Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Faith

Is Adoption a ‘Pro-Life’ Policy That Evangelicals Should Embrace More Fervently?

Jan. 2, 2013 9:15pm Billy Hallowell

It’s easy to form and tout an ideological or theological view on abortion. After all, opinions don’t necessarily require one to put actions to words. It’s entirely possible to have strong feelings about a subject, but to never translate those views into tangible action. For instance: Many people take a strong stance against abortion, yet they do not get involved in helping women who choose to keep their children, nor do they engage in assisting unwanted kids.

These latter points are not judgments, rather they are realities worth exploring, especially in light of a discussion that Russell Moore, dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s School of Theology, recently sparked. In an interview with Religion News Service, he urged evangelicals — particularly those who stand opposed to abortion — to join him in supporting adoption.

Is Adoption a Pro Life Policy That Evangelicals Should Embrace?

Photo Credit: AP

While he noted that the process isn’t a good fit for every family, he alleged that pro-life values sync with adoptive inclinations. Unlike other activities that pro-life activists engage in, the faith leader said that he doesn’t see adoption as a “cause” that would lead to legislative or cultural victory. Instead, it’s more about spiritual obligation and serving the greater good.

“I see it more in calling evangelical Christians back to a commitment that we’ve always had to shelter the vulnerable,” he told RNS. “At the level of the common good, this is something that all people should be concerned about.”

Based on Christian teaching, Moore noted that evangelicals should be “pro-orphan.” RNS went on to ask if adoption is a means of potentially evangelizing, as believing parents essentially have access to young people whom they can educate in Biblical teachings. Moore dismissed this notion, making an interesting comparison.

“Adoption and orphan care and foster care are not a covert means of evangelism any more than Christians having babies is a form of reproductive evangelism,” he said. “It’s simply Christians love children, and part of what it means to love children is to share the gospel.”

Moore went on to say that he believes the pro-life movement has grown and that, with that expansion comes a greater number of people adopting and fostering children. The emergence and continuation of crisis pregnancy centers and groups that seek to help teen mothers are two phenomena that seem to corroborate this notion. Rather than simply supporting anti-abortion policy, growth in these areas shows that people are very literally engaging at other more hands-on levels of the debate.

“You see that, for instance, in terms of crisis pregnancy centers, which now are expanding to minister to women in all sorts of ways, ranging from child care to job training,” Moore added.

What do you think? Is adoption a pro-life policy that evangelicals should embrace? Take the poll, below:

(H/T: Religion News Service)

–

Related:

‘God Never Asked Gov’t’: Pro-Life Christian Group Is ‘Restoring Love’ By Helping Teen Moms in Need

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (96)

theridgeman
Posted on January 3, 2013 at 1:08am
Adoption should be easier with safeguards in place for obvious reasons. Why do people adopt from all over the world when we have children here in the USA that need good homes. I also wonder, do the ladies that opt for abortion ever think they might be terminating the life of a president, an astronaut, maybe a gifted actor? Who knows what potential lies in their womb. Wasn’t that the American dream, unlimited possibilities, potential, opportunity. Yet they choose to snuff out a life as it were a candle, why??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 7:14am
  People import because they want smart kids who have the same potential to succeed in life that their own kids would have. The unwanted children of Americans who could have used contraception or gotten an abortion are by definition stupid people’s kids. Think of the stupidest person you know who never had any unwanted children that they had to give away. Do you really want to get stuck with the offspring of two people who are even dumber than that?
  
  Report this comment
- Married To A Teacher
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 7:34am
  As an adoptive parent (one from China, and another “on the way” from China as well), we live the dream. What a delight to have children in the home! Why China? First, a calling from God that struck my wife in church and drove her to the altar. Second, with an international adoption you are adopting children who have been abandoned by their parents; children who would have no chance in their home country. Also, you don’t have to fight the U.S. culture that says that no decision is ever final. Once you bring your child home from China, there is no chance of having your life destroyed when a “parent” changes their mind and wants “their child” back. God blesses adoption; I’m not sure He cares if the child was born in one’s own county, state, or country.
  
