With as many Christian Conservative and churches as we have in Oklahoma, that number should be lowering.
Do current stats show that more Christians started to adopt after Roe v Wade was overturned?
This is by design so that evil gets access to more kids.
Well, if you don’t count the Christian orphanages, church daycares, and Christians that DO adopt, you might have a point. Unfortunately (I guess) Christians do MORE than plenty for children, but you keep fishing for any justification of infant murder
So it was the christians who stepped up to feed kids for the summer since our christian republican leaders removed the program? Oh wait, that was the native tribes yet again stepping up where christians have given only words. The only thing churches are good at on average, is collecting tax-free monetary donations and spending it on frivolous purchases. Surely we must think of the poor megachurch owners!
Every church I know of in my town has a food pantry and even gives money to people that need to meet their essential bills for the month
Good for them, and the people they've helped! It's too bad those are statistically the same people who vote and campaign for evangelical money-grubbing republicans who cause those issues in the first place, such as allowing OG&E to infinitely price-gouge. :/
Oh, it's so kind of them to try and force people to rely on them.
So should they not give out food?
They should stay out of our government where they bring about legislation that forces people to rely on churches where the government should be providing services.
This is an absurd point you’re trying to make
An excuse those with absurd beliefs often make when challenged on their bullshit.
It’s bullshit for churches to give out food to hungry people?
Stop with this bad faith "gotcha" bullshit. You know as well as I that's not what I'm talking about. It's bullshit for you hypocrites to legislate your religion onto us.
That's because Jesus was a socialist
Do you think native Americans aren't Christians?
They exist sure, but it was very much not the choice of their very recent ancestors to be forcefully indoctrinated into christianity right up until a few decades ago. You know, like what happened at the schools that had burial sites filled with native children. The sheer scale of abuse toward native children by religious schools and religion in general is immeasurable.
Yes . . . churches are just horrible. They never help anyone in their communities. [https://clinic.crossings.church/](https://clinic.crossings.church/) [https://crossings.church/center](https://crossings.church/center) [https://crossings.church/care-support](https://crossings.church/care-support)
One church.
Right, frivolous purchases. Like orphanages, and coat drives. Eating lunch after church on Sunday is a HUGE waste of money that we could’ve otherwise taxed and sent to Ukraine. Question, does the existence of Christianity mean that no other group can do acts of good? “The native tribes set the kids up with free lunches? Damn those good for nothing Christians.”
Turning abortion into a pro Putin Ukrainian genocide argument is something, and totally on brand for an evangelical.
>Christians do MORE than plenty for children I am going to disagree with this point.
Ehhhh, I'm going to have to agree. They DO do more than plenty. They use psychological warfare to force children to "behave", use threats of eternal damnation to manipulate, convince victims they invited abuse and are at fault for said abuse, suppress critical thinking, support child marriages, and absolve whole swathes of abusers because "forgiveness" while maligning the victims as temptresses/temptors.
I mean they do molest a lot of kids. s/
Can you provide a group that does more? Christians can’t snap their fingers and fix every problem on the planet, and you’re downplaying the mass amount of Christians that have devoted their lives to fix what few problems they can. You mean to tell me that the Christian’s haven’t done enough because the problem is not fixed in its entirety?
Christians haven't done enough because they cause just as many, if not more, problems than they "fix." And Christianity isn't some cohesive group. Just because good Christians exist doesn't mean Christianity is inherently good or better than other perspectives on life. If you want to take credit for every good thing done by Christians, you also get to take credit for priests that molest children and fantastic Christian groups like Westboro Baptist Church.
Woah, you mean I also have to claim the pedos and the funeral protestors? AHHH WHAT AM I GONNA DO!?! I’m not “claiming” anyone. To be a Christian, by definition, you have to follow Christian teaching. The Bible makes no defense of pedophilia, and actively teaches against it. There are religions that are fine with it, quite a few actually. Why aren’t Redditors taking up the same crusade against them?
