Ted Nugents To Blacks: "Don't Claim 'Black Lives Matter' When You Ignore The Millions You Abort"

[rightwinger]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

And you worked so hard on your response..

Doesn't negate Conservative outrage at the idea of supporting the children of unmarried black women
Can we get another personal responsibility lecture?

When you take away the ability to raise a child, abortion becomes an inviting option

Sensible sterilization sounds like a plan! You want abortion, the first one, ALTHOUGH we hate it, is a go, as the SCOTUS, in their fucked up judgment has made it the law of the land, BUT you want an abortion, you get STERILIZED at the same time.... both sides can play that game.... Glad to see you appreciated my response, It's been saved for the next one of you immoral twats that state the same shit!

Mandatory sterilization

Now we are talk'n conservative!

 

[Vigilante]

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

And you worked so hard on your response..

Doesn't negate Conservative outrage at the idea of supporting the children of unmarried black women
Can we get another personal responsibility lecture?

When you take away the ability to raise a child, abortion becomes an inviting option

Sensible sterilization sounds like a plan! You want abortion, the first one, ALTHOUGH we hate it, is a go, as the SCOTUS, in their fucked up judgment has made it the law of the land, BUT you want an abortion, you get STERILIZED at the same time.... both sides can play that game.... Glad to see you appreciated my response, It's been saved for the next one of you immoral twats that state the same shit!

Mandatory sterilization

Now we are talk'n conservative!

I KNEW you pond scum would like that.... It's a bitch when there is a TRADE OFF....Equivalency, just doesn't sit right with you bastards, when it's not quite in your favor!

 

[rightwinger]

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

And you worked so hard on your response..

Doesn't negate Conservative outrage at the idea of supporting the children of unmarried black women
Can we get another personal responsibility lecture?

When you take away the ability to raise a child, abortion becomes an inviting option

Sensible sterilization sounds like a plan! You want abortion, the first one, ALTHOUGH we hate it, is a go, as the SCOTUS, in their fucked up judgment has made it the law of the land, BUT you want an abortion, you get STERILIZED at the same time.... both sides can play that game.... Glad to see you appreciated my response, It's been saved for the next one of you immoral twats that state the same shit!

Mandatory sterilization

Now we are talk'n conservative!

I KNEW you pond scum would like that.... It's a bitch when there is a TRADE OFF....Equivalency, just doesn't sit right with you bastards, when it's not quite in your favor!

Hey....it worked so well for HITLER didn't it?

 

[Discombobulated]

He is only upset because it shrinks his dating pool.

Ted is married.

And once said he can't get it up unless he kills something first.

Or unless his victim is underage.

No wonder sicko RWs love this poopy pants jerk.

I'm pretty sure Ted would like to add a coon hunting segment to his TV show.

That would be great show. After hunting the coons down using dogs, he could find a nice oak tree and put a rope around their necks and string em up like wind chimes.

No doubt a coon skin cap would improve your look.

 

[Vigilante]

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

And you worked so hard on your response..

Doesn't negate Conservative outrage at the idea of supporting the children of unmarried black women
Can we get another personal responsibility lecture?

When you take away the ability to raise a child, abortion becomes an inviting option

Sensible sterilization sounds like a plan! You want abortion, the first one, ALTHOUGH we hate it, is a go, as the SCOTUS, in their fucked up judgment has made it the law of the land, BUT you want an abortion, you get STERILIZED at the same time.... both sides can play that game.... Glad to see you appreciated my response, It's been saved for the next one of you immoral twats that state the same shit!

Mandatory sterilization

Now we are talk'n conservative!

I KNEW you pond scum would like that.... It's a bitch when there is a TRADE OFF....Equivalency, just doesn't sit right with you bastards, when it's not quite in your favor!

Hey....it worked so well for HITLER didn't it?

Excellent example of Goodwin's law...you use it to it final effect!

 

[rightwinger]

And you worked so hard on your response..

Doesn't negate Conservative outrage at the idea of supporting the children of unmarried black women
Can we get another personal responsibility lecture?

When you take away the ability to raise a child, abortion becomes an inviting option

Sensible sterilization sounds like a plan! You want abortion, the first one, ALTHOUGH we hate it, is a go, as the SCOTUS, in their fucked up judgment has made it the law of the land, BUT you want an abortion, you get STERILIZED at the same time.... both sides can play that game.... Glad to see you appreciated my response, It's been saved for the next one of you immoral twats that state the same shit!

Mandatory sterilization

Now we are talk'n conservative!