  Report this comment
- kjfreeze
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 8:46am
  Chet, apparently you were adopted domestically because you’re response is just plain dumb. Actually, it’s an uninformed response. We have a beautiful adopted boy from Taiwan. It wasn’t because we thought all kids in America were dumb. It’s because that’s the way God chose it.
  
  Report this comment
- Dudley Do-Right
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:00am
  THERIDGEMAN
  
  Check out this list of famous people who were conceived in rape.
  
  http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/famous-people-conceieved-in-rape.html
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:11am
  @Chet
  
  “The unwanted children of Americans who could have used contraception or gotten an abortion are by definition stupid people’s kids”
  
  Actually, the unadopted children in America often fail to be adopted because they are:
  A) Too old (potential adopters prefer children under the age of 2)
  B) A different race (potential adopters in the US prefer children of the same race)
  C) Have mental or physical disabilities (potential adopters prefer a child free of these ailments)
  
  The last one is the closest to what you’re saying, but is still quite different. From surveys of potential adopters, “intelligence of parents” is nowhere near the top of the list. However, mental retardation, a physical deformity, or an inborn substance addiction are clearly issues. It’s unfortunate but true.
  
  I’ve seen comments on here about “How terrible that 90% of Down Syndrome children are aborted!” but the sad fact is that few non-DS children put up for adoption will actually find families. And if someone is willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt a child, they don’t want a baby addicted to crack from birth.
  
  Unlike your comment about “intelligence,” this is the real issue because adoption largely fails to be a viable alternative to abortion for these children.
  
  Report this comment
- 1956
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:54am
  Depending on where you adopt from, it can be easier to adopt from overseas. There are so many obstacles to adoption in the U.S. many shoes overseas instead. And most people want to adopt a baby, not a teenager.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 1:09pm
  I never claim to be “pro-life”. I am anti-killing unborn babies. Besides, Christians have been the largest group of adoptive parents for a long time. I don’t know where this guy has been.
  
  By this stupid logic, can you only be for the death penalty as long as you promise to start a 12 step program for murderers?
  
  Idiotic.
  
  Report this comment
stumanfuu
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:56pm
How about making adoption easier. It is so hard to adopt a child that good people give up. The sad fact is that abortion is a form of birth control..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GodlessHeathen
  Posted on January 5, 2013 at 8:21pm
  There are no statistics that support your claim that abortion is a form of birth control. The vast majority of those who had an abortion will conceive later in life when they are in a more stable, child-friendly environment.
  
  Report this comment
- READRIGHTHERE
  Posted on January 5, 2013 at 11:37pm
  @ godless,
  
  What? Abortion is in fact birth control, and overwhelmingly so. It is the “only way” left after all the stupid choices made by the contributing parents to erase the “problem” of their unwanted pregnancy.
  
  Report this comment
scarydave
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:48pm
What??? I know many many Evangelicals and everyone of them fervently support adoption.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PastorJCM
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 12:53pm
  AMEN! I pastor a church of well under 100. A couple in their 70′s takes in foster infants and has for years. A couple in their 50/60′s has recently adopted 4 (the youngest 8 years old) after their kids were out of the home. Two couples have taken in foster kids and adopted them. Two couples have taken foster kids without adoption. Another couple adopted two and they are now grown. The evangelical church is alive and well in the area of care and adopting orphans and unwanted. We also support monthly two orphanages overseas, Three from the church are visiting one of those orphanages in Haiti next month..
  
  Report this comment
charles116
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:02pm
Millions of already married mothers have abortions. Hello.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- paulusmaximus
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 7:02am
  what is the point of your statement? I read nothing that limited the scope of adopting unwanted children! the fact that some are married is irrelevant, the children are all victims regardless.
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 11:59am
  My point is that the WHOLE adoption not abortion cause
  is based on the fiction that all abortions are sought by unmarried teenagers.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 12:55pm
  Yep, there are those murderous married women. Let’s not forget about them.
  