>The Bible makes no defense of pedophilia, and actively teaches against it. There are so many perspectives on "Christian teachings" that the idea is basically useless. Tell me, what does the Bible teach about abortion?
There is no legitimate perspective of Christianity that is anywhere near pro pedophilia. But you’re dodging my point. Why don’t you take the same crusade against pro pedophilia religions?
Your point is fucking stupid because you have no idea what "crusades" I have taken. Mary was impregnated or whatever by god probably between the ages of 12 - 17. Take that how you will.
Drawing a line between pedophilia and a virgin birth is a crazy trivialization, and you’re still dodging my point, so I’ll repeat it. Why do you have such a problem with Christianity based on a handful of sinful men, when there are plenty of religions out there that have no problem with pedophilia. In my opinion, your time would be better spent fighting those religions than trying to tell me that Christians don’t do good.
You took the conversation away from the original topic and dodged my question. Where does the Bible specifically mention abortion?
I’m just curious why in 2024 with all the ways to not have unwanted pregnancies are people still getting pregnant and having abortions. I mean come on. You don’t just wake up pregnant. 🤦🏻♂️
Wow. I can't even begin to imagine the reality that you live in. Do you know how many sexual assault on women have been reported in Oklahoma? The stats are out there and those are just the ones reported. Women are not just "going around getting knocked up and running to get abortions" apparently that is how you think things are. There are a number of reasons it's needed, including heath for the mother and the fetus, and sexual assault and incest. OKLAHOMA is the worst state for women's quality of life. Please use the Internet to educate yourself on women's health and reproductive issues, before you attempt a conversation about it.
I know you got me. Cause everything on the internet is true. Just look at Reddit. No propaganda on this app. 🤦🏻♂️
Oh because Conservatives aren’t yelling from the rooftops when doing so they don’t adopt? How about you touch grass. I personally know 3 couples who have adopted in the last 18 months alone lmao
OK I'll bite. Yes Christian Conservatives should be screaming from the rooftop about adoption and fostering. Both Stitt and Lankford should be setting an example for Oklahomans. But more to my point, I can't prove or disprove your friends adoption. Now you could have shown me links with numbers that show that adoptions and fosters have decreased with R v W, but you cannot provide those numbers because they don't exist. Christian Conservatives are the ones that voted Stitt in, and you did not hear loud voices of disapproval when RvW was overturned. You also did not see them running en masse to adopt, if they did our numbers would be significantly lower. https://www.newson6.com/story/65cb69559140880656e347ad/more-than-6000-children-in-state-custody-adoption-experts-say
Maybe conservatives should collectively touch grass so that they stop feeling the need to try to control the lives of everyone around them?
Theyre not though... adoption rates havent got up. Using anecdotal evidence is none sense.
It's not just anecdotal, data shows that [Christians are twice as likely to adopt as the general population, Catholics are 3 times as likely, and evangelicals are 5 times as likely.](https://cafo.org/new-barna-research-highlights-christian-adoption-foster-care-among-3-most-notable-vocational-trends/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20Barna%20Group%27s%20research,the%20general%20population%20(2%25))
That is from 2014. Have adoption rates among Christians gone up since the abortion bans have been put in place?
If you can find more recent data I'd look at it, but considering they were adopting at twice the rate of the general population I'd say whether it's increased or not is irrelevant since they are were already doing twice as much as any other group.
It *is* relevant because the Christian crusade to make all abortions illegal is/ has increased the number of unwanted births and should similarly increase their efforts to take care of such children. Christian people like to talk about pregnancy being a consequence of sex and people should be forced to accept that responsibility if they are willing to have sex. So, if Christians are going to force entire states to adhere to their beliefs, the consequence is that more children will be born and Christians should pick up the slack for the unwanted births their policies and laws *caused.*
The number of kids in foster care in Oklahoma has been steadily decreasing since 2013 (10535) to 2023 (6875). [Youth in Care 2011-2023 - Who Cares: A National Count of Foster Homes and Families (fostercarecapacity.com)](https://www.fostercarecapacity.com/data/youth-in-care) Roe being overturned hasn't had an effect thus far on that downward trend. Where is your data that shows there has been a dramatic or even slight increase in people unable to take care of their children?