I KNEW you pond scum would like that.... It's a bitch when there is a TRADE OFF....Equivalency, just doesn't sit right with you bastards, when it's not quite in your favor!

Hey....it worked so well for HITLER didn't it?

Excellent example of Goodwin's law...you use it to it final effect!

Yea......Godwins law

Unless you are actually advocating the practices of Hitler

 

[Vigilante]

Sensible sterilization sounds like a plan! You want abortion, the first one, ALTHOUGH we hate it, is a go, as the SCOTUS, in their fucked up judgment has made it the law of the land, BUT you want an abortion, you get STERILIZED at the same time.... both sides can play that game.... Glad to see you appreciated my response, It's been saved for the next one of you immoral twats that state the same shit!

Mandatory sterilization

Now we are talk'n conservative!

I KNEW you pond scum would like that.... It's a bitch when there is a TRADE OFF....Equivalency, just doesn't sit right with you bastards, when it's not quite in your favor!

Hey....it worked so well for HITLER didn't it?

Excellent example of Goodwin's law...you use it to it final effect!

Yea......Godwins law

Unless you are actually advocating the practices of Hitler

Well unless you want to put them in concentration camps once through... YOU might like that!

 

[Discombobulated]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

You kill them to save them from having possibly difficult lives? They might have had fun sometimes.

 

[Vigilante]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

BUT we can only do so much, you scum just want to kill BLACK BABIES... PERIOD! Perhaps if the plantation blacks THOUGHT about that in context, they might think twice about voting for you scum!

 

[Vigilante]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

You kill them to save them from having possibly difficult lives? They might have had fun sometimes.

One of their reasons is to CONTROL black population that would become a more significant POLITICAL force, and would start to recognize how the Democrats have KEPT THEM BACK for the last half century or more!

 

[Discombobulated]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

BUT we can only do so much, you scum just want to kill BLACK BABIES... PERIOD! Perhaps if the plantation blacks THOUGHT about that in context, they might think twice about voting for you scum!

Blacks past, present, and unborn......that make three kinds of black folks that you hate.

 

[Vigilante]

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

BUT we can only do so much, you scum just want to kill BLACK BABIES... PERIOD! Perhaps if the plantation blacks THOUGHT about that in context, they might think twice about voting for you scum!

Blacks past, present, and unborn......that make three kinds of black folks that you hate.

More bullshit, from the left when I make that point you can't refute!

 

[Discombobulated]

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

BUT we can only do so much, you scum just want to kill BLACK BABIES... PERIOD! Perhaps if the plantation blacks THOUGHT about that in context, they might think twice about voting for you scum!

Blacks past, present, and unborn......that make three kinds of black folks that you hate.

More bullshit, from the left when I make that point you can't refute!

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about your racism.

 

[Carib Gyal]

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

You kill them to save them from having possibly difficult lives? They might have had fun sometimes.

One of their reasons is to CONTROL black population that would become a more significant POLITICAL force, and would start to recognize how the Democrats have KEPT THEM BACK for the last half century or more!

I don't think it's ONLY black babies that ideology enforces. They actually believe that killing them is morally superior to allowing them to live possibly unhappily.

 

[Discombobulated]

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

You kill them to save them from having possibly difficult lives? They might have had fun sometimes.

One of their reasons is to CONTROL black population that would become a more significant POLITICAL force, and would start to recognize how the Democrats have KEPT THEM BACK for the last half century or more!

You know how them darkies are.....such children, so easily manipulated by their Democrat overseers. I wonder they don't all see the light and become Republicans?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Well good point.

I guess since abortion exists no lives matter

 

[ClosedCaption]

He is only upset because it shrinks his dating pool.

Ted is married.

And once said he can't get it up unless he kills something first.

Or unless his victim is underage.

No wonder sicko RWs love this poopy pants jerk.

Serious question: Are you serious?

 

[rightwinger]

Well good point.

I guess since abortion exists no lives matter

Why prosecute murder at all?

Hey .....you abort babies so what difference does murder make?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

If you don't care what happens to all the unwanted children then you have no idea what moral high ground looks like.

You kill them to save them from having possibly difficult lives? They might have had fun sometimes.

One of their reasons is to CONTROL black population that would become a more significant POLITICAL force, and would start to recognize how the Democrats have KEPT THEM BACK for the last half century or more!

You know how them darkies are.....such children, so easily manipulated by their Democrat overseers. I wonder they don't all see the light and become Republicans?

Are you saying all black people are Democrats?