  Report this comment
myyoko
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:52pm
I’ve already been thinking about the problem of those who don’t want to raise their children. We also have the other side, those who have been unable to conceive children. Both sides are quite desperate, why not have some kind of an exchange where these two can be connected. I abhor abortion cause I feel I could easily have been one. But even if my moms life was screwed up she gave 3 of us a chance and we were adopted. My wife is happy my four children are happy and we have offered to 2 other couples a child that we conceived making them into families. Its a solution that can work.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:42pm
  The funniest most hypocritical people are those who say “NO ABORTIONS EVER” and “DON’T LET GAY COUPLES ADOPT!”
  
  I always look at those people and think they aren’t taking the issues seriously.
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 12:01pm
  No one who is pregnant and does not want a child should have to go through a full term pregnancy. Period.
  What don’t you people understand.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 2:27pm
  @charles116 No one who wants to have sex and does not want a child should have to go through a full blown out love making session. How about self control for a change? That would actually require one to be responsible and not ignorant. Is that too much for liberals to handle?
  
  What don’t you idiots understand.
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:46pm
Adoption is always an option, but there are a number of complications with it as well.

1. It’s expensive, time-consuming, and potentially heart-wrenching. Couples may wait years, and spent tens of thousands of dollars toward compliance and the adoption process, and still may not get a child.

2. There’s the common (and often poorly-defended) statistic of there being 10 or 20 willing couples for each US baby available. However, this usually has something to do with “those who have ever thought seriously about adoption” rather than “those who have actually taken concrete steps to adopt.” The first number is over 20% of all women, while the second is under 2%. We might worry, but few of us actually DO anything about it.

3. A lot of children in the foster system simply aren’t wanted. Potential adopters prefer children of their race, under the age of 2, without any disabilities, genetic abnormalities, or addictions. They have better luck finding those babies abroad, because there is a waiting list a mile long for those ones here in the US. The ones outside these criteria are sent to the foster system and often never have a good family life or the help they need.

The last issue is the tough one. We have a moral hypocrisy issue if we say “adoption is an option” and then list criteria for adopted babies. It’s like a woman getting an abortion because her child would be addicted to crack, but then an adopter saying “not for me either.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- charles116
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:50pm
  Women are NOT baby making machines.
  No woman should bear an unwanted child.
  No less for the benefit of others.
  Really.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:45pm
  @charles116
  
  Women are NOT love making machines.
  No woman should have sex without accepting the consequences of her actions.
  If men can be obligated by the Law to pay child support, women can be obligated by the same Law to support their child in the womb.
  Really.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:03am
  @Charles
  
  “Women are NOT baby making machines.”
  
  Never said they were.
  
  “No woman should bear an unwanted child.”
  
  Never said they should.
  
  “No less for the benefit of others.”
  
  At the same time women should be told of all of their options. Most abortions happen because of economic issues (75% of women who have an abortion cite their economic situation as a reason for their abortion). If that’s the main reason, and a family with good finances can take care of the future baby, adoption should definitely be mentioned and even encouraged.
  
  No one “likes” abortion. At best (for pro-choicers) it’s the final alternative to birth that is more costly, invasive, and potentially damaging than having success with birth control. At worst (for pro-lifers) it’s murder. Both sides benefit from having better access to birth control, better sex education to avoid pregnancy due to ignorance, and good moral guidance that advocates safe, monogamous relationships that correlate well to increased financial security. All of these decrease the number of abortions, which both sides prefer.
  
  Adoption is not THE solution to abortion, but it should definitely be pushed as a viable alternative in some cases. It won’t help in all cases (as said, many children up for adoption won’t be chosen due to the biases of those who adopt), but it’s not a bad option.
  