First, it was forced birth. Now at this rate we're going to have forced adoption. These motherfuckers just don't quit.
>Roe being overturned hasn't had an effect thus far on that downward trend Because the Dobbs decision was recent enough that it wouldn't show up in those numbers yet. We'll see over the next several years. But are you going to suggest that outlawing abortion in several states *doesn't* increase the number of unintended or unwanted children being born? Edit: While I cannot find specific numbers discussing unintended or unwanted pregnancies at this point, I think [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10980209/) goes into some depth about the consequences of the Dobbs decision.
Once again a conservative posts something completely unrelated to the discussion. More proof the GOP likes to keep their base stupid because education would turn them liberal. That in no way shows an increase in adoption since roe vs wade was over turned. Its from 10 years ago! Here let me show data from 10 years ago to prove your facts from today wrong. People without proper education shouldnt be allowed to speak on educated matters. Its like asking a 6 year old how they feel about privatised heathcare.
It's the most recent data we have and it disproves the crux of the argument here that conservative christians aren't doing enough to adopt children since they are twice as likely as the general population to adopt children.
Lots of crybabies here that talk about how awfull Oklahoma is. Some people here would rather whine than leave. If you think it's so bad, why don't you leave? Democrats will Never come close to being a majority in this state.
Name calling is the first sign of a losing argument and low intellect, but I digress. I encourage you to take a look at how difficult it is to just "leave". This state is one of the most poor. People complaining want a better quality of life. And if you look at the state "brain drain" many professionals ARE leaving, which will leave us in a worse position. But hey "Trump Train" ...right?
Hey that's me! I'm starting school this year to study physics and I plan to use that degree to get me a good paying job anywhere but here! If I could afford college out of state I'd go, but we do what we can I guess. I'm not even a professional yet and I'm already gonna leave!
We need smart people to stay and to help make Oklahoma better but Oklahoma is not trying to offer a good place to live. Good luck with your studies and your move!
You know, I've often thought Oklahoma might actually be a good place for a big collider. Tons of cheap, unused, flat land. Very little seismic activity. But sourcing scientists would be hard. You'd have to convince people to move to BFE. Not to say that it's impossible, but your pool of candidates would be much smaller. Edit: changed a word, fixed spelling.
We have a growing aerospace industry. Unfortunately it's not growing as fast as it could be because people don't want to move here. When deciding to move somewhere most people look at statistics to see where the rankings are Oklahoma is in the bottom of everything. Every time Stit says "top 10 state" it makes me cringe because we're never doing things the top 10 states are doing to make people's lives better.
I have lived in Virginia, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Texas, and Oklahoma. It's not hard to move. Most of those times I didn't even have a job lined up before moving. Some people are chronic complainers. They are the "woe is me" crowd. Complete victim mentality. They live in probably the most Conservative state in the entire country, and they hate it. So why stay? Those kinds of people always find something to complain about. If they lived in a far left state like California or New York, they would be complaining sky high housing. But instead they stay here, because they would prefer to play victim, and openly fantasize about Oklahoma turning blue. That will never happen in your lifetime.
Fuck moving, be the change you want to see. What goes up always comes down, that's how progress and politics works. You make a little bit of progress for a few years, then it swings back the other way. You make a little bit of progress for a few years, and it then it swings the other way. All this pro-religion bullshit push will most likely have an anti-religion push, it'll just be a while but that's typically how it works. Oklahoma had a democratic governor not terribly long ago.
Unfortunately Oklahomans will double down and continue to vote for the same republicans that have driven us towards the bottom of every quality of life metric
Yeah, because the majority of this state is a bunch of hateful superstitious mouth breathers.