  Report this comment
Zeus is THE Lord
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:43pm
Evangelicals need to embrace reality more fervently…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:38pm
“Is Adoption a ‘Pro-Life’ Policy That Evangelicals Should Embrace More Fervently?”

HECK YES!!! Finally the conservatives are starting to understand

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DetritusScreener
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:32pm
We should embrace mandatory birth control for all who are any kind of public assistance. I would much rather pay for their birth control than the offspring they produce. It has been demonstrated time and again that they and their offspring would continue to be a drain on the productive portion of society and are predisposed to commit crimes.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- catty
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 11:32am
  then why are they cutting funding for planned parenthood?
  
  Report this comment
I.X.Pect
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:27pm
The adoption option should also be used as a way to prevent abortions. Unfortunately, many laws in the states really complicate adoptions, whereby it is easier to adopt abroad.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- charles116
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:51pm
  Where exactly are these babies supposed to come from?
  
  Report this comment
tootsie roll
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:22pm
This story does not ring true. I live in a city in Florida that has a home called lifeline, which takes in unwed mothers who are pregnant, teaches them job skills and gives them and their child a home for TWO YEARS. By that time they must have learned a trade and finished education that they left.
It is totally run on DONATIONS AND VOLUNTEERS WHICH I AM ONE. AND YES THEY TEACH YOU ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AND GIVE THEM MORAL VALUES AND LOVE THESE GIRLS AND BABIES. After graduation or the two year period they can bring the child back to this center for babysitting services for only $5o.oo a month as long as they are working. God has blessed this center.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 1TrueOne55
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:36pm
  God bless the work of your hands and the love of your heart to those less fortunate. You have immeasurable thanks from him who loved children and died for our failures (sins). His blessings are worth more than all the gold that is on the planet or even in the Galaxy/Universe.
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:05pm
  Million of abortion are preformed on married women who don’t want anymore children.
  And working educated women who don’t wish to start a family right now.
  Until you accept the scope of women who get abortions you will never ‘get’ it.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:58pm
  @charles116
  
  Millions of children are abandoned by cowardly men because they don’t want to be a responsible parent.
  And lazy drunk fathers who don’t have the courage to raise up a family ever.
  Until you understand that dead beat dads are nothing but the same as women who have abortions you will always be an idiot.
  
  Report this comment
- Winedude
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 12:38am
  @ Valliant1776: “Until you understand that dead beat dads are nothing but the same as women who have abortions you will always be an idiot.”
  I don’t know about that. As long as you equate deadbeat dad with married women who have their own personal reason for need and abortion YOU will ALWAYS be an idiot.
  As for your moniker, I’m well reminded of Samuel Johnson: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 1:04am
  @Winedude As long as you accept the murder of innocent, defenseless children in the womb of their mother you will always be a despicable monster. Until you idiots prove to me that the natural life growing inside that womb is something other than actual human development, you will always be as irrelevant as the dirt under your soles.
  
  As for your great ignorance, let me enlighten you.
  
  In the first and fourth editions of his Dictionary (1773, 1755), Johnson defines “patriot” as “One whose ruling passion is the love of his country.”
  
  Johnson considered patriots to be honorable men, and ones to be exemplified. Wherefore when the scoundrel, one who engages in brutal and detestable things, disgracing himself and his society, reaches his most lowest point, he always will, as a last resort to save or redeem his own reputation, whether in a show of fashion for attention or in sincere reflection for reprove, seek and desire that which is most respected and admired by other men, the courage and dignity of the patriot. The scoundrel knows he can not by his own past virtue reach a position, rank or occupation that can restore his image, for he is the lowest of the low, and irreparably widely known as such, but that at the mere act of sacrificing himself for his country and fellow citizens because of a sincere love for them, he would graciously and rightly so with great exception gain that which he never knew nor ever did deserve nor could ever attain.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 1:13am
  Johnson said, “It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. But he sounds no alarm, when there is no enemy; he never terrifies his countrymen till he is terrified himself. The patriotism, therefore, may be justly doubted of him, who professes to be disturbed by incredibilities…”
  
  “A patriot is he whose publick conduct is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has, for himself, neither hope nor fear, neither kindness nor resentment, but refers every thing to the common interest.”
  
  A scoundrel can, as a last resort, sincerely redeem himself through the acts of patriotism, or continue in disarray through usurping the honor and place the patriot holds. Regardless of the path the scoundrel may take, Johnson in that statement made the patriot the highest in respect, and the exact opposite of the lowest; the scoundrel.
  
  Report this comment
- 4xeverything
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 3:55pm
  @Charles116-Educated does not mean smart as you have made quite clear in this forum. So, was it you, your wife, or your mother who had the abortion that you are trying to come to grips with? You need help…there are plenty of professionals out there..go get some.
  
  Report this comment
workathomer
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:00pm
Agree with STA. Feel like I’m reading something from 1980. These two subjects have been hand-in-glove for decades.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- charles116
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 12:17am
  @Valiant
  Keep up the good work.
  
  Report this comment
Totally Domestic
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:59pm
YES, but not for homosexuals because they live contrary to nature, the way God made them and will teach that that is “normal”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:40pm
  Are single men or single women allowed to adopt? If so, how can you say single gay people cannot?
  
  Report this comment
randycalifornia
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:57pm
In a word………..YES!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KingCoal59
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:48pm
There are people who would adopt and even provide supplemental support to the mother of the child. One problem with adoption especially with an under age teen mom: they can come back and often they do and then you can have a 3 year old going to a hostile group every weekend and holidays and a month in the summer. Adoption laws need to be stream lined and tightened so a little one is not ripped from a good home to go live with a baby mama who will be having 4 more kids (all to different dads probably). Adoption law has been tampered with by social workers who may have meant well but is it really in the best interests of the child to give them back to a baby mama?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ManassasGrandma
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:16pm
  So now we are redistibuting children?
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:55pm
  Again with the fantasy/fiction that abortions are all done on unmarried 16 year olds.
  You are such silly people.
  Married women with 3 kids abort an unwanted fourth.
  Executive VP’s abort if a pregnancy will ruin their career.
  There are so many scenarios.
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:54am
  @manassasgrandma
  Yes they are attempting to redistribute children.Attempting it for decades.They always think poor poor me I can’t concieve.Its ok though I’ll just adopt.Hell they don’t want their kids.Its the same old sad song and dance thats been parroted for decades.What you won’t hear especially from them is the real truth.That many children are ripped out of their biological homes.That they were very wanted.
  Any old excuse to support their own selfishness.Yes that is exactly what it is.They won’t tell you that they get a 13,000 tax credit either.Yes its refundable.They won’t tell you that many forced the parents into adoption.That the adoptive parent learned to work the CPS system and used it to harrass cajole and torment the parents.Then their facade of being such good people would be exposed.That they would be seen for the real monsters that they are.
  Oh and last but not least is the fact that CAPTA was one of the reasons that they are able to do this.That CAPTA was passed not long after a conference with the country of Jordan.Its nothing more than a under the table way of allowing their religious police to decide how our society is supposed to go.It was all about the destruction of america through the use and abuse of our children.Many won’t tell you this as they have patently decided to stay ignorant.Some really are ignorant and don’t know.
  By the way what CAPTA and CPS does is against the constitution.Its a government funded sponsor of terror destructio
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:42pm
“Adoption and orphan care and foster care are not a covert means of evangelism any more than Christians having babies is a form of reproductive evangelism.”

Er… so he’s saying, in effect “yes it is.” I don’t know ANYONE who calls themselves “Evangelical” but refuses to teach their faith to their children or tells them to look into it independently. Such a thing makes no sense, especially since not evangelizing their children means the child could choose wrong. No parent wants to end up in heaven just to find out their child didn’t make it!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
theninthplanet
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:41pm
One of the things a pro-life apologist will be well versed in are the other “options” for pregnant women in crisis. This includes answers to every argument against adoption, including the adoption “horror” stories that the abortion folks like to tell – you know, child abuse and dysfunctional foster parents.

The truth of the matter is that American couples are so wanting to adopt children that there aren’t enough American children to go around – which is why there are so many international adoptions. My cousin, for instance, is from one of the ‘stans (Kazakhstan if I recall).

In my mind, there shouldn’t be any question about pro-lifers supporting adoption. Right now there aren’t enough children for a hypocrisy to exist.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:56am
  “The truth of the matter is that American couples are so wanting to adopt children that there aren’t enough American children to go around”
  
  Correction: there are not enough of the “right” kind of children going around. There are plenty of children who are never adopted not because of the adoption process, but because they are too old, or have physical/mental disabilities, or due to several other criteria that make them less attractive to adopters.
  
  There are hundreds of thousands of children in the foster system here in the US.
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:40pm
.
Well if it weren’t so hard to adopt here in the U.S. maybe more folks would do it…..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TH777
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:49pm
  Agree 100%
  
  Report this comment
- KingCoal59
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 3:19pm
  Agree and once the adoption is done then it should be final
  
  Report this comment
LouisianaPatriot
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:38pm
My impression is that I don’t think he is referring to embracing adoption, or accepting adoption, I think he means to make a concerted effort to adopt the babies whose Mother’s would have otherwise aborted.

If there is a culture of adoption, as in a Serious effort to adopt babies, then there would undoubtedly be less abortions.

What a simple yet brilliant concept, in my opinion.

More adoptions = Less abortions.

To put it bluntly, it’s kind of like, “put your money where your mouth is.”

I’m assuming that there are many organizations who are already dedicated to this same approach, but maybe no Evangelical groups?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- charles116
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 12:05pm
  No women should endure a full term pregnancy for the benefit of others.
  Unless SHE wants to.
  
  Report this comment
Deeduck
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:33pm
Our family is already going through the process to have our home approved for adoption. You would not believe the number of hoops you have to jump through for that –big enough windows for firemen to get through, current vaccinations on pets, medical reports on everyone in the household, etc, etc. Let me tell you, the state doesn’t make it easy.
But I agree with STA above, Christians ALREADY constitute the vast majority of adoptive families, at least if the number in our training day groups is any indication. Even so, there are almost 2000 children in our state waiting for adoption.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 11:07pm
  the regulations are an issue that can be addressed immediately. They are state issues and nothing is stopping us. The government would rather be wards of the state then give the kids a chance.
  
  Report this comment
13a
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:31pm
I voted “Yes” and I’m glad to see The Blaze finally state the obvious that many Christians are complete bigots.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Deeduck
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:34pm
  Don’t you have anything better to do than pee on fellow conservatives?
  
  Report this comment
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:51pm
  Hey he’s just calling the way he sees it. And aren’t you just a little presumptuous that all conservatives are Christians?
  
  Report this comment
- Deeduck
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 11:44am
  @simpletruths
  I’m not assuming all conservatives are Christians–nothing like. But the Christians on this site ARE conservatives. He is feeling free to insult people who will willingly vote WITH him on most issues. Not nice.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 1:04pm
  Don’t cast your pearls before swine. SIMPLE_TRUTH is swine.
  
  Report this comment
Tri-ox
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:30pm
Where have you been all of your life Billy Hallowell?

Evangelicals, and all Christians, have traditionally embraced adoption and opposed abortion.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:59pm
  “Evangelicals, and all Christians, have traditionally embraced adoption and opposed abortion.”
  
  Whoa, hold up a second. Abortion has only been an issue with Catholics traditionally; it wasn’t until Roe v Wade that it started to gain traction with other Christians. I remember having a conversation with my grandmother (now deceased) years ago who dismissively said “abortion? That’s a Catholic problem. The Bible is fine with it.” In her view it was quickening that had always been the first sign of life, not conception.
  
  Just a little history lesson :-) The “tradition” of abortion being a blanket “Christian issue” is only several decades old. Not that I disagree that it SHOULD be an issue, but it’s certainly not a traditional one for most Christians.
  
  Report this comment
- Tri-ox
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:04am
  @LOCKED – Uh, okay. How about this – murdering children through abortion has been opposed and abhorred by all Evangelicals and Christian in modern times, except for a radical few and LOCKED’s grandmother, who, for some bizarre reason, thought it was condoned by God. Is that better?
  
  I don’t need ‘history lessons’ from wackos – thank you.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 9:33am
  @Tri-Ox
  
  No, Evangelicals have NOT always thought of conception as the start of life. It’s a relatively new phenomenon; mostly because for the past few hundred years Protestant sects hated Catholics and would take an opposing stance on many issues.
  
  I highly recommend looking into the history of the pro-life movement when it comes to Protestant denominations. Reading some old articles from Christianity Today and Christian Life from the 1960s makes it clear. Talking to Christians from the time is eye-opening. Perhaps you were not alive then, or not old enough to remember the conversations?
  
  The Southern Baptist Convention in 1971 affirmed that life does not begin at conception and abortion should be a protected right for women. Protestant faith leaders at the time maintained that the Bible clearly does not consider an unborn child to be the same as a born person (Compare Lev 24:17 to Ex 21:22-24). Numbers allows for abortions to prove adultery.
  
  It wasn’t until Jerry Falwell reached across the theological divide to unite Catholics and Protestants into the blanket grouping of “Christians” in the early 1970s that abortion talk suddenly shifted to a moral issue for all Christians.
  
  I think we can all agree that abortion is a bad choice and still frowned upon in the Bible (after all, there are penalties for causing miscarriage), but it certainly has not always been the view for most Christians in the US for very long.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 1:02pm
  @LOCKED
  
  It doesn’t matter what the Southern Baptist Convention or some article says. Christians who know Biblical Theology knows that God has said life begins at conception. If you want an example, the angel Gabriel told Mary that the Son of God was in her the very instance she was impregnated by God.
  
  Many well-meaning Christians believe the world was flat but, if they had studied the Bible (especially the Book of Job) they would have known it was round and it revolved around the Sun. Your point only proves that some Christian groups were ignorant in the 60′s.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 1:22pm
  @Squid
  
  “It doesn’t matter what the Southern Baptist Convention or some article says. ”
  
  It does when someone claims that Evangelicals have always believed life begins at conception and abortion should be outlawed. History tells us differently, and posters like Tri-Ox either do not know that, have been lied to, or are lying themselves.
  
  Report this comment
stumpy68
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:27pm
Adoption in the U.S should be made easier the process is so difficult
that many people are looking to over seas adoption as an option
also any place that counsels women looking for abortions should push adoption as an option at least as hard or lose all funding.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Stelex
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:25pm
Is this a real question?????? This is a joke right???? Have we deteriorated to this point?? I thought I heard somewhere life is sacred……….I think our country, world is very confused. Maybe we should all back away from the controls cause I’m not sure who is sane anymore. Just back away.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:47pm
  I think the point of the article is the following….
  
  -Focus away from politcal issue of outlawing choice and focus on helping people make the right decision and give them a people solution (charity) instead of a government solution (law)
  
  Report this comment
sta
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:24pm
I am a Catholic and belong to many Homeschooling groups. I’m not sure why The Blaze doesn’t know that Evangelical ALREADY embrace adoption. In fact, most foster families I know are also Evangelical.

We joke that in a couple of generations, with the libs disgust for “breeders”, the Evangelical adoptive parents and the Catholic multi-child families will be the majority.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 9:45pm
  It’s no joke. The only people embracing the idea of big families seem to be those couples who have given their lives to God. Although I started late in life and was able to have just two children, we are part of a community of Catholic homeschoolers — and the smallest family other than us in the group has five kids!
  
  Those kids are one hope for our future.